Vermilion Bay area grouse hunt

Made my first trip north of the border during the first week of Oct....lodged in Vermilion Bay and grouse hunted north of there. I have to say that for a southeastern Kentucky grouse hunter, I was absolutely blown away with the ruffed grouse population. Probably common knowledge for most in the area or that have been there, but the numbers were just mind-blowing....far exceeded my expectations. Our party of 4 killed 84 ruffed grouse in 4 1/2 days of hunting. It was a blast and I look forward to coming back in the future.

I hope you guys up there don't ever take it for granted....It is, as you know, a treasure.

Only one spruce grouse and one sharp tail was killed....thought we may see more of those, but no complaints.

Congratulates on the excellent grouse hunt. I too am a upland game hunter and know what you mean about taking the northern grouse population for granted. Most hunters head up there for moose and bear. I see you are from Kentucky, you guys have any wild Bobwhites left in that state?

Congratulations on a really successful outing. I just checked and it's so far away from the Southern Ontario. I'm sure it's well worth the trip though.

We have a few quail...the central/western part of the state have a few more. But habitat destruction is a big problem. Same for the grouse...it has been terribly mis-managed by the wildlife department. All the money, time, and effort goes to deer, turkey, and elk. Hoping for a revival in grouse in the next few year....the logging industry has picked up over the past 5-7 years....should help. But will never be what it was in the heyday of the old grown up hill side farms.

Kygrouse what type of dogs where you guys running?

English setters

Quote:

---

[COLOR=#333333]English setters

---

The classic grouse dog, nice.

congrats on a great hunt, I am always showing my family all the US lic plates when we are fishing and tell them how lucky we are to have this close to home in our country yet most of our population goes south to other countries for vacations.

congrats seems like you guys had a great hunt

Guys.... Just to make something clear about our hunt. We ate grouse every day for breakfast and supper...never had more than our legal possession limit at one time...just in case anyone was wondering!!

You know the hunting is good when u have to keep eating in order to stay legal. Congrats on a great hunt and feel free to share some pictures of the hunt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kygrouse

Guys.... Just to make something clear about our hunt. We ate grouse every day for breakfast and supper...never had more than our legal possession limit at one time...just in case anyone was wondering!!

---

Good man, we moose hunt up the road from there in the Ear Falls area and always see resident hunters, from the south part of the province taking too many birds per day and too many walleye out of the river. Its a shame, most guys are good but the few rotten apples ruin it for everyone. I am glad you had a good trip and you enjoyed what the Canadian wilderness has to offer. You're welcome back any time brother.

TIGHT LINES!

We do indeed realize we have a treasure and we certainly don't take it for granted, that's why some of us choose to be conservative and apply common sense when it comes to harvesting them. If we want our resources to remain sustainable, we as responsible custodians have a moral and ethical obligation to be respectful of our resources and in managing them for future generations to come. Killing 84 birds is outright despicable in my opinion and to have the audacity to say not to take things for granted is nothing short of hypocrisy, SHAME ON YOU !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kygrouse

Made my first trip north of the border during the first week of Oct....lodged in Vermilion Bay and grouse hunted north of there. I have to say that for a southeastern Kentucky grouse hunter, I was absolutely blown away with the ruffed grouse population. Probably common knowledge for most in the area or that have been there, but the numbers were just mind-blowing....far exceeded my expectations. Our party of 4 killed 84 ruffed grouse in 4 1/2 days of hunting. It was a blast and I look forward to coming back in the future.

I hope you guys up there don't ever take it for granted....It is, as you know, a treasure.

Only one spruce grouse and one sharp tail was killed....thought we may see more of those, but no complaints.

---

We followed the law to the letter....your conservation people chose the daily limit, not me. In fact, with what I saw, they have set it at a very conservative number. We did not kill a quarter of the birds in which we saw.
We drove over 24 hours, spent a bunch of money in your country, paid for our hunting liscense, and did not break any game laws. Go bark up another tree pal.
Educate yourself on your resources. Habitat destruction is what is the death nail to a ruffed grouse population...not harvesting birds. Any person with knowledge of wildlife and wildlife resources, especially the ruffed grouse, knows this. I have been hunting them my entire life and have hunted them in several states in the U.S. and now Canada. I am an active member in the Ruffed Grouse Society and I have a knowledge about the species which would rival most anyone and goes well above and beyond any casual outdoorsman. We took those birds from probably a 100 square mile area.....with the abundance of logging which we saw going on, the birds are going to be there for future generations....as they always have been.

We did not drive around your roads and look for a bird to get out on and shoot....we hit the roads with our feet and dogs and walked several miles each day. To ask/expect someone to do that and then not take a limit each day is a ludicrous expectation.
For those that understand, thanks for the comments and I truly enjoyed my stay and will be back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

We do indeed realize we have a treasure and we certainly don't take it for granted, that's why some of us choose to be conservative and apply common sense when it comes to harvesting them. If we want our resources to remain sustainable, we as responsible custodians have a moral and ethical obligation to be respectful of our resources and in managing them for future generations to come. Killing 84 birds is outright despicable in my opinion and to have the audacity to say not to take things for granted is nothing short of hypocrisy, SHAME ON YOU !

