Vermilion Bay area grouse hunt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

I am/was.

Any hope of the original thread is long gone :(, feel bad for the American tourist who came here and.....The only thing I got involved in was the (searches for right words) Stuff about morals/ethics and insulting peoples intelligence because well......


For a brief moment things seemed to be heading towards at least, a more meaningful discussion. Aka grouse, be it numbers in some area's being reported as low (but its anecdotal for one, and two the foliage this year....).

I see I was mistaken.
And yep, you are entitled to A) your opinion and B) your morals ( which are a product of your upbringing, family, mentors, environments and experiences) as are everybody elses. They are not universal, they are individual.........

So is everybody else and that seemed and still seems to have been forgotten.
Vegans think you have no morals (funny that) and because they kill none have higher moral authority than you (funny that). So who is right in this?
The guy that keeps a limit
you
Vegans
?

Me, I can respect a vegans decision to eat no meat, actually kind of "applaud" for them for it. I could never, and would never.

Shame they feel they can force their morals on everyone else..

See what I mean.
Its NO different than guys who practise catch and release, who then T off on guys who go home with full stringers.

To each their own.

---

An opinion or point of view is one thing but to bluntly insult someone by stating they were brought up wrong or with an incorrect understanding of morals and ethics is another. You don't know me or my family, who we are and what we stand for and it wasn't I who derailed what could otherwise have been a healthy and objective debate into cheap insults and a name calling circus.
Mount Sweetness didn't have a say in this up until now and unlike others has the aptitude to recognize the difference between harassment and a civilized debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

An opinion or point of view is one thing but to insult someone by stating they were brought up wrong or incorrect understanding of morals and ethics is another. You don't know me or my family, who we are and what we stand for and it wasn't I who derailed what could otherwise have been a healthy and objective debate into insults and a name calling circus.

---

I tend to agree that calling one's family into question may be crossing a line. As to who started the downward spiral - see my earlier post #50.

Lol wow, need I state the obvious and remind you, that it was your post Ting off on people, "claiming moral high ground" and that your upbringing essentially made you morally superior, and that people were unintelligent, didn't understand morals and ethics (when in fact..as linked..) but perhaps besides all that.....

one has to wonder about the morality and ethic of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Sweetness

Wicked thread, I think both Kygrouse and Sidelock have fair agruments.
I don't think either of them need harassment, they are within the law and entitled to their opinions.

---

They are entitled to their opinions, but when someone's opinion is that all meat hunters are basically knuckle-dragging idiots who wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong he opened the door to be criticized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

It's evident not very many sensible people capable of carrying on an interesting debate in a civilized manner in this community. Perhaps they are watching too much television instead of enjoying the outdoors and the name calling is rubbing off on them. Someone actually spell checked my posts and the best comment he could come up with was to criticized my intelligence over a typo error, simply genius !
Your post is a refreshing contrast indeed, thank you !

---

Yes, spell checking your post was a low blow, but being primarily a meat hunter I suppose that I lack the capacity to form a better argument, right?

Look, you can carry on all you like, appear to be the holier than thou "conservationist" all you like, but the bottom line is that it's up the the MNR to regulate legal limits. Not you, me or anyone else. To berate a visitor to our country who followed the law and had a very successful hunt is an extremely low blow.

Do you really think that because YOU would only take a couple of grouse a day that everyone else should do the same, even thought the law allows them to take more? That's the elitist attitude I was referring to in the same post.

The reality is that for every hunter or group of hunters that are wildly successful, like the OP, there are thousands of hunters carrying a small game licence that will only shoot a few grouse, if any at all, in a given season. That's how it works for deer, bear, moose, waterfowl, everything. As a rule, hunters do not meet their limit on any given day. With small game, most wouldn't even come remotely close to daily and possession limits over a season. The MNR sets daily limits and allocates tags with the notion that hunter success rate is far from 100%. When one hunter or group does very well, it offsets the rate of failure. It doesn't decimate the population. Also, the OP was here for one week. He's not taking his limit every day for the course of the entire season. Even if he did, it's not your job to regulate him.

I'm a deer hunter first and foremost. Many seasons have gone by where I have not used all of my tags, if any at all. Am I harming the deer population as a whole by shooting 4 or 5 deer in one very successful season? Maybe in that particular woodlot, but not as a whole. Would some people question my ethics? Probably, but what they don't realize is that for those 4 or 5 tags I legally used in one season, many tags that I could have legally used in previous seasons went to waste.

In short, what I'm saying is that it balances out. For every huge hunting success there are many, many small failures.

I tend to think about a family I used to deer hunt with. Like many guys, hard working caught in the rat race and grind, and when they do get time off, after putting in stupid hours Mon-Fri, it's all about their family, young children and soccer/dance, etc, etc, etc, etc.

They get 1 week a year to go hunting. They go to their 100 acres where theres no running water ( accept the stream/waterfall behind the cabin) no electricity, and no cell phones. It is an incredibly great week and the fact they haven't tagged a deer in 5 years means little to them. And in 10 years, they've tagged but 1 (maybe 2).... But while they love it, its all smiles you can see they are hungry to hang some version, put some in the freezer

If its brown it's down, no hesitation.
Last year I hunted with them I was the only person to see any ( like most years they see none) I had two doe's and 2 fawns come in behind me where I was ground sitting. Couldn't move, couldn't breathe, the lead doe was close enough to poke with the end of my barrel. I was hoping shed keep going and so I might have more than in my shooting lane.

4 in the clip.

I know I know, I have no morals.
for the record just as the 2nd was 5 feet behind my right shoulder and the lead I had a shot at she heard me slipping the hammer back on my BLR.
/Sigh tag soup for those guys yet again
:(

"The reality is that for every hunter or group of hunters that are wildly successful, like the OP, there are thousands of hunters carrying a small game licence that will only shoot a few grouse, if any at all, in a given season."

Given the lack of spent shells on the ground when we were in Shinning Tree..........The only logical conclusion is everyone picked up all those hundreds of shells after slaughtering them.....right?

SL there is in fact absolutely nothing wrong with your stance on it.
Lots wrong with numerous things said, not the least of which is the um...questionable conduct...Ting off on A) A visitor here who did absolutely nothing wrong. There is no formal "code of ethics"....except perhaps the law and its them that gets to decide...no-one else. and then B) People who responded to that animosity/holier than though stuff....and who got insulted turn (low intelligence remarks) disagreed with it/you.....which is really strange because so much was made about moral standards/ethics, conduct, knowing right from wrong.

Does anyone but the OP know if his friends are slaves to the grind, with young families and can only get away from life once a year???
and many other things that govern our......

The MNR and DNR is a business and like many other government institutions they are always crying that they are short staffed and under budget and openly admit that they don't have sufficient resources to conduct suitable research, development and habitat improvement. Apart from moose season, I haven't seen a game warden enforcing the law for decades and I'm out with my dogs three or four days a week. Their main focus and objective is economics and everything else plays second fiddle including quotas and bag limits ! Just because they set a quota or bag limit doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically based or in the best interest of our resources, its all about the all mighty dollar. In the area we bird hunted this year, they only issued 12 moose tags, I wonder why ? Is the population in trouble and if that's the case what went wrong, is it too late to recover, why didn't they get it right in the first place ?
Fisheries and Oceans set the cod quota and assured everyone the fish stock was healthy and sustainable so fisherman eagerly filled their quota, it generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue. Where is our cod fishery now ? Despite regulations and legislation the Bluefin tuna is presently facing the same faith and dilemma but we blame the Chinese for their ravenous appetite for Bluefin when in reality our government collects tens of millions of dollars in taxes from the outrageous high price they are willing to pay for our tuna. Fortunately, some of the commercial fisherman had the foresight to finally realize that a live Bluefin tuna can generate tenfold more revenue than a dead one and are now chartering their boats for catch and release sport fishing. The redfish in Florida faced the same dilemma a few years ago until a moratorium was imposed as did the striped bass along the US East Coast.
What I'm trying to say is that just because the governing body sets a quota or a limit, it doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically or research based and they get it right all the time, some of the individuals involved in making these decisions aren't even qualified and were simply appointed to their position.
Sometimes we need to think out of the box and take the responsibility to blaze our own trail and go in a different direction instead of following the leading blind sheep that may ultimately take us over the cliff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

The MNR and DNR is a business and like many other government institutions they are always crying that they are short staffed and under budget and openly admit that they don't have sufficient resources to conduct suitable research, development and habitat improvement. Apart from moose season, I haven't seen a game warden enforcing the law for decades and I'm out with my dogs three or four days a week. Their main focus and objective is economics and everything else plays second fiddle including quotas and bag limits ! Just because they set a quota or bag limit doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically based or in the best interest of our resources, its all about the all mighty dollar. In the area we bird hunted this year, they only issued 12 moose tags, I wonder why ? Is the population in trouble and if that's the case what went wrong, is it too late to recover, why didn't they get it right in the first place ?
Fisheries and Oceans set the cod quota and assured everyone the fish stock was healthy and sustainable so fisherman eagerly filled their quota, it generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue. Where is our cod fishery now ? Despite regulations and legislation the Bluefin tuna is presently facing the same faith and dilemma but we blame the Chinese for their ravenous appetite for Bluefin when in reality our government collects tens of millions of dollars in taxes from the outrageous high price they are willing to pay for our tuna. Fortunately, some of the commercial fisherman had the foresight to finally realize that a live Bluefin tuna can generate tenfold more revenue than a dead one and are now chartering their boats for catch and release sport fishing. The redfish in Florida faced the same dilemma a few years ago until a moratorium was imposed as did the striped bass along the US East Coast.
What I'm trying to say is that just because the governing body sets a quota or a limit, it doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically or research based and they get it right all the time, some of the individuals involved in making these decisions aren't even qualified and were simply appointed to their position.
Sometimes we need to think out of the box and take the responsibility to blaze our own trail and go in a different direction instead of following the leading blind sheep that may ultimately take us over the cliff.

---

While I don't think that a comparison to marine species is accurate at all, I can agree with some of the other points in your post. We're not talking about a commercial industry here, we're talking about recreational hunting. I should also say that when I (we) use the term "meat hunter", we mean that aside from spending time outdoors, we enjoy putting meat in our freezer more than hanging a trophy on the wall. It doesn't mean that I have multiple freezers full of possession limits at any given time. Most of us don't have that kind of time or the means to go through that much meat.

The science behind bag limits and tag quotas is not an accurate science, you're right. I have been directly involved in some of the science involving big game population estimates and it leaves a lot of room for error and there's a fair amount of guesswork. With small game, the amount of field research done would be far less. Small game populations such as grouse just aren't nearly as susceptible to over-harvesting as something like moose so what little resources are available go into sustaining the moose herd.

That takes us to the "almighty dollar". Moose hunting probably brings more money into the province than all small game hunting combined, so it's in the MNR's best interest to manage the moose herd. We've all seen what kind of a job they're doing with that. They also waited too long in quite a few areas to reduce the number of additional deer tags available (because they didn't want to lose the revenue) and combined with a couple of hard winters and high coyote numbers, deer populations hit the bottom. The WMU's I frequent in deer season were a prime example. So, as you basically stated, lack of proper science and the self-interest of the government can most definitely damage game numbers.

Going back to the original topic and to address your last statement - While I can respect and appreciate your idea of blazing our own trail and taking things in a different direction, it just won't work. A small percentage of like-minded grouse hunters might be on board but the vast majority of hunters will follow the rules that are in place. You might see that as a mindset that will decimate the population, but I don't think so. I expect that much of your passion on the subject is due to the fact that you're exclusively a bird hunter or it's at the top of your list at the very least. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't believe that there are enough avid, successful grouse hunters out there with enough time on their hands to do any real damage to the population. I also don't believe that too many groups will spend the time and money on a hunt like the OP's did. For the average hunter, grouse season is probably a handful of outings in the fall and one or two birds if they're lucky.

I'm not sure why you would think that the OP would pay for a vacation to NW Ontario to shoot less than his legal limit of grouse. I wouldn't take a group of 6 up there with two bull tags only to stop hunting after shooting one. We went on a deer hunt in the Dryden area last year with 6 additional tags between 3 hunters. We filled 4 but would have filled all 6 if we could. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Vermillion Bay area but we're talking about massive tracts of NW Ontario wilderness area here. If the OP's group were able to take 84 grouse from the more accessible areas (old logging roads, etc.) it would indicate that the vast inaccessible areas hold just as many grouse that hunters will never see. He definitely did not deserve a public shaming on an open forum for having had a successful, enjoyable holiday.

Back to the family I used to hunt deer with. And oddly this ties in to what the great philosophers spent so much time thinking about.:)

Their hundred acres is heaven. I have been blessed throughout all my life, starting as a young boy to fish and hunt throughout Ontario, and I've been pretty much everywhere ( have yet to dip a toe in the arctic though) While Ive visited some absolutely beautiful and pristine places, none are as idyllic as this place. It has everything and that cabin in the woods, 50 feet from a roaring waterfall is right out of a Norman Rockwell painting. It has everything.......except deer.

53A is not an area teeming with deer. Deer numbers are pretty thin to begin with. Then for whatever reason, deer don't stay on their 100 acres. And it's not just their 100. Lots to the East and West push hard during rifle. We hear every shot, and don't hear those that aren't taken.....aka during the years I hunted there you don't hear a ton of gunfire...

In the 20+ years they've owned the property they've hung maybe 6-8 deer? And in the last 10 one. In the same time small game on their property has disappeared. When they first got it, Grouse and Rabbits were numerous. These days, they rarely see either. They blame the explosion in dogs........

If it's brown it's down, no hesitation.
Highly unlikely I'd have been able to unload on all 4. Another .5 second and 5 more feet and I would/might have had a shot at 2.
Different set of circumstances/experiences I might pass on a doe with a fawn.

Everyone knows or suspects the MNR at best operates reactively, not proactively.
The best example currently is Moose. Many hunters can't understand why they still issue calf tags given things.
If you've spent all year planning your moose hunt with your 2,4,6 friends and you draw a calf tag.
Going to stay home?
Going to go, but hunt grouse instead?
And who, if they decide to fill that tag is going to gain say that.
If you decide to stay home, good on you. Thats your choice, if someone else decides to fill that tag, that's their choice, the MNR gave them that choice to.

I know a decent number of people that moose hunt. Most have given it up. If it's not the lottery, its other things.
Ive asked a few....Might you consider, Spending the same amount of time and energy, possibly the same amount of $ going on a weeks bear hunt instead.

Lets assume 4 guys go on a Moose hunt and tag a cow. IF they see one and IF they get it? How many pounds of Moose meat per?
4 bears about 200 pds bear meat ( Most outfits have 75-80% success ratios)
60 Grouse
And what ever the limit for Walleye is on the Lake.

And yet most of the Moose hunters I know that still Moose hunt.
Well they are up North right now, hoping, praying they see one.
And if they do, despite what is pretty much known and accepted ( Moose are decline)........
Who is to say otherwise........

While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest Grouse are declining in parts of Ontario. Those areas it's not hard to look at what's happening with their predators, and habitat loss. Hunters have a marginal impact at worse....

And up north habitat loss and predators....not an issue.
If guys go and have a great time. Great!
If guys go and limit out. Great!

Not everyone can, not everyone does and not everyone has to. If I choose to do otherwise ( only take a couple), that's my choice to.

[QUOTE=GW11;994945 We've all seen what kind of a job they're doing with that. They also waited too long in quite a few areas to reduce the number of additional deer tags available [B](because they didn't want to lose the revenue)[/B] and combined with a couple of hard winters and high coyote numbers, deer populations hit the bottom.

In all the years working with L&F/MNR, and especially in later years with increasing financial constraints starting in the late 70's I never once felt that game management revolved around or was influenced by revenue generated from licence sales.
Hunter and angler demands for extended seasons or hunting/fishing opportunities played a much larger role in determining those seasons and quotas. Concessions contrary to proper management were often made regarding seasons because of hunter demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

The MNR and DNR is a business and like many other government institutions they are always crying that they are short staffed and under budget and openly admit that they don't have sufficient resources to conduct suitable research, development and habitat improvement. Apart from moose season, I haven't seen a game warden enforcing the law for decades and I'm out with my dogs three or four days a week. Their main focus and objective is economics and everything else plays second fiddle including quotas and bag limits ! Just because they set a quota or bag limit doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically based or in the best interest of our resources, its all about the all mighty dollar. In the area we bird hunted this year, they only issued 12 moose tags, I wonder why ? Is the population in trouble and if that's the case what went wrong, is it too late to recover, why didn't they get it right in the first place ?
Fisheries and Oceans set the cod quota and assured everyone the fish stock was healthy and sustainable so fisherman eagerly filled their quota, it generated tens of millions of dollars in revenue. Where is our cod fishery now ? Despite regulations and legislation the Bluefin tuna is presently facing the same faith and dilemma but we blame the Chinese for their ravenous appetite for Bluefin when in reality our government collects tens of millions of dollars in taxes from the outrageous high price they are willing to pay for our tuna. Fortunately, some of the commercial fisherman had the foresight to finally realize that a live Bluefin tuna can generate tenfold more revenue than a dead one and are now chartering their boats for catch and release sport fishing. The redfish in Florida faced the same dilemma a few years ago until a moratorium was imposed as did the striped bass along the US East Coast.
What I'm trying to say is that just because the governing body sets a quota or a limit, it doesn't necessarily mean its scientifically or research based and they get it right all the time, some of the individuals involved in making these decisions aren't even qualified and were simply appointed to their position.
Sometimes we need to think out of the box and take the responsibility to blaze our own trail and go in a different direction instead of following the leading blind sheep that may ultimately take us over the cliff.

---

Sidelock,

You want to claim some kind of moral high ground but yet posted this gem in another thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

KISS THE SKY aka Jeb will be terrorizing the birds up north for the next five days. Grand sired by Hamilton's Blue Diamond and Grid Iron with an infusion of high octane running through his veins from Blue Bell Slugger line.

Click on image to enlarge.

Attachment 33510Attachment 33509

---

Anyone who revels the fact their dog will be terrorizing birds has no claim to any kind of moral high ground over anyone else.

Dyth