Absence Of Grouse

One of the privileges of growing old here is that the province exempts us old coots from getting hunting licences for grouse. We have to follow all the other rules and carry ID showing age. Today, at sunrise, I went out to greet the grouse. Despite walking the edges of a large meadow amidst mosquitoes and heavy dew, I saw no grouse…

Wind was calm. Temperature was ~12C. I wore sweat pants and a sweater. I carried a trusty old Remington 1100 and a pouch with a shoulder strap. Eventually, I fired a few shots to test my ammunition which I had not used for hunting previously. It worked well, cycled the action nicely, fed reliably, patterned well… I also saw a red squirrel, a few songbirds, some mint and roses. No joy, just fresh air and exercise.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in firearms, food, hunting and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Absence Of Grouse

  1. oiaohm wrote, “never say all terrorist are Muslims because the numbers don’t exist to back that point.”

    That’s for sure. Just look at the long list of tyrants. Many of them maintain “support” by terrorizing their populations. Barrel bombs are one of Assad’s favourite tools. Such devices frighten even the most stout hearts of experienced soldiers. There’s no defence a guy walking around on the ground has against such weapons of mass destruction. Further, he liked to scoop people up and torture them to death just to keep his fingers on the pulse of the nation. Such tyrants may not make the news regularly but they kill far more than the other murdering bastards because they use the power of whole states to do their bidding over populations of millions whereas the other murdering bastards are just a few thousand.

  2. oiaohm says:

    dougman
    But on the obverse of point #1, it can be agreed that all terrorist are Muslims.
    I have give you link on the stats of terrorist before.
    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/08/77-of-terror-plots-are-motivated-by-islamic-jihad-doctrine
    Even sites that objective to be bias against Muslims never say all terrorist are Muslims because the numbers don’t exist to back that point.

    20 percent neo-nazi in that study remember that is a Christian group. You could claim that over 99 percent of all terrorism is linked to a faith forked from early Judaism and the remaining 1 percent are other faiths and nut cases. Forked from early Judaism covers Christian, Muslims and current day Jewish terrorist groups.

    There is no study on terrorism that comes up 100 percent Muslim. The closest was one study on suicide bombing got close at 99.5 percent but never 100 percent.

    Claiming that people claiming to be Muslims are over represented in terrorist actions would have some grounds. Really its about time you started to attempt to get studies to based your ideas on.

    dougman all the police forces around the world universally say that not all terrorist are from the same faith groups. Lets say you do focus in and control one groups terrorist actions and leave the other groups to their own devices the volume of terrorism world wide might not change one bit.

  3. oiaohm says:

    dougman restricted concealed weapon carry does in fact reduce numbers of police killing people by mistake.

    All it takes is some Muslim and an illegal gun to skew the numbers your quoted doesn’t it?
    The answer is in fact not always nothing is that simple. There are a few examples in Australia where a Muslim with a gun has not been that effective at all compare to other prior cases here. Turns out as Port Arthur showed in compare is that weapon effectiveness requires somewhere to train with it before hand. Please note the Port Arthur person was a nut case Christian not Muslim but had spent over 2 years training in use of weapon.

    So this brings up a very interesting point. Firearm in a nuts person hands without training is no where near the same level of hazard as a firearm in a nuts person hands with training. So to change the gun death rate you need a trained person.

    So your line to be correct dougman
    All it takes is some Muslim/(some form of nut case may not be Muslim), with firearm training, with intention to do mass killing and an illegal or legal gun to skew the numbers your quoted doesn’t it?
    Without those conditions I added its going to be nothing more than minor blip that may be hidden by the other rates slowing down due to increased weapon usage care after the event so not even alter the numbers. So you are looking for 3 factors
    1) person with firmarm training.
    2) Gun with decent clip/fire rate.
    3) Intent to do mass killing.
    If you can prevent any one of those 3 from being in one location the numbers killed will be kept to a min.

    The reality is a nuts person driving a heavy truck into a crowd has a higher kill rate than a nuts untrained with a firearm.

    Take the Dallas case in the USA with the non Muslim mil officer going after police that kill rate was limited to 5 because he targeted police if he had lets say targeted anyone with white skin scary high death rate would have happened. The Port Arthur was a nut case with a firearm training and a firearm (legal at the time) with a kill objective of anyone who crossed his path.

    http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/unarmed/
    The big issue with allowing concealed weapon carry items like pistols where ever it creates excuse that when someone is going for a wallet or some other harmless item for police over react and shot. Number of unarmed people shot by police in countries does directly align to concealed carry laws.

