Best Whitetail Deer Attractant Reviews
Best Deer Attractant
After testing various combinations and getting real boots-on-the-ground feedback from other hunters, we’ve put together several top of the line cover and attractions scents that REALLY WORK. We understand that hunting is a lifestyle and not just a simple hobby. That means when you invest in products to help you on your hunt, you deserve the best. We actively seek feedback from hunters who are currently using our products. This helps us understand what works and what doesn’t, so we can deliver the best quality attraction and cover scents to you. |
Peak Rut
|
Money Shot
|
During the pre-rut season, it’s a good idea to use our attractants near your stand at about the knee or waist level. This makes bucks think that a competitor has entered the territory and will bring them right to you. Once the estrous season has begun, you can then switch to one of our other premium deer hunting scents.
Lots of companies use blended urine's for their scents, but we only use the urine from a single buck for each individual bottle. This way, the bucks you are attracting will identify the scent as coming from a single challenger, which is much, much more effective.
You can also place our peak rut scent into large canisters and create “scent bombs” near your stand. These concentrated scent bombs will carry the smell of the wind and grab the attention of any buck in the area.
Most experienced Whitetail hunters have used some type of buck attractant at one time or another. Once you find one that really works, it’s difficult to stop. Occasionally you might relish the challenge of not using an attractant, but you can always fall back on a good deer scent product. Nature watchers and photographers can use the same products and methods for great success.
Buck Scrapes and Mating Rituals
Probably the most common use of deer urine products is to find a scrape and add the scent. If you know how a deer mating ritual works then you can make better use of different scents. If you find a scrape and you add a Doe in heat scent, you are telling the buck that she is “in the mood”. If a Doe has already answered in the scrape then adding another buck scent tells the buck that there is another suitor courting the doe, this is similar to two guys in a bar interested in the same girl, it’s on! The Big Rack scent known as “Lady” is similar to any scent you have seen referred to as “Doe in Heat”, “Doe in Estrus”, “Doe Estrus Urine”. Standard doe pee is not the same as doe estrus urine but it has its purpose too.Drag Rags and Pads
Another often used method is dragging. There are a number of retail products referred to as drag-rags, pads, or something similar, or you can make your own just by tearing strips from an old cotton towel. Douse the strips with deer pee and then tie a short piece of string to the rag. Now attach or tie the string to your boots or pant cuff. As you walk down the trails to your blind or stand you “drag” the scent with you. This leaves a nice trail of scent for other deer to follow, straight to you, the hunter, or photographer. Be sure you use a human scent killer on your boots and pant legs though, to make sure you’re not dragging your own scent with you too and spooking the deer.
Simple Method of Using Deer Pee
For those that are not looking for a trophy shot or food, but are more interested in watching or photographing, you can simply pour some deer scent on a stump, or a pile of leaves. The same deer attraction methods hunters are using can be just as effective for you too.
Twitching or Flicking Deer Scents
There is another method of attracting deer that works quite well too, you can twitch it. Although there are products available online you can take a piece of white cloth or a feather, add your favorite deer scent and hang it from a low hanging branch of a tree or attach it to a bush. The combination of the twitching motion and the scent in the air can be quite attracting for deer.Human Scent Killers
If you use rags or other objects to attract deer then you need to mask the human scent. You can use rubber gloves when handling your rags, feathers, or decoys but you should also spray them with a Human Scent Killer. Typically, unless someone has been feeding the deer at close range then human scent will send the deer running in the opposite direction almost immediately. Spray your bags and gear to reduce your smell which almost always triggers fear in a deer. Best Deer Attractant Reviews Warning!
You should never put deer scent on your skin or your clothing. Use only products that are designed to mask human scent. Many deer scent products are REAL deer urine but there are still dangers even using synthetic scents. The biggest danger especially during the rut is that you could be mistaken for a deer. Deer aggression should never be taken lightly.
Lots of companies use blended urine's for their scents, but we only use the urine from a single buck for each individual bottle. This way, the bucks you are attracting will identify the scent as coming from a single challenger, which is much, much more effective.
You can also place our peak rut scent into large canisters and create “scent bombs” near your stand. These concentrated scent bombs will carry the smell of the wind and grab the attention of any buck in the area.
