Vermilion Bay area grouse hunt

[sidelock]

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.

[Dythbringer]

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.

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

[Species8472]

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.

[Species8472]

Dyth,

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

[sidelock]

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.

[sidelock]

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.

[GW11]

[QUOTE=sawbill;994997]

(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.

[sidelock]

[QUOTE=GW11;995058]

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

[GW11]

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.

[sidelock]

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.