I leaned something today! Deer are not truly colorblind

Maybe you all know this already, but I did not, and found this an interesting and to the point video about the subject. Only 2-3 minutes.

Yeah that info has been around a pretty long time, since the 80's at least. Don't wear white either, white reflects all colors, including blue of course.

Funny part, I never wore camouflage years ago, denim was my go to, never had a problem killing whitetails up close and personal

crashlanding said:

Funny part, I never wore camouflage years ago, denim was my go to, never had a problem killing whitetails up close and personal

Click to expand...

Well that's what I was thinking!!! I've hunted in blue jeans before, they don't seem to care. But I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

I also didn't know just how much of their eyeball hardware was specialized to see in the dark. That's crazy how little light they need to be able to see what's out there, especially compared to us.

But I've also been reading up lately on human vision and we're not as undergunned as a person might think…we can see more colours and distinguish subtle differences in hue and shade than most animals by a large margin AND apparently there are actually very few animals that have as refined and accurate of depth perception and ability to visually gauge distance as we can.

Not only can we throw spears and rocks and shoot arrows and stuff because of our handy arms (yay for being bipeds!) and dexterous opposable thumbs and a nervous system endowed with much keener fine motor skills (at the expense of much less brutal animalistic strength)….but with practice we can actually aim and hit something on purpose!!!

Interesting video. I have always felt like blues showed up better to game birds and waterfowl. I didn't think about deer seeing blues better.

When I was a young hunter we didn't have much -- I hunted several years before buying camo pants. I had a cheap camo jacket I wore for bow season, with just blue jeans.

Something I noticed pretty quickly is that the deer could absolutely pick out the blue jeans. I could be standing stone still and they would spot me instantly. However if I had time to get down on my knees so my jacket covered the blue jeans, they wouldn't spot me. This was repeatable. At the time I attributed it to detergent UV brightening additives, which was a big thing in the hunting accessory market at the time, because my jeans laundered with everything else but I never washed the jacket.

@Calvin45
Maybe it wasn't the blue on your jeans?

Yeah. "The science" that always seems to be right until it isn't has been around for a hot minute.

Funny how they know how deer see, but biologist can't tell you specifics like fawn death rates specific to coyotes statics and so forth in a lot of states.

Let's not get started on the California condor lead free stuff, and the reintroduction of wolves….

…maybe science is more about pushing policy's like orange jackets and lead free bullets than it is about actual science…

Just a thought.

Science is no longer PURE without political and Media interference. Scientist, themselves, are no longer PURE being politically contaminated by government interference, politics, MONEY and other subversive influences.

I (we) have lost trust in the purity of science. I believed in very simple scientific philosophy, "Speak with data" to assure the opinions formed were based upon real touchable science.

Now? Data is manipulated, half truths, tampered, doctored, or even completely fabricated to serve their masters.

Damm sad IMO that was once

Yeah, this info has been out for decades.
I knew about this as a young hunter.

Good info for the up and comers.

This information has been around for a while, But I will still wear blue jeans while hunting on local ranches. Normal ranch attire is blue jeans or Carharts.
Let someone get out of the truck looking like a bush, and deer scramble. Sometimes the best camouflage, is no camouflage.

dfanonymous said:

Yeah. "The science" that always seems to be right until it isn't has been around for a hot minute.

Funny how they know how deer see, but biologist can't tell you specifics like fawn death rates specific to coyotes statics and so forth in a lot of states.

Let's not get started on the California condor lead free stuff, and the reintroduction of wolves….

…maybe science is more about pushing policy's like orange jackets and lead free bullets than it is about actual science…

Just a thought.

Click to expand...

Just a thought but it's way easier to cut open a few dozen eyeballs in a sterilized lab and count the rods and cones in relation to our own substantially studied eyes vs running a multi year multi species study in multiple regions to try and come up with any meaningful data on fawn death/coyote statistics when there is an unlimited number of factors influencing the outcome.

Muddyboots said:

Science is no longer PURE without political and Media interference. Scientist, themselves, are no longer PURE being politically contaminated by government interference, politics, MONEY and other subversive influences.

I (we) have lost trust in the purity of science. I believed in very simple scientific philosophy, "Speak with data" to assure the opinions formed were based upon real touchable science.

Now? Data is manipulated, half truths, tampered, doctored, or even completely fabricated to serve their masters.

Damm sad IMO that was once

Click to expand...

"I never believe a Statistic that I didn't make up myself."
--Me, after taking my college Statistics class.

Doesn't matter how pure, hard, and reliable the data is, a good statistician can make it say anything the money tells them to. The data can be sound, and still be made (interpreted) to say whatever the person(s) doing the interpreting want it to say.

ntsqd said:

Doesn't matter how pure, hard, and reliable the data is, a good statistician can make it say anything the money tells them to.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Plus add in completely fabricated "data" and is where we are right now.