Most experienced Whitetail hunters have used some type of buck attractant at one time or another. Once you find one that really works, it’s difficult to stop. Occasionally you might relish the challenge of not using an attractant, but you can always fall back on a good deer scent product. Nature watchers and photographers can use the same products and methods for great success.
Buck Scrapes and Mating Rituals
Probably the most common use of deer urine products is to find a scrape and add the scent. If you know how a deer mating ritual works then you can make better use of different scents. If you find a scrape and you add a Doe in heat scent, you are telling the buck that she is “in the mood”. If a Doe has already answered in the scrape then adding another buck scent tells the buck that there is another suitor courting the doe, this is similar to two guys in a bar interested in the same girl, it’s on! The Big Rack scent known as “Lady” is similar to any scent you have seen referred to as “Doe in Heat”, “Doe in Estrus”, “Doe Estrus Urine”. Standard doe pee is not the same as doe estrus urine but it has its purpose too.Drag Rags and Pads
Another often used method is dragging. There are a number of retail products referred to as drag-rags, pads, or something similar, or you can make your own just by tearing strips from an old cotton towel. Douse the strips with deer pee and then tie a short piece of string to the rag. Now attach or tie the string to your boots or pant cuff. As you walk down the trails to your blind or stand you “drag” the scent with you. This leaves a nice trail of scent for other deer to follow, straight to you, the hunter, or photographer. Be sure you use a human scent killer on your boots and pant legs though, to make sure you’re not dragging your own scent with you too and spooking the deer.
Simple Method of Using Deer Pee
For those that are not looking for a trophy shot or food, but are more interested in watching or photographing, you can simply pour some deer scent on a stump, or a pile of leaves. The same deer attraction methods hunters are using can be just as effective for you too.
Twitching or Flicking Deer Scents
There is another method of attracting deer that works quite well too, you can twitch it. Although there are products available online you can take a piece of white cloth or a feather, add your favorite deer scent and hang it from a low hanging branch of a tree or attach it to a bush. The combination of the twitching motion and the scent in the air can be quite attracting for deer.Human Scent Killers
If you use rags or other objects to attract deer then you need to mask the human scent. You can use rubber gloves when handling your rags, feathers, or decoys but you should also spray them with a Human Scent Killer. Typically, unless someone has been feeding the deer at close range then human scent will send the deer running in the opposite direction almost immediately. Spray your bags and gear to reduce your smell which almost always triggers fear in a deer. Best Deer Attractant Reviews Warning!
You should never put deer scent on your skin or your clothing. Use only products that are designed to mask human scent. Many deer scent products are REAL deer urine but there are still dangers even using synthetic scents. The biggest danger especially during the rut is that you could be mistaken for a deer. Deer aggression should never be taken lightly.
Of all the words associated with sport hunting in America, that word deer scents, perhaps, stands alone as the hunter’s number one enemy. Orange, yellow and white signs are popping up across this country like jack-in-the-boxes carrying the following message: “Posted. . . Private property. Hunting, Fishing, Trapping or Trespassing for any purpose is strictly forbidden. Violators will be prosecuted.” When I was growing up on my parents’ potato farm in the late 1950s, such signs were the exception rather than the rule. Today they’re the rule rather than the exception.
My roots are in western New York’s soil and through the years I witnessed the deer hunting season in these parts become progressively more difficult for the hunter. In assessing the situation, one has to ask why this has all come about. The issue of posting and limited access to private land is a complex problem to unravel. But like any other issue, there are more ingredients which contributed greatly to the hunters’ dilemma. Poor experiences between the hunter and land owner, a burgeoning population putting greater demand on available hunting habitat, taxation, negative attitudes toward deer management methods, anti-hunting sentiment, and the overall attitudes of the hunters who take to the field contributed to the loss of available hunting land.
At the turn of the century, the majority of Americans lived on farms or in rural areas. Then, in the 1940s and 1950s, the industrial boom turned everything around, changing this nation from an agrarian society to an urban society. The United States’ population also exploded at the same time. Then came the 1 970s and nearly overnight a recreational craze seemed to sweep the country. In New York State, for example, the number of licensed hunters in-creased from about 431,000 in 1960 to 629,000 in 1970. The race to find a better hunting ground was on. But America’s move from an agrarian society to an urban society brought problems to the hunting scene. For one thing, the new breed of hunters didn’t carry into the field the same respect for the land. Various state governments have always been quick to point out that the public owns the wildlife. With this in mind, and a hunting license in hand, the hunter set off for the happy hunting ground. What he found was not always happy. The public owned the wildlife but the public didn’t own the land. Therefore, land and who owned it became a real issue in the hunter’s effort to participate in sport hunting.