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kygrouse

We followed the law to the letter....your conservation people chose the daily limit, not me. In fact, with what I saw, they have set it at a very conservative number. We did not kill a quarter of the birds in which we saw.
We drove over 24 hours, spent a bunch of money in your country, paid for our hunting liscense, and did not break any game laws.
Educate yourself on your resources. Habitat destruction is what is the death nail to a ruffed grouse population...not harvesting birds. Any person with knowledge of wildlife and wildlife resources, especially the ruffed grouse, knows this. I have been hunting them my entire life and have hunted them in several states in the U.S. and now Canada. I am an active member in the Ruffed Grouse Society and I have a knowledge about the species which would rival most anyone and goes well above and beyond any casual outdoorsman. We took those birds from probably a 100 square mile area.....with the abundance of logging which we saw going on, the birds are going to be there for future generations....as they always have been.

We did not drive around your roads and look for a bird to get out on and shoot....we hit the roads with our feet and dogs and walked several miles each day. To ask/expect someone to do that and then not take a limit each day is a ludicrous expectation.

For those that understand, thanks for the comments and I truly enjoyed my stay and will be back.

---

That dudes just jealous he misses out out the yummy yummy grouse...

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

Just curious,where did you stay?

Bad reaction by me maybe....but hit a nerve. I just know we were legal and we did NOT hurt the population in the least. It was truly a great trip and one I hope to make on a yearly basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

We do indeed realize we have a treasure and we certainly don't take it for granted, that's why some of us choose to be conservative and apply common sense when it comes to harvesting them. If we want our resources to remain sustainable, we as responsible custodians have a moral and ethical obligation to be respectful of our resources and in managing them for future generations to come. Killing 84 birds is outright despicable in my opinion and to have the audacity to say not to take things for granted is nothing short of hypocrisy, SHAME ON YOU !

---

They did nothing illegal. There is a reason the law lets them take that many birds - given the number of people hunting grouse the population can handle it.

To the OP - congrats on a great hunt and please disregard the jealous haters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

They did nothing illegal. There is a reason the law lets them take that many birds -
To the OP - congrats on a great hunt and please disregard the jealous haters.

---

Exactly! Grouse populations are believed to be one of the species that manage themselves regardless of outside circumstances such as heavy hunting, disease or weather. So if a young of the year is going to expire in a year or so why not take it?

Yes...the life expectancy is less than a year. And so true about the reproduction...If you have grouse habitat, you will have grouse. Regardless of hunting pressure and number of birds harvested.

Here in Kentucky, the population has taken a terrible tumble the past 10-15 years....and not just the normal 10 year cycle of up and down. And it has NOTHING to do with people hunting them down. It is due to habitat destruction. Mountain top removal and strip mining for coal in general has hurt the habitat greatly. Also there was a downward turn in the need for logging for a few years and we have WAY too many "big timber", adult forests....not good for grouse reproduction. Hoping for a turn around in the coming years however. Logging has picked up the past 5-6 years and hoping for some improved habitat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

We do indeed realize we have a treasure and we certainly don't take it for granted, that's why some of us choose to be conservative and apply common sense when it comes to harvesting them. If we want our resources to remain sustainable, we as responsible custodians have a moral and ethical obligation to be respectful of our resources and in managing them for future generations to come. Killing 84 birds is outright despicable in my opinion and to have the audacity to say not to take things for granted is nothing short of hypocrisy, SHAME ON YOU !

---

Wow. So the guy and his four buddies hunt come up here, pay $120 each for their small game license, hunt for 4 1/2 days while following the daily limits for the majority of the days (the last 1/2 day he and his buddies could have killed another 5 grouse each if they so chose to) while eating what they shot (and keeping some for the ride home no doubt), and you think killed too many birds? You understand the season up there runs from Sept 15- December 31 and a local can easily take at least that many over the season without hitting their daily limit just hunting on weekends? I truly hope you save some of your moral outrage for those hunters.

To the OP: I hope you guys had fun and a good time. Please come and see us again (or if you prefer "Y'all come back now ya hear"). Just excuse the crazies around here. Most of the time we keep them under wraps but sometimes they get out. I am sure you understand, you have a crazy running for president right now. :joker:

Judging by the reaction to my post its quite obvious some lack the mental capacity to differentiate the difference between law and ethical code of sportsmanship and values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Judging by the reaction to my post its quite obvious some lack the mental capacity to differentiate the difference between law and ethical code of sportsmanship and values.

---

Ah yes, the infamous argument that that because someone disagrees with me, they lack the intelligence to understand how right I am. Please, continue to ride your moral high horse around so the rest of us can one day dream of leaving the great unwashed behind and becoming as superior as you so obviously are.

