I have been known to shoot at inedible clay pigeons (as practice with my hunting shotguns for a coming bird season, typically, but, sometimes just for the hell of it) and would understand people who chose to only shoot at clay pigeons. Hey, no problem, that is your perogative, whatever. John Mann told me toward the end of his life, if it wasn't for clay pigeons, he wouldn't have a reason to own a gun. Cool.
What I don't understand, is how someone who is clearly a non, if not, anti-hunter, coming out with a completely baseless and unscientific notion (grouse numbers will improve if people quit hunting them) and tossing that in the face of hunters on a double gun board.
I understand coming to your own opinions as you get older. But, opinions should have some basis in fact.
The notion that hunters are hunting ruffed grouse into extinction, is not based in reality, and has been disproven, far more than once.
Best,
Ted