Will Rogers once said, “The best investment is land. . . they don’t make it anymore.” Though Rogers wasn’t speaking of hunting, it would do all hunters well to think about his statement and how it relates to hunting. Statistically speaking there is less land, particularly wildlife habitat, in America at the end of each year. According to the National Wildlife Federation, this country loses upwards of 1.5 million acres of wildlife habitat annually. At the same time, America’s population continues to increase. Today there are approximately 235 million Americans, according to the United States Census Bureau. Of this, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and The Izaak Walton League report that about ten percent are hunters. Interestingly, the percentage of hunters in the United States’ population has remained fairly constant during the last three decades. For those who like to look to the future, the statistics tell a very sobering story. According to the Census Bureau, the population of the United States in the year 2000 will be 270 million people. At the same time, we could have fifteen million fewer acres of wildlife habitat in this country. To put it another way, there will be more than four million more hunters trying to hunt on far less land than we have today.
Another area of concern to the hunter looking for a place to hunt is taxation of lands. During the past twenty years, land values soared and in most cases the farmers’ taxes rose dramatically. In many parts of America landowners have felt this pinch and closed their land to free hunting. In an attempt to ease their tax burden, many reverted to leasing. Though this practice creates some outstanding hunting, the average income hunter has been left out in the cold, so to speak, because he can’t afford the lease fees. An example of what is happening to land previously open to public use took place in New York State recently. A large paper company, which had kept its land open to the public for hunting, went to the state seeking some assistance due to its tax burden. The paper company was advised there was no state money budgeted for such relief.
As a result, the company started leasing its land to generate revenues. The net result was 24,500 acres being lost to the sportsmen, unless they were willing to pay to hunt, through leasing. Texas was, perhaps, the first to popularize leasing but it is now spreading to other areas of North America. A feeling shared by many knowledgeable sportsmen is that landowners should receive some sort of tax incentive to open their land to sport hunting. Hunters, particularly deer hunters, pump millions of dollars into rural economies each year but little of that money goes to the landowner. Undoubtedly this will have to change if hunting is to survive.
Roughly sixty percent (11.8 million) of the hunters in America are deer hunters and throughout this great land many negative attitudes abound regarding how deer populations of each state should be managed. Unfortunately, some states’ deer management programs are inching closer and closer to political rule. Examples of this exist in both Maine and New York. In each case, the deer biologists, in an attempt to bring deer populations in line with the range’s carrying capacity, are encountering public resistance. For several years now, western New York’s white-tailed deer population increased in spite of generous harvests. In 1984, a hefty antlerless harvest was proposed which was met with public outcry. Because of the manner in which New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation handled the deer management permits and harvest, public sentiment against the professional managers’ decisions ran high in certain areas.
Petition campaigns were organized and in many cases politicians became involved. In Maine much of the same occurred when the public disagreed with the professional biologists’ view of how to manage the deer herd, According to Maine deer research biologist Jerry LaVigne the state is starting to see posting of private land because landowners think the deer herd is being over harvested. Such attitudes in both New York and Maine show a lack of trust between the state and the public. To solve this unfortunate dilemma, state agencies need to become better salesmen and public relations people. No one knows how to manage a deer herd like a professional biologist but we now live in a different age, an age in which the public wants to know why something is so. The fabric of a deer herd is a delicate thing and the public needs to be educated that more deer in the woods isn’t always better. Quality should be the answer, not quantity. Education and communication will help keep land from being posted and reduce political involvement in the management of America’s deer herds.
In certain states, this public relations issue is very touchy, but it must be dealt with to eliminate further polarization between those who hunt and those who manage. To not address the issue paves the way to further inroads by the anti-hunters. Most sportsmen fail to realize that anti-hunters now equal hunters, as a percentage of America’s population. And in most cases, they are very well organized. Perhaps their organization and the hunters’ lack of it is wreaking havoc to the hunting scene.