Yes I do intend to continue riding my moral high horse around, fortunately I was taught from an early age that moral and ethical values are what truly defines a person and I will make avery effort to pass that on. As for the lack of intelligence to recognize and differentiate between law and ethics, I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless. I'm also proud to be a conservationist and appreciative of our resources and treat them with respect but if you or anyone else for that matter choose to harvest game indiscriminately, unfortunately I can't stop you but I have a moral obligation to voice my opinion because that's the way I was brought up and that's who and what I am, a conservationist not a meat hunter.

I'm a meat hunter as are many of the guys on this site. I place more value on the meat than I do on a rack on a wall and will quickly take a fawn, a calf, a cow or doe. I also fish and keep what I take. I also consider myself a conservationist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Yes I do intend to continue riding my moral high horse around, fortunately I was taught from an early age that moral and ethical values are what truly defines a person and I will make avery effort to pass that on. As for the lack of intelligence to recognize and differentiate between law and ethics, I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless. I'm also proud to be a conservationist and appreciative of our resources and treat them with respect but if you or anyone else for that matter choose to harvest game indiscriminately, unfortunately I can't stop you but I have a moral obligation to voice my opinion because that's the way I was brought up and that's who and what I am, a conservationist not a meat hunter.

---

Does your moral obligation actually require any understanding of the resource in question? Or are you as lacking in intelligence as you seem to think the rest of us are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kygrouse

We took those birds from probably a 100 square mile area..

---

SL,

Taking 84 grouse out of 100 square miles in northern Ontario has virtually no effect on their numbers or their viability in the future. As has been stated by numerous people, grouse numbers are affected by the population cycle and habitat availability. Hunting them in places like northern Ontario plays has essentially no effect on their population.

Passing judgement based on some sort of moral high ground just demonstrates your ignorance of the resource in question. As long as these hunters consumed all the birds they harvested there was nothing unethical about anything they did.

The only time hunting plays a role in threatening their numbers is when it is in heavily pressured isolated populations like we have in a few places in the south. If these guys were hunting the Simcoe County Forests than the story would be different and you would have a far better case for passing ethical judgement . Take your "ethical judgement" and apply it to somewhere relevant.

Wow, am staying clear of this one. But feel compelled to respond to just this.

Yes I do intend to continue riding my moral high horse around, fortunately I was taught from an early age that moral and ethical values are what truly defines a person and I will make avery effort to pass that on. As for the lack of intelligence to recognize and differentiate between law and ethics, I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless.

Then you were raised wrong. Well perhaps more correctly raised with an incorrect understanding of morals and ethics.
1) Morals are not universal. Your post on the subject seem to suggest you think they are and only your morals are right. Gee that's awfully moral of you.....

But to illustrate how wrong your understanding of morals is, I'll use an extreme example.
Many people in the world think its morally wrong to eat meat period.......
many think it's immoral to kill animals....period
Many more think we are animals and morally bankrupt because we eat beef, because to them cows are sacred. In fact we think it's immoral to eat dogs and horses. Millions of people on the other side of the globe.....

Many in the mid east think we are animals and morally bankrupt because we ( name so many things). One persons terrorist, is another persons freedom fighter.
Morals?
lol

But don't worry only your morals are right, right?
*******

On law and ethics.
While they are different, in many ways they aren't. Sounds like ( and I could be mistaken here) your confusing ethics.

Ethics are a code of conduct. Many professions have them for example. Lawyers, Doctors, Banker types, and many more. They often have their own bodies that guess what.....govern the codes and discipline people who break them.

In hunting we don't have such a governing body. Will never have one because some think their sense of right and wrong is right and others are wrong. Example many think hunting over bait doesn't follow the principle of fair chase (unethical), many other's do (ethical)

So who gets to play god.
you? Me?

The closest we have to Ethics and a code of conduct in the absence of a formal code of ethics is guess what. The FWCA and the laws. So at least as far as "ethics" go, hunting and differentiating from the law. Buzz your wrong.

So as far as hunting goes
If your within the law, your an ethical hunter
If your not within the law, that would be unethical
This isn't much grey or wiggle room in that.

I may feel that morally, it's not right to take and consume a daily limit. Those are "my" morals. I may feel theres nothing wrong with it, again my morals. Far be it for anyone to argue or say otherwise. Its certainly ethical (within the law/code of conduct).

You should study some of the great philosophers on the topics or morals and ethics. Maybe even think about some of the basic "test"...aka moral dilemma's. One such classic is

Your wife and a child are drowning. You can only save one them. Which do you let die?
Too each their own, morals are not universal. I know which my morals would have me saving. The next person? Their morals may say save the other. Who are they to say my moral compass is "wrong".

To the OP
Glad you had a great time visiting this wonderful province

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Wow, am staying clear of this one. But feel compelled to respond to just this.

Yes I do intend to continue riding my moral high horse around, fortunately I was taught from an early age that moral and ethical values are what truly defines a person and I will make avery effort to pass that on. As for the lack of intelligence to recognize and differentiate between law and ethics, I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless.

Then you were raised wrong. Well perhaps more correctly raised with an incorrect understanding of morals and ethics.
1) Morals are not universal. Your post on the subject seem to suggest you think they are and only your morals are right. Gee that's awfully moral of you.....

But to illustrate how wrong your understanding of morals is, I'll use an extreme example.
Many people in the world think its morally wrong to eat meat period.......
many think it's immoral to kill animals....period
Many more think we are animals and morally bankrupt because we eat beef, because to them cows are sacred. In fact we think it's immoral to eat dogs and horses. Millions of people on the other side of the globe.....

Many in the mid east think we are animals and morally bankrupt because we ( name so many things). One persons terrorist, is another persons freedom fighter.
Morals?
lol

But don't worry only your morals are right, right?
*******

On law and ethics.
While they are different, in many ways they aren't. Sounds like ( and I could be mistaken here) your confusing ethics.

Ethics are a code of conduct. Many professions have them for example. Lawyers, Doctors, Banker types, and many more. They often have their own bodies that guess what.....govern the codes and discipline people who break them.

In hunting we don't have such a governing body. Will never have one because some think their sense of right and wrong is right and others are wrong. Example many think hunting over bait doesn't follow the principle of fair chase (unethical), many other's do (ethical)

So who gets to play god.
you? Me?

The closest we have to Ethics and a code of conduct in the absence of a formal code of ethics is guess what. The FWCA and the laws. So at least as far as "ethics" go, hunting and differentiating from the law. Buzz your wrong.

So as far as hunting goes
If your within the law, your an ethical hunter
If your not within the law, that would be unethical
This isn't much grey or wiggle room in that.

I may feel that morally, it's not right to take and consume a daily limit. Those are "my" morals. I may feel theres nothing wrong with it, again my morals. Far be it for anyone to argue or say otherwise. Its certainly ethical (within the law/code of conduct).

You should study some of the great philosophers on the topics or morals and ethics. Maybe even think about some of the basic "test"...aka moral dilemma's. One such classic is

Your wife and a child are drowning. You can only save one them. Which do you let die?
Too each their own, morals are not universal. I know which my morals would have me saving. The next person? Their morals may say save the other. Who are they to say my moral compass is "wrong".

To the OP
Glad you had a great time visiting this wonderful province

---

+1

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Yes I do intend to continue riding my moral high horse around, fortunately I was taught from an early age that moral and ethical values are what truly defines a person and I will make avery effort to pass that on. As for the lack of intelligence to recognize and differentiate between law and ethics, I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless. I'm also proud to be a conservationist and appreciative of our resources and treat them with respect but if you or anyone else for that matter choose to harvest game indiscriminately, unfortunately I can't stop you but I have a moral obligation to voice my opinion because that's the way I was brought up and that's who and what I am, a conservationist not a meat hunter.

---

For someone striving to seem so intelligent, you may want to proof-read your posts.

Anyway... I nominate this as the most elitist post of 2016!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

you have a crazy running for president right now. :joker:

---

You mean 2 crazies. LOL

Didn't mean to cause such a firestorm!! lol I'll say this then I'm out of this conversation....I see no need in a keyboard argument. But anyone who thinks that a "meat hunter" can't also be a conservationist is wrong. They can and do go hand in hand. The "meat hunters" that I grew up with are very aware of what it takes to preserve the natural resources that we have. We enjoy the outdoors as much as anyone and do everything in our small power as individuals to help preserve it.
And again, anyone who thinks harvesting a daily limit of ruffed grouse is going to hurt the population is just uneducated on the species. Or just wanting to pop off at the mouth...either way, I don't care.
I'll be back next year....we met some incredibly nice people in the area and the hospitality was awesome. I could not have enjoyed my trip more....thanks for those of you that say we are welcome.

No more posts for me on this topic...not going to change any minds....so let the bashers fire away....those who agree with me, lets just let this go.

With all the venting and belligerent tone of some posts, it's evident some don't get out much and have a lot of anger penned up inside so have at it boys, get out there and blast away and kill as many birds as the LAW and regulations allow and don't let anyone on his moral high horse try to stop you. At the end of the day don't forget to take inventory of the numbers of birds killed to remind you of your achievement, success and justification for the money spent. For those who believe that the only criteria a sportsman code of ethics requires is to stay within the law and bag limits, I totally understand where you're coming from.

Let me just remind those who are struggling to define or even misinterpret the definition of moral values and ethics and believe that simply staying within the law is being ethical, there was a time in our past when slavery was legal and so as long as is it was within the LAW, it was ethical ? WAKE UP.

Slaves ???? Better to be thought of as an offside jerk than type some rubbish and remove all doubt. WAKE UP !!!

Lol SL, to know me, the actual "me" is to know Im a pretty easy going guy, not a lot phases me or gets under my skin. A couple things that do though are for lack of better words "hyporicsy" do as I say, not as I do types. But first and foremost.

I was raised to "respect" everyone, but never lose or sell my self respect. Worded differently

To each their own.....until and unless you step on my toes.

For someone who came in swinging, accusing someone(a nd now others) you don't know of low moral standards, being unintelligent unethical hunters ( when in fact.....its you thats "offside" and frankly don't understand the nuances of Morals and ethics) to now once again try to claim some moral high ground..

You really should read up on morals and ethics, before...
heres a starter
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals

A snippet from just that one link. I could link dozens.....

"ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religion"

So, as I clearly said earlier.
With respect to hunting where in the absence of a formal code of ethics and the absence of a formal governing body.

Who gets to play God?
you?

you get to first write the code and dictate the rules
then
"you"
get to to enforce them, "discipline" code breakers?

Me?

The closest we have to a formal set of rules or code of rules is
Guess what
Guess who gets to say who is "ethical" and who is "unethical"

And as for morals you should study the philosophy of those to. How they are formed by societies, by individuals. They are not universal.

Some might think for example theres an appalling lack of morals in this thread................which is odd given...

Congrats, I don't think I'll be able to shoot 84 grouse in my lifetime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

With all the venting and belligerent tone of some posts, it's evident some don't get out much and have a lot of anger penned up inside so have at it boys, get out there and blast away and kill as many birds as the LAW and regulations allow and don't let anyone on his moral high horse try to stop you. At the end of the day don't forget to take inventory of the numbers of birds killed to remind you of your achievement, success and justification for the money spent. For those who believe that the only criteria a sportsman code of ethics requires is to stay within the law and bag limits, I totally understand where you're coming from.

Let me just remind those who are struggling to define or even misinterpret the definition of moral values and ethics and believe that simply staying within the law is being ethical, there was a time in our past when slavery was legal and so as long as is it was within the LAW, it was ethical ? WAKE UP.

---

Actually curious too know. If you were one of the party of four hunting 5 days how many grouse would you have harvested?

Fair question ! I'd be more than content with knocking down a couple of birds each day over my dogs to keep them honest but I would continue to hunt them and shoot my blank pistol over their finds to keep them broke (steady to wing and shot). If a party of four shoot over 80 birds in four days and another say two, three or four parties in the same general geographical area shoot similar number of birds since they are so plentiful, the numbers add up astronomically but according to some, three or four hundred birds shot wouldn't even put a dent in the population. What do I know !

That's been going on for decades in the area we hunt for birds and I can assure you, there's trailer camps and ATV's all over the place off Hwy 560. There's been great years and poor years for grouse all of which I attribute to the natural cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Fair question ! I'd be more than content with knocking down a couple of birds each day over my dogs to keep them honest but I would continue to hunt them and shoot my blank pistol over their finds to keep them broke (steady to wing and shot). If a party of four shoot over 80 birds in four days and another say two, three or four parties in the same general geographical area shoot similar number of birds since they are so plentiful, the numbers add up astronomically but according to some, three or four hundred birds shot wouldn't even put a dent in the population. What do I know !

---

So 2 birds a day in an area where birds can easily redistribute from high to lower concentrations through a fairly connected ecosystem I'd hate to think of us southern hunters. So I dare to ask if you go hunting in the south (for me south is anything within a 2 hour drive of TO) what's your limit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

That's been going on for decades in the area we hunt for birds and I can assure you, there's trailer camps and ATV's all over the place off Hwy 560. There's been great years and poor years for grouse all of which I attribute to the natural cycle.

---

So what do you think in your opinion attributed to the low population in an undisclosed specific area along 560 this year ? after having an unusual mild winter and a reasonably dry spring/summer, assuming there was enough moisture for a good hatch, one would expect a good carry over of mature birds and a high survival rate of chicks given such ideal conditions. I'm not a biologist by the longest stretch of imagination but at the very least know enough that the natural cycle can be greatly influenced by weather as well as predation and desease.
You are certainly right about the number trailer camps, ATV's and blazing orange all over the place, it was like a war zone !

War Zone,!!! Now you sound like an anti. I have hunted the opening week of grouse season just south of Chapleau for a few years and while we see a few folks in trucks and on quads I would hardly call it a warzone. Besides everyone knows the hunters driving the roads drive past 90% of the grouse. The Goshawk's and the Lynx take far more grouse than anything else out there including us and the grouse keep on keeping on , some years more than others but in THE NORTH we have almost no impact on them.

Low numbers of grouse being reported in many areas.

We went Sept 22nd along 560
The OP came to Canada Oct 2-7.

One thing I noticed while walking many clicks here and there was very, and I do mean very few spent shells laying around. In fact of those I saw, most were 1-2 years old.....I suppose with dozens of people slaughtering hundreds each weekend, the only logic answer is everyone picked up every spent shell.............

whats the difference between 4 Yanks taking 80 and 4 guys from the big smoke taking 80 over a few weeks? Net result is exactly the same. Though I'm betting the yanks had a better time, they seem more relaxed.:)

read/look carefully, likely the main reason so many reported tough years is within
http://www.oodmag.com/community/show...Grouse-hunting

im a rank novice hunting grouse, certainly no "expert" but even I know, when they are no see ums, and no shells on the ground, and lots and lots of green...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hunter John

War Zone,!!! Now you sound like an anti. I have hunted the opening week of grouse season just south of Chapleau for a few years and while we see a few folks in trucks and on quads I would hardly call it a warzone. Besides everyone knows the hunters driving the roads drive past 90% of the grouse. The Goshawk's and the Lynx take far more grouse than anything else out there including us and the grouse keep on keeping on , some years more than others but in THE NORTH we have almost no impact on them.

---

Are you related to Donald Trump ?

The road into our camp is private, no trespassing, no hunting and all the camp owners abide by it. There are years where birds are everywhere along this stretch. This year I've seen one and hunting is not a factor in their disappearance.

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.

[QUOTE=JBen;994843]Low numbers of grouse being reported in many areas.

We went Sept 22nd along 560
The OP came to Canada Oct 2-7.

One thing I noticed while walking many clicks here and there was very, and I do mean very few spent shells laying around. In fact of those I saw, most were 1-2 years old.....I suppose with dozens of people slaughtering hundreds each weekend, the only logic answer is everyone picked up every spent shell.............

They should but that would be too logical.
Didn't you say earlier that you are staying out of this one ?

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.

---

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 !

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 and Anti's 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
Antis..well if we follow your line, let us know when you side with them hang up your guns and OMG you even use a dog.......Peta must think so highly of you.
?

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.

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.

---

Pot meet kettle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

We do indeed realize we have a treasure and we certainly don't take it for granted, that's why some of us choose to be conservative and apply common sense when it comes to harvesting them. If we want our resources to remain sustainable, we as responsible custodians have a moral and ethical obligation to be respectful of our resources and in managing them for future generations to come. Killing 84 birds is outright despicable in my opinion and to have the audacity to say not to take things for granted is nothing short of hypocrisy, SHAME ON YOU !

---

How very civilized of you. First post on the thread and you try to publicly shame a visitor, who did nothing illegal, because he chose differently than you would have. Essentially call everyone except yourself unethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Judging by the reaction to my post its quite obvious some lack the mental capacity to differentiate the difference between law and ethical code of sportsmanship and values.

---

Not just calling the OP names - essentially saying everyone who has posted up to this point lacks mental capacity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

I wouldn't realistically expect any meat hunter to possess such capacity let alone recognize between right and wrong regardless.

---

And again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

Are you related to Donald Trump ?

---

And again.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

Sidelock,

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



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

---

BRILLIANT, a lot of creative and ingenious thought must have gone into this one, I'm very impressed, what can I say !

Is it ethical or moral to harass and stress game birds if you have no intention of harvesting them and instead are just keeping your dog "broke and on point"?

sort of serious question. Don't know myself but pretty sure what PETA would think, and even many animal lovers who while perfectly ok with hunting for food, don't approve of trophy hunting, or animal cruelty. Many will think it's cruel to the birds.

And do know the MNR will shoot dogs that are harassing big game.

food for thought SL

While i will admit i have jumped on some of SL's posts i expect he did not mean his dog would literally be terrorizing the birds. I suspect he meant to say his dog was eager to hunt and would have a great time. Perhaps a different choice of words would have worked better.

Where did my hunting forum go??? Can you tell who's ever in charge of this old lady knitting club forum, to please bring back the hunting forum?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

While i will admit i have jumped on some of SL's posts i expect he did not mean his dog would literally be terrorizing the birds. I suspect he meant to say his dog was eager to hunt and would have a great time. Perhaps a different choice of words would have worked better.

---

Think JBen has a valid argument. If SL would tot the moral superiority over law abiding "meathunters" than who's to say he's open to be labeled immoral to take pleasure in the harassment of living creatures for no other reason than selfish pleasure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiveBates

Where did my hunting forum go??? Can you tell who's ever in charge of this old lady knitting club forum, to please bring back the hunting forum?:)

---

Just waiting for this rain to stopped so I can go shoot me some woodcock and grouse.( and limits to boot if possible)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Just waiting for this rain to stopped so I can go shoot me some woodcock and grouse.( and limits to boot if possible)

---

Lol. Awesome. Good luck.

I honestly can't believe the rubbish and childish comments some individuals are posting here, if there ever was any doubt about anything I said in my posts this only solidifies and justifies my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

I honestly can't believe the rubbish and childish comments some individuals are posting here, if there ever was any doubt about anything I said in my posts this only solidifies and justifies my opinion.

---

Actually the only thing that would justify your opinion would be solid science that supports the view that taking limits of grouse in northern Ontario is detrimental to the long term viability of the resource.

All else is a predicable response to uncivilized posting and name calling started by you. See post #50.

Cyber bullying

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

Actually the only thing that would justify your opinion would be solid science that supports the view that taking limits of grouse in northern Ontario is detrimental to the long term viability of the resource.

All else is a predicable response to uncivilized posting and name calling started by you. See post #50.

---

How about solid scientific evidence that it is not detrimental and as far as post #50, perhaps you should read #15 and #21 with regards to predictable response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

BRILLIANT, a lot of creative and ingenious thought must have gone into this one, I'm very impressed, what can I say !

---

What is wrong? Don't like the morality spotlight placed upon you? Most don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

While i will admit i have jumped on some of SL's posts i expect he did not mean his dog would literally be terrorizing the birds. I suspect he meant to say his dog was eager to hunt and would have a great time. Perhaps a different choice of words would have worked better.