    Canada does not only have lower firearm deaths also has lower shooting of unarmed and that does link to not being allowed to carry pistols where ever.

    Canada restrictions on pistols don’t prevent owning them or having own personal target range on property.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
    Fun part is like above when anyone bothers fact checking most of the claims for pro-gun and most of them turn out to be bogus.

    dougman you might call it lame not to be allowed to hunt with pistol. Lets bring in some facts here. There are a few issues to hunting with pistol particularly in rough terrain.
    1) Rifle/shotgun has more uses than just being a gun long straight can be used as a splint or a walking stick if required.
    2) Pistol you are more likely to shot self than Rifle/shotgun due to tripping/slipping.

    So a lot of private hunting around the world even countries that don’t forbid pistol hunting will not allow pistol hunting on their property. Its stupid I know that some of the private hunting will allow bow and arrow and crossbow yet not pistol. Its all about safety of their guests have a recorded death does not do their business any good.

    I would say dougman do reconsider not being allowed to use a pistol for hunting is lame or not. Please remember most of the Canada hunting preserves are quite a distance to medical. So shooting self by mistakes in a Canada preserve might be the last thing you do so using a longer weapon that reduces the risk of that can be quite a good thing. If you should or should not be allowed to use a pistol for hunting does partly link to how far away from medical assistance you are due to increased risk of shooting self.

    Really not using pistols for hunting in Canada really should fall under common sense but due to human stupidity some of this stuff has to be written into law.

  4. dougman says:

    Items #1 & #2, are the best thing I have heard this week.

    But on the obverse of point #1, it can be agreed that all terrorist are Muslims.

  5. dougman wrote, “All it takes is some Muslim and an illegal gun to skew the numbers your quoted doesn’t it?”

    1. Muslims generally are not killers.
    2. Firearms don’t kill people. People kill people.
    3. Canadians own millions of firearms. A lack of them is not a problem in regards to defence against killers.
  6. dougman says:

    “I know many USAians who have moved to Canada for greater freedom in fact.”

    If Trump wins, expect a boat-load more.

    “RTKBA is just a tiny fraction of freedom.”

    Rather shallow of you to day, since as a Canadian, you have never experienced that right. All it takes is some Muslim and an illegal gun to skew the numbers your quoted doesn’t it?

  7. dougman wrote, “Canada is certainly NOT a free country”.

    Life is kind of essential to freedom.

    • USA – 10.54 firearms-related deaths per 100K per annum
    • Canada – 1.97 firearms-related deaths per 100K per annum

    I really don’t feel any need to have/use a pistol in Canada. If I needed a firearm for some good reason I can use a rifle/shotgun for the purpose. Canada has long had strong restrictions on pistols since the assassination of a prominent politician back in the 19th century. I don’t think that reflects much on our freedom. Right to carry is a very small advantage to living in USA if anything and it certainly has not been enough for me to make the move although I could have for physics/education/investment/business for decades. I know a few Canadians who have moved to USA. I don’t think any of them are into firearms. I know many USAians who have moved to Canada for greater freedom in fact. RTKBA is just a tiny fraction of freedom.

  8. dougman says:

    “hunting with a pistol is not allowed anywhere in Canada.”

    LAME

    “People are not allowed to use a restricted (like pistols) firearm anywhere but home/registered location and specific locations.”

    Canada is certainly NOT a free country, if they can limit where one uses a tool. Imagine the travesty, if you could not utilize your walking-tractor in your own backyard, but only in authorized locales.

  9. dougman wrote, “Hunting grouse with a shotgun? I used my 9mm with shot shells quite effectively when I was in Idaho. Good eating bird.”

    Up north, that technique could have worked. Where I hunt, hunting pressure is very high so birds are more aloof. Besides, hunting with a pistol is not allowed anywhere in Canada. People are not allowed to use a restricted (like pistols) firearm anywhere but home/registered location and specific locations. Indeed, transportation between home and the specific locations is tightly regulated. One cannot make any detours/stops off the most direct route. I suppose a registered gun club or approved location might introduce grouse hunting but I don’t know of any.

  10. dougman says:

    Hunting grouse with a shotgun? I used my 9mm with shot shells quite effectively when I was in Idaho. Good eating bird.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *