How many of you

Feel really comfortable with aerial images and topo maps?

Anyone feel like if given these two items you could pick a spot and guarantee that you'd see deer?

As I spend more time in the woods watching and hunting these animals I am starting to feel like with just these two data points it is possible to have successful hunts. I think this skill is especially applicable to those who hunt public lands or those who do not have the luxury of planted fields and preset shooting houses.

Almost could make a fun game out of this with our aldeer brothers - posting these two images and letting people guess and learn from the sightings and successful hunts of others.

I know that there are more keys to the equation here (especially if you are only a trophy hunter) with food sources, hunting pressure and other influences.

We've done that game here before and it was an interesting conversation. My personal thoughts on the matter are that this is a great way to minimize the territory you need to scout but it's never a guarantee. Perhaps you could post such images and get the conversation rolling?

I wouldn’t gaurentee you would see deer but I could get somebody close. IMO it’s very important to study aerial and topo maps to identify possible sits. Once I’ve done that I put boots on the ground and confirm if deer are using the area or not. If not, then move on. I think a mistake a lot of green hunters make ( I did this a lot) is hunting deer where you want them to be and not where they are.

This is spot on. Use those 2 tools to find a starting place to start physically searching. A lot of free sat imagery is 3-5 years old and with the amount of logging activity in the state the woods are bound to look different, especially on public land. Even with no logging activity a pine stand or cutover could look drastically different after 5 years. Plus some of you may be able to but I can’t tell the difference between hardwoods filled with oaks or filled with other none desirable species such as sweet gum and poplars. Just by looking at sat imagery

Have found old logging roads and clearings using them.

Definitely a valuable resource, particularly on larger tracts and areas not readily accessible, but as you mentioned, too many factors to guarantee deer sightings. I do use one before I approach any new properties and I like to revisit existing properties to see if I've been overlooking anything. Also a legal way to "scout" surrounding properties to determine their impact on your land.

I don't know.... I'm not always looking for just topography, on many places I'm looking for habitat. I reckon I just prefer boots on the ground. I don't know what I'm looking for on a map....it's like reading a Bassmasters article and then thinking I can go to "that" lake and catch fish. It's just too "macro" of information, I want more micro information.

There are times I go to an area that I want to hunt, takes me 10 mins to walk in there, but then it takes me 10 more minutes deciding which tree to climb. I need more micro information, which tree gives me the best vantage.

I would say no as far as a guarantee. I find that a lot of times, especially in more rural areas, the date of the aerial imagery prevents accurate assessment. For example, a lot of times fresh cut overs are not on aerial imagery for up to several years. Similarly, while hardwoods are usually discernable from aerial imagery, finding a specific species of oak/acorn producer can make a world of difference. I would say that topo and aerial data definitely helps to narrow down scouting areas on larger tracts. I can see where a more mountainous terrain/tract would benefit more from such an analysis as opposed to relatively flat land.

In the case of a national forest, you narrow down the area you want to scout by topography, boundaries, food and water resources, neighboring properties, and still have thousands of acres left that may or may not have up to date aerial photography, or even produce deer for that matter. What else can you do to weed through the rest before boots hit the ground?

Yes absolutely I use them and comfortable doing it...arial photos and topo maps and a good hand held and you are wayyy ahead of the game.02 put some boots on the ground to find a food source, or 2...bedding or edges....access in and out...He gone... ...

If you are hunting a 50,000 acre wma or huge national forest that topography and aerial imagery is a starting point before you put boots on the ground. Without picking some likely travel corridors, edge habitat, funnels etc I wouldn’t know where to start my search for the right tree.

Oh yeah, for sure. I'll Google it (earth view) most times....but I think even then I'm looking for "pine thickets" or cutovers, maybe edge habitat. I was being funny about myself when I said I don't know what I'm looking at on a topo map! LOL I've never had to land nav or anything like that, never learned how. But I can pick out a road on a WMA map, then Google Earth it, and find something. Probably the same thing.

😀 👍🏻

Property lines to.

I can usem to find places it looks like i should see a deer....gwarrentees nussin til i put boots onit

There's no guarantee, but if you've followed deer in land where topo makes a difference like Jackson Co, you'll get close. Topo on flat ground don't mean doodly squat.

This maybe a vague/dumb question, but when you guys are looking at a topo/aerial image what are you looking for? Draws, ridges, pinch points in a bottom? Which one of these do yall find more beneficial for "mature" bucks to use?

It helps in swampland a lot. Finding subtle ridges in the swamp they will bed on

I get pretty spot on every time at this point. Land nav in the army helped a lot.

Some great comments on this thread so far!

From reading many of the comments it is clear there is some real value to these two tools. I do think that the most value is present when they are used together. Perhaps the one key to add in that is not possible to know from images and maps is the hunting pressure specific areas receive.


BowtechDan - I agree there are no guarantees in hunting!

Dkhargroves - Good observation on the topo in swamps and bottoms. Obviously if the land is actually FLAT it is of no use, but even places down south with have some exploitable topographical features.

ShaftOne - First thing I look for is areas where there is a distinct change in habitat. You will see these called edges in many cases. Some of the most obvious ones are where pines and hardwoods meet. In my experience deer will regularly move from these two types of habitat, making it a great spot to set up! Also look for the same in areas where various stages of clearcut meet.

Ikillbux - interesting perspective you've added there. I have also dealt with trying to pick the right tree in the area I have picked out, and these days when I go in "blind" like this I am just as likely to have my turkey vest on my back as I am my climber. Sometimes I wonder if we overthink tree selection but it can be extremely important especially if you have a bow in your hand.

Southwood - right on man, that's my situation except I don't have 50,000 acres to work with. Even still the acreage can be overwhelming and especially when it is all new. Because my time is limited I am sometimes "scouting" these spots by hunting them. It sure is nice though to have the confidence of knowing it looks right on satellite images and the topo map.

UAHunter and Qualimanman - Great detail to add in there with the neighboring properties. Sometimes that is just what you need to see to realize how good a spot is.

Jbuc10 - good point there too but I wonder if the presence of those species would be an overvalued consideration. Aside from a short window of the season I am not very often hunting the hard mast. Perhaps I am the one missing the boat here and I should put more focus on the presence of these species over others.

Rocket62 I would love to post images of the public land I hunt but I don't know that the hunters I share it with would like me pointing out their spots! Once I figure out the picture posting thing I will try and get one up. It is a spot I found on the map and aerial and sat twice this year. Killed two bucks from the same tree, once at the base of it with my turkey vest and one from the climber. I had never hunted or scouted this spot before but when I saw the combination of land topography and aerial images I just knew I would see some deer there.

They can definitely reduce your scouting time

Once I finally understood how to read topo maps overlaid on satellite imagery, then combined that a basic idea of how deer use certain terrain features, it helped me significantly narrow down some target areas on public land. Something I am starting to try to be better at when looking at aerial maps for public land hunting is pinpointing the easiest access routes and eliminating those areas from consideration. If it's easy to get to most people are gonna be using it. That helps cut down on a large swath of land and keeps me focused on looking for unconventional or less utilized access points.

Once you do that, then you can start looking at terrain features and put boots on the ground to find deer sign and set locations.

I personally feel it is one of, if not the most important tool I have at my disposal other than trail cameras. I certainly have spent more time dissecting maps than physical hours in my woods. Even on property that I have hunted for the past 5 years, I still utilize them almost daily. Heck I bet I've spent at least 2-3hrs already this week staring at them! Saves me tons of time on days when I'm able to get up to the camp. I like to actually have a plan in place rather than randomly rambling all over hoping to find a good area and just wasting valuable time.

Google earth and cameras have caused more big bucks to die in the last 10 years than the 50 years previous no doubt.