---

You know, I don't know. He has posted once he finished hunting for the day, he worked his dog over other birds while using a blank pistol. This kind of puts his comment about his dog terrorizing the birds into question though. If he wanted to train his dog, he could have done it a different way than using wild birds (game farm, went out and purchased farm raised birds) but he didn't. He took an opportunity to harass those birds. I find that morally unacceptable. He wants to morally judge others but he mews, complains and insults others when they disagree with him or even morally judge him themselves. He doesn't understand when you judge others by your morals you open yourself up to being morally judged yourself. As GW11 stated he has a childish, elitist attitude which makes him think his morals are superior to others not realizing he is making a giant donkey out of himself.

Dyth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

How about solid scientific evidence that it is not detrimental and as far as post #50, perhaps you should read #15 and #21 with regards to predictable response.

---

Neither of us has presented the sound science. The difference is i did not judge and try to publicly shame a visitor who was acting legally and within his rights. Nor did i call into question the ethics of previous posters. You did. That puts the onus on you to back things up - otherwise it is subjective judgement and name calling done in an uncivilized manner.

Your post was #13. This just proves my point. I never said others did not name call. I said it was a predictable response to what you started. 15 and 21 come after 13. In other words 15 and 21 are the predictable response to your post #13.

Dyth,

You and Jben may well be correct - just extending the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

What is wrong? Don't like the morality spotlight placed upon you? Most don't.



You know, I don't know. He has posted once he finished hunting for the day, he worked his dog over other birds while using a blank pistol. This kind of puts his comment about his dog terrorizing the birds into question though. If he wanted to train his dog, he could have done it a different way than using wild birds (game farm, went out and purchased farm raised birds) but he didn't. He took an opportunity to harass those birds. I find that morally unacceptable. He wants to morally judge others but he mews, complains and insults others when they disagree with him or even morally judge him themselves. He doesn't understand when you judge others by your morals you open yourself up to being morally judged yourself. As GW11 stated he has a childish, elitist attitude which makes him think his morals are superior to others not realizing he is making a giant donkey out of himself.

Dyth

---

You are absolutely right, perhaps I should heed your wisdom and take your advise and harass pen raised birds instead of wild birds, since you feel that would be more morally acceptable, gee now why didn't I think of that, I must be daft. Or should I just keep shooting the wild birds because that's more ethical than harassing them as someone else suggested earlier.
How anyone with border line common sense can possibly read some of this crap and not question the intelligence and mental mind frame of some posters behind the key board is waaaaaaay beyond my comprehension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Is it ethical or moral to harass and stress game birds if you have no intention of harvesting them and instead are just keeping your dog "broke and on point"?

sort of serious question. Don't know myself but pretty sure what PETA would think, and even many animal lovers who while perfectly ok with hunting for food, don't approve of trophy hunting, or animal cruelty. Many will think it's cruel to the birds.

And do know the MNR will shoot dogs that are harassing big game.

food for thought SL

---

I'm totally aware that the MNR will shoot dogs that are harassing big game and fortunately I don't have to worry about that with my dogs but thank you for the reminder just the same. However, after having read "if its brown its down, no hesitation", I'd seriously be very concerned if I was running a visla, short haired pointer or a weimaraner in the woods and I'm relieved that my dogs are white.

[QUOTE=sawbill;994997]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I hope you're right but things seem to be moving in a different direction these days. 20,000 - 30,000 tags at $40 each adds up. Another example is calf tags. If the moose population is in such trouble why do they continue to provide a calf tag with a moose licence? Probably because the bottom would drop out on moose licence sales if all it gave you was a lottery ticket. Just my opinion and I've been known to wear a tinfoil hat from time to time.

[QUOTE=GW11;995058]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

I hope you're right but things seem to be moving in a different direction these days. 20,000 - 30,000 tags at $40 each adds up. Another example is calf tags. If the moose population is in such trouble why do they continue to provide a calf tag with a moose licence? Probably because the bottom would drop out on moose licence sales if all it gave you was a lottery ticket. Just my opinion and I've been known to wear a tinfoil hat from time to time.

---

It goes way beyond the tags, too much revenue in taxes at stake to lose from fuel, rentals,lodging, groceries, guns, ammunition, apparel and dare I say even alcohol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

I'm totally aware that the MNR will shoot dogs that are harassing big game and fortunately I don't have to worry about that with my dogs but thank you for the reminder just the same. However, after having read "if its brown its down, no hesitation", I'd seriously be very concerned if I was running a visla, short haired pointer or a weimaraner in the woods and I'm relieved that my dogs are white.

---

I'm sure you know that's deer hunter slang for "any legal deer". I'm also sure that JBen would have no problem identifying his target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GW11

I'm sure you know that's deer hunter slang for "any legal deer". I'm also sure that JBen would have no problem identifying his target.

---

I'm not sure of anything other than that we are all accountable for what we write, no exceptions. I'm just replying to what I'm reading just like everyone is replying to what I'm writing. I'm actually being easy on him, I could have proof read his posts and critisized him for any typo errors but that would reveal, well lets not go there.

