01What the research found
RECEIPT
The study
Virginia: game trails against random spots
WhereSmithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VirginiaSample24 trail camera pairsWhen2013 and 2014
What they did
Paired a camera on a game trail with a camera at a nearby random spot, out of sight of the trail. Pairs were on average 23.5 m (about 77 feet) apart.
What they found
- Deer were detected more on game trails than at the random spots.
- Deer were "more easily detected on larger, more well-worn game trails."
- Detections were lower where the understory was thicker: more woody stems over 1.5 m tall and under 7.5 cm thick.
Limits
- One site, two seasons.
- It measures how often a camera records deer, not how many deer live there.
- The paper reports the brush pattern, not the reason. It doesn't say the brush blocked the camera's view.
Source. Kolowski, J.M. and T.D. Forrester. 2017. "Camera Trap Placement and the Potential for Bias Due to Trails and Other Features." PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186679. journals.plos.org →
RECEIPT
The study
Ontario: how high to hang it
WhereA flat, grassy field in Ontario, CanadaSample3,780 trials
What they did
Mounted three cameras on one pole, with lenses at 86, 116 and 146 cm. People stood in for animals: crawling, walking hunched over, or two people walking side by side.
What they found
- Cameras under 90 cm (about 3 feet) and aimed level got the most detections.
Limits
- People stood in for animals, in an open field, not deer in the woods.
- 86 cm was the lowest lens height they tried, so this is "lowest tested," not "lower is always better."
- The authors couldn't separate the effect of camera angle from lens height.
Source. DeWitt, P.D. and A.G. Cocksedge. 2023. "A Simple Framework for Maximizing Camera Trap Detections Using Experimental Trials." Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 195(11): 1381. link.springer.com →
RECEIPT
The study
Georgia: cameras on bait
WhereFour sites on three private properties, Worth and Baker counties, southwest GeorgiaSample470 unique bucks in summer, 423 in winterWhenAug-Sept 2015 and Jan-Feb 2016
What they did
Compared cameras with shelled corn about 5 m away against cameras with no bait.
What they found
- Baited cameras got 40 times more pictures of antlered bucks in summer and 50 times more in winter.
- Bait made deer "concentrate space use near bait sites within home ranges."
- Short-term bait, under three weeks, did not strongly change where deer were found across the land.
Limits
- Short-term baiting, under three weeks.
- Bucks only, one region.
- Cameras only, no collars, so it didn't track movement.
- Baiting is illegal or restricted in some states and seasons.
Source. Johnson, Chandler, Conner, Cherry, Killmaster, Johannsen and Miller. 2021. "Effects of Bait on Male White-Tailed Deer Resource Selection." Animals 11(8): 2334. mdpi.com →
02My read
MY READMy tactic, not a study result
Low, level and aimed down a worn trail. I want to see how bucks travel, not who shows up for free food.
That's how I set them. None of these studies tested it.
03Field notes
- Put the camera on a big, worn trail, not a random spot nearby.
- Set it low and level. Just under 3 feet was the lowest height tested, and it caught the most.
- If you use bait, know it shows where bucks come to eat, and check your state's bait rules first.
- Check your own state's season dates and legal hours with your state wildlife agency.