Though most hunting occurs on private land in America (about eighty percent), a large number of hunters find their pleasure on public land. It’s on this front that a real battle is being waged. On 29 November 1984, The Humane Society of the United States filed suit in the Washington federal district court to “. . end sport hunting of wildlife on National Wildlife Refuges.” Though only 244 of the 424 refuges in the country allow hunting, elimination of hunting would be devastating. According to the wildlife Legislative Fund of America (WLFA), the refuge system averages 967,000 hunter-visits each year, The termination of hunting on such lands would eliminate thousands of acres from the hunting scene.
Rick Story of the WFLA told me, “There’s no question in my mind, from a political and practical stand point, that the anti-hunting groups will go after every bit of public land in their quest to eliminate hunting. This will include Bureau of Land Management, National Forest and state lands. There are several reasons for this. First, public lands attract public interest because it is ‘our land’ in the public’s eye. Public lands also make it easier for the anti-hunters to get their foot in the door because legislators are listening. Re- election means everything. So it’s on public land where the anti’s see their greatest opportunity.” Should anyone doubt Story’s comment, they only have to reflect back to 1980 when, with one stroke of the pen, the Alaska Lands Act put twenty-four million acres of land off-limits to hunters.
To emphasize anti-hunting’s plan, Story shared with me a quote from a letter he received in May of 1984, by Sean O’Gara of Mobilization for Animals. O’Gara told Story, “You are correct in thinking that we in the Animal Rights movement are using trapping as a “warm-up” for an assault on hunting; we want to see the killing of helpless animals stopped in all its forms.” Story emphasized to me that we need to recognize that the trapping question demands the involvement of hunters. As you can see, the goals of the anti-hunters are staggering and an outright threat to our freedom in this country. Unfortunately, many politicians have tilted toward the anti-hunting side in recent years and, in many cases, openly object to hunters and hunting both through their voting record and public demeanor.
Perhaps the strongest statement of a politician’s feeling about the hunting fraternity was expressed by New York Governor Mario Cuomo, known in many circles as the rising star of the Democratic Party. In referring to the nearly 5,000 letters his office received protesting New York’s new seat belt law, Governor Cuomo was quoted in the 9 April 1985 edition of the Syracuse Post Standard newspaper: “They were offended,” Cuomo said of the letter writers, adding with a smile that the most vociferous were “NRA (National Rifle Association) hunters who think beer, don’t vote and lie to their wives about where they were all weekend.” While Governor Cuomo’s statement no doubt drew laughter from those who heard him, I found it rather appalling. As a resident of New York State, I’ve become increasingly frustrated by the way he has handled both gun and hunting issues. And if we are to believe the vibrations coming from the Democratic Party, Governor Cuomo has a strong chance to be the Democrats’ man in the 1988 presidential race.
This should be a sobering thought to hunters across America. The day has long since passed when a deer hunter could merely roll out of bed, pull on his boots and head for the deer woods with his favorite rifle slung over his shoulder. From now on, hunters will have to become involved in the political arena if their hunting privileges are to be preserved. Part of this political arena centers around the true players in the sport of hunting, the landowner and the hunter. As a wise, old farmer once said, the farmer doesn’t necessarily need the hunter but the hunter needs the farmer. For avid deer hunters in this country, no truer words have ever been spoken. It is because of problems created by hunters that the posting mania has hit rural deer country.
To illustrate this point, I’ll draw from personal experiences. In 1973, my wife and I purchased an old farm. Though not large by western standards, the place has about 155 acres of land, with ninety acres in hard woods. Since 1973, we’ve tried to manage the place for wildlife by selectively cutting the timber and planting 10,000 Christmas trees. During the past few years, the land has teamed with whitetails, turkeys and grouse and has become pretty special to my family. But with this success have come some headaches. The first two years we owned the property the land was not posted. But after two years of
bad experiences with deer hunters, I’d had a belly full and the signs went up. As much as I hated to do it,
I knew posting represented the only way to restore any semblance of quality hunting. The biggest problem I encountered was the gang-style of deer hunting.
As I reflect back on my first encounter with a crew of about ten red-clad hunters, I have to chuckle, but at the time I didn’t. They converged on the property like a commando unit. Unfortunately for them, I was hunting on the property as they stomped and talked their way through the woods. Needless to say, quite a confrontation ensued with these walkie-talkie hunters. The second year produced more of the same and by then I realized my philosophy about posting was about to change. Even with the signs, the process of convincing hunters of the type of hunting I would allow took a couple years to get across. It is important to understand that posted signs don’t necessarily mean the landowner opposes hunting. Quite the contrary—at least in those areas I surveyed. I love the sport of deer hunting and the experiences it brings.