Lol jeez. :)
Few things. "If it's brown it's down". An expression you've heard many times. I'm also quite sure you know what it means, and that it doesn't mean "shoot recklessly". Not sure how you missed ( chose to ignore...) the rest of it also included not pulling the trigger on any of the four. Could it be because she bolted, faster than I could raise. Some might try a shot like that in thick brush....I prefer to make sure..
lol.....

through out SL you have been going after people, not the least of whom was the OP. That is what and why people are responding to you as they are. i don't enjoy repeating things, but as I said "do as I say, not as I do" types.......

you have displayed a lack of morals/ethics through out this thread which is outrageously funny given your moral superiority. And for the most part I have tried pointing out that out politely many times. Despite opportunity myself to fire back. I might also remind you, your understanding of them, their nuances, the law and hunting......also a little off. What was it you said about people's intelligence???

if I'm going to attack someone making moral and ethic based arguements. I'm pretty sure I'm going to make sure I'm in solid ground. Attacking hunters for their morals and ethics is about as base as it comes....

lol so funny, it's sad.

and finally, yeah.
For someone who has no intention of harvesting grouse, but rather simply harass them, stress them...that by definition is cruelty, and unsportsman like. Not sure I'm prepared to judge for it. Millions of others would including non hunting animal lovers who wouldn't mind Someone limiting out ( they are ok with hunting for food) but not harassing animals for no reason.

irony


oh and about science
how about 200 years of people limiting out and the grouse are still numerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sidelock

How anyone with border line common sense can possibly read some of this crap and not question the intelligence and mental mind frame of some posters behind the key board is waaaaaaay beyond my comprehension.

---

My thoughts exactly.

geez,what's going on here..? it's an upland forum.

Sadly the same thing we see in
-Fishing forums: catch and release anglers going after guys who limit out.
-deer forums: people going after someone for
a) shooting at running deer
b) hunting over bait
c) shooting a doe with a fawn
d) shooting a fawn/yearling

Insulting people's intelligence, and more.

plus and this I think is a new level
-ripping a visitor/tourist who did absolutely nothing wrong.



"Hey welcome to Ontario, glad you and your friends had a great time."
yada, yada, yada. As an aside, I sometimes wonder if, due to the pressure these days, if the ministry should reduce the possession limit, say from 15 to 10.". Don't misunderstand me, there nothing wrong with keeping a limit, if the regs say we can, we can, to each their own.Just wonder sometimes with sooooooo many people hitting these areas, many with ATVs and old roads, yada, yada.

i came back to see some pictures of down birds... what happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by punkrockerpj

i came back to see some pictures of down birds... what happened?

---

No pictures yet, everyone's got their finger on the trigger, just waiting in anticipation for my comment or opinion on how demanding and challenging option (b) must be but I'm convince some brilliant intellectual will ask me if I ever baited a mouse trap with peanut butter in defence LOL.
Actually come to think of it option (b) has quite a lot in common with some of the posts here.

You don't get it do you?
More likely. Everyone is growing tired of your somewhat childish behavior. Many people have tried ,in various ways to point out
"you reap what you sow". Your like a child who when they are behaving poorly, escalates or points fingers at anything, and everything and everyone but himself. Not sure who you think you are, but in the real world..

And when your questionable conduct is put under the spotlight, whether that here in this thread ( Ting off without cause, insulting people's intelligence) or harassing game needlessly, you lash out insulting people's intelligence. As Dyth said "mewling". I don't think your going to get much sympathy. Do as I say, not as I do, indeed. Most grown ups are capable of taking responsibility, owning their stuff. I suspect given your still going apparently incapable or unwilling to understand "you reap what you sow" it could be a long time.

You are absolutely right, dry hunting or as you say needlessly harassing birds with a bird dog is much more thoughtless and cruel than baiting and luring a hungry animal with food and shooting it.
Counting paired up huns in a given acreage with bird dogs in spring out west prior to nesting to assist the DNR with data is harassment and so is running dogs in the woods in early summer to look for woodcock nests to band young chicks and study their migration. What do I know !
LAST POST on the subject for me ! you can carry on as you please, for someone that was staying clear of this one, you sure have a lot to say. good luck & happy hunting.
I'm outa here.

You can try to lead a horse to water.
/sigh

lots I might say (again about morels and ethics). Will simply say. I doubt anyone here cares if you "dry hunt". Some may not like the idea of tormenting birds (don't know, not pertinent) certainly many people in the oh so important middle, who are ok with hunting for food but not....

be be that as it may. Afaik there's nothing in the regs that says you can't.............
Just as the regs/laws allow hunting over bait, shooting Does/fawns or limiting out. It obviously made you squirm, you didn't like the insinuation the practise is unethical, given how you lashed out. Compare that to the treatment the OP got. Atleast no-one tore strips out of you for it, called you unethical, or insulted your intelligence.

[QUOTE=sidelock;995185] baiting and luring a hungry animal with food and shooting it. QUOTE]

That should actually read "opportunistic animal", not hungry animal.