As a result, I’m willing to share what I have with others. But there are limitations. Hunting on our land is by written permission only. Such a system worked very well during the past several years and allows me to know whose hunting and where they are. During the course of preparing this article, I attended a meeting of the Olmstead Hill Game Club, here in western New York, to get their feelings regarding the hunter and landowner. This game club is a bit unique for this area in that it is made up of landowners, mostly farmers, from a localized area.
At one time they had around 10,000 acres of land in the club, but today that figure is somewhat less. The meeting I attended was quite an experience. They gathered in a rural fire hall and sat around a table clad in their fertilizer baseball caps and flannel shirts. Just gazing at each man around the room, I
knew that here was assembled the true heart and soul of America. All put in long days on their farms and when the harvest is done, they’re all serious deer hunters. Nearly to a man they hunt hard, like they farm.
But what came from our round-table discussion made me realize they have some real concerns about the sport of deer hunting they love so much. It’s not the quality of the hunt so much as the type of hunter they encounter. The club charges a very minimal $5.00 fee to hunt on their lands. From around the room kept coming comments about slob hunters. Arlan Button, who operates a large dairy farm with his brother Merlin said to me, “Our problem is two-fold. We’re constantly running into people who totally disrespect our land. They leave gates open, they drive on new seedlings, try to hunt without permission and in some cases even shoot too close to our houses.
On the other hand, we know the deer herd has to be thinned out. Those of us sitting here sustain a lot of crop damage from deer and we couldn’t survive long without a hunting season. But sometimes you really hate to see a hunter coming for fear of what he’ll do. Some of the people who call themselves deer hunters have no business in the woods. Now that’s not to say that all hunters are bad, because they’re not, we’ve got some guys who come back year after year who really know what they’re doing out there.”
From across the room another farmer interjected, “Unfortunately, we don’t always remember much about the good guys, only the bad ones. I guess it’s the few bad ones that really cause us headaches.” There’s no question that the posted signs send a real message to hunters. Across America, sportsmen’s groups are scrambling as the storm clouds darken. With this concern has come some long overdue action. In Maine a group going by the name “Save Ourselves” organized to keep private lands open to sport hunting. In Colorado, a group of state hunter safety instructors looked long and hard at why the hunter turns off the non-hunter, which consists of about eighty percent of the United States’ population. The results of a survey they conducted are most interesting. For example, hunters bragging about theft macho attitudes are becoming increasingly offensive.
Another thing the non-hunter found distasteful was the hunters’ display of obnoxious slogans, offensive T-shirts and bumper stickers with abrasive messages. The unnecessary display of bagged game draped over automobiles also upset those surveyed. The overall appearance of hunters who venture into public places, wearing a four-day beard and blood stained clothing, turned off the non-hunter. The consensus was that the hunter may have earned the four day-old beard and stained clothing but should know enough to clean up before venturing into a public restaurant. It was also discovered that hunters seen drinking while decked out in hunting clothes left a bad impression with the non-hunting public. Quoting Chuck Griffith, who wrote of his survey in the New York Conservation Comments, “Non-hunters usually associate game laws with the protection of wildlife.
Most wonder why a hunter would jeopardize his own sport by violating game laws. Thus, non-hunters find poaching, mob-style party hunting and illegal taking of game as extremely distasteful. “Disrespect for private property and the landowner was an area of concern to the non-hunters. Lousy neighbors are lousy neighbors, at home or afield, but they are more conspicuous to more people when they have guns in their hands. “The Colorado survey shows, quite vividly, that the public’s perception of hunters may all be a matter of different perspectives between those who hunt and those who don’t. Still, the fact of the matter is that more people are becoming dissatisfied with hunting because of the con-duct of some hunters.” Others are also trying to address the posting problem at the grassroots level. One such case was a study by the Izaak Walton League in Sheboygan County, Wisconsin in 1984. Spearheaded by Roy Sebald, the League embarked on the survey aiming to improve relations between hunters and landowners and, in turn, to open more of the county’s private lands to hunting.
Sebald’s group surveyed 337 landowners and 564 sportsmen randomly selected through hunting and trapping licenses. The League found that eighty-seven percent of the landowners were hunters and sixty percent said they would allow people to hunt if asked. However, eighty-one percent of the landowners stated they’d grant hunting privileges to those taking advanced hunter training courses that emphasized landowner! land user relationships.
Eighty percent of the landowners favored a program promoting land owner and user relationships. Of the landowners surveyed, ninety-four percent had never been contacted by a sportsmen’s group. Group hunting was identified as distasteful to the landowner.
Most incidents of disrespect for the landowner’s property occurred during deer season. About half of the landowners felt they should receive some form of compensation for their land being used and most preferred this in the form of a gift or labor from the user. Of the hunters surveyed, ninety-four percent were deer hunters. Seventy-five percent felt that land owners’ posting policies have become more restrictive during the last five years. Hunters felt that the chief deterrents to being allowed to hunt were not asking permission and disrespect for the land. Ninety-six percent of the hunters favored a program designed to help improve land owner land user relationships but only seventy percent would be willing to participate in one. Forty-six percent felt the landowner should be compensated for allowing hunters on his property. In summation, many landowners focused on hunter education as a key. But one of the more agreed-upon issues was that the hunter should be better organized.
Though this survey was conducted in Wisconsin, the results appear to be about the same as similar surveys conducted in other states. Whether I was talking with the NRA, Izaak Walton League, or the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, being better organized appeared to be the biggest issue. This was borne out by Homer Moe, Wisconsin’s hunter education administrator, when he told a Sheboygan audience in early 1985, “The future of hunting is on a collision course.
State surveys show that hunter numbers increased by ninety-four percent in Wisconsin from 1950 to 1980 while during that same period, farmland in Wisconsin decreased by forty-three percent—much of it in urban sprawl. “Surveys also show that about eighty percent of the huntable land in Wisconsin is in private ownership, according to Department of Natural Resources statistics.
However, only about twenty percent of the land owners are hunters. So the future of hunting rests with the non-hunting Public. ” Rick Story of the WLFA feels that restoring respect to the hunter will take time and that to do so require both short- and long-term goals. In the short-term, organizations like WLFA will have to continue to put out the brush fires so hunting can continue. In the long-term, according to Story, “Education of the vast majority that doesn’t understand management and hunting is essential. They must be brought to understand that hunting plays a part in wildlife management.” Organizing to sell the eighty percent of America’s public on hunting will be no easy task. First and foremost, we need to purge our ranks of those that discredit the sport. No doubt this will be a monumental process but it can be achieved. As the Izaak Walton League’s Wisconsin survey shows, a communication process needs to be opened, nationwide, between the hunter and the landowner.
And then the hunter needs to be shown that a liberal dose of etiquette is in order to keep the lines of communication open. After all, hunting is not a right, it’s a privilege. As survey after survey has shown, education is the key. New and old hunters need to be educated that the landowner indeed is king when it comes to sport hunting. Most state agencies have started addressing the landowner/hunter relationships but there is a need for it to be a bigger part of the process. This is one area where “grandfather clauses” (exemption from courses because one had a hunting license prior to a course being made mandatory) cannot apply. Heavy emphasis needs to be placed in this area when hunting-related courses are offered.
The future of hunting may not look bright but, as with most problems we face, there are solutions. In the case of sport hunting, we need to look no further than ourselves for that solution. Someone once said, “Americans know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” For the most part, those who take to the deer woods know the price they’ve paid to get there, but in many cases they need to know the value of the hunt. The tradition of hunting deer and the experiences derived from it are certainly values worth cherishing.
Money can’t buy our future but our conduct will dictate whether we have one. Aldo Leopold spoke of the hunter’s conduct when he said, “A peculiar virtue in wildlife ethics is that the hunter ordinarily has no gallery to applaud or disapprove of his conduct. Whatever his acts, they are dictated by his own conscience, rather than by a mob of onlookers. It is difficult to exaggerate the
importance of this fact.” These are very stirring words by a great American. But the 1980s are different than Leopold’s era. Today’s hunters, whether they like it or not, do have an audience and they watch us very
closely. The year 2000 is right around the comer. If hunting is to exist, and hopefully thrive, into the next century, all sportsmen will have to become involved to ensure we’ll know where to hunt tomorrow. Come back and read more of our deer attractant review articles. We hope you have enjoyed the post.