The booklet you receive with your hunting license contains, among other things, a small game report card. In the report card is a box where hunters can estimate game abundance. The estimates run from 1 to 4, or low to very high.

The hunter estimates of game abundance are interesting but I wonder how accurate they are. For example, what if only the hunters who had good grouse, pheasant and rabbit seasons sent in their estimates. Wouldn’t the estimates but skewered and misleading, or at least inaccurate?

Keeping this possibility in mind, let’s look at some of the harvest estimates the Natural Resources Wildlife Division make up every year. Take pheasants, for example. In the 2010 season, Natural Resources estimates that the provincial harvest was just over 6,000 birds; in the 2011 season the estimated harvest was 3,100.

In Kings County, where much of the provincial harvest comes from, hunters bagged an estimated 2,888 pheasants in 2010; in the 2011 season the estimated harvest 1,209.

You don’t have to be a mathematician to see the estimated pheasant harvest in 2011 dropped over 50 percent in Kings County and nearly 50 percent across the province. I have to agree with this estimate, by the way. In all the coverts I’ve hunted for years, I found pheasant numbers well down in 2011 when compared with the 2010 season. Other hunters told me their season was like mine, so I have no doubt this is an accurate estimate of last season’s harvest.

So with this in mind, how did hunters rank the abundance of pheasants the last two seasons? Looking at Kings County, in 2010 the hunter estimate of abundance was 1.97, meaning hunters believed pheasant numbers were low to medium. In the 2011 season the estimate was 2.25 (!) up in other words over the previous season and getting close to being a high estimate of pheasant numbers. And this in a season when the Wildlife Division estimated there was a drastic drop of around 50 percent in the harvest!

Keeping in mind that 1equals low numbers, 2 equals medium numbers, 3 equals high numbers and 4 equals very high game numbers, let’s look at harvests of small game other than pheasants.

In the 2010 season the estimated provincial harvest of ruffed grouse was 25,954 birds; in 2011 there was an increase in harvest, an estimated 27,982 birds. Hunters ranked the abundance of grouse at 1.21 in 2010 and 1.40 in 2011.

On hares, the estimated 2010 harvest was 46,607, dropping to 37,364 in the 2011 season. The abundance estimate for these seasons was 1.08 and 1.07.

It looks like hunters were close to being right on their abundance estimates when it came to grouse and hares. On pheasants it was another story. There’s no way pheasants were abundant during the 2011 season despite what the hunter estimate was. The Wildlife Division’s harvest estimates indicate otherwise.

It could be that not enough hunters are returning their report cards to get an accurate assessment of harvests and game abundance. Or when it comes to pheasants, maybe only successful hunters send their cards in every year. There could be some embellishments going on as well. Some hunters don’t like to report they had a bad season.

But I’m being cynical here, aren’t I.

At the bottom of a cornfield, where the uplands merge with the dykes, a farmer clearing debris on his land had deposited a huge brush pile near a patch of bog grass.

From instinct or from past experience, my bird dog usually gravitates towards brushy, boggy areas when I hunt pheasants. This morning was no exception. Jake zeroed in on the brush as we approached it. I wasn’t totally surprised when he froze on point, his nose only inches from the tangle of brush.

I expected a pheasant to flush but instead Jake broke the point and crashed into the brush pile. There’s no other way to describe what he did – one moment he was rock solid, the next he was ripping and tearing in the jumble of alders and blackberry cane. Then I heard the flutter of bird wings. Seconds later Jake emerged from the brush carrying a live rooster pheasant.

By an unusual coincidence, this was the same brush pile the dog caught a crippled cock bird in last season. That brush pile rooster and the rooster he caught this season were both wing-tipped, probably by hunters who weren’t using dogs.

Last season my bird dog caught two pheasants other hunters had crippled. This year so far Jake caught three pheasants hunters had left in the field. In a typical pheasant season my bird dog usually picks up a couple of cripples. The dog has saved the day many a time for me as well, running down and retrieving birds our hunting party – myself included – had made sloppy shots on.

The point here is that bird dogs are great conservationists. Besides adding an element of satisfaction to the hunting of game birds – the satisfaction and enjoyment of seeing bird dogs at work in fields, woods and water – bird dogs, as an old friend used to say, are “good cleaner uppers.” Meaning they’re good at finding birds other hunters lost and good at finding birds we might’ve lost if we’d been hunting without a dog.

I’m really surprised, by the way, when I meet hunters who say they’re in the field a lot, are serious about waterfowl and upland hunting, and they don’t have a bird dog. I realise keeping a bird dog is time consuming and can restrict everyday activities. Bird dogs need a lot of care and attention and some hunters find it’s too much responsibility to take on. Yet how can anyone who doesn’t keep a bird dog claim they’re serious, conscientious hunters?

After keeping and hunting bird dogs for over 50 years, I can’t imagine ever going afield without one. They add so much joy to the hunt and the benefits are endless. I’ve had goods bird dogs and so-so bird dogs, but you know what? Even the dogs I’ve had that were run-of-the-mill were a thousands times better than no dog at all.

To that I say “Amen.”

“There was quite a ruckus here Saturday,” the farmer said. “Hunters with dogs came into my pasture from two different directions and stampeded the cattle. The cattle ran into my fences and tore them down. It took a long time to round them up.”

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. First of all, to get anywhere near the farmer’s cattle pasture, hunters had to cross dykeland and through alder stands well posted with no hunting signs. Secondly, hunters are aware dogs and cattle are a bad mix and are best kept apart. Either dogs panic cattle into running into fences or cattle charge en masse at the dogs, often with damage to fences and to the cattle.

So how could this happen? Actually, I should ask why it happened, why some hunters ignore game laws, why they fail to respect landowner rights, and why they never think of the repercussions other hunters eventually face due to their careless actions.

I have one answer to all these “whys.” Some hunters – and especially some pheasant hunters – have the attitude that game laws were written for someone other than them and they have the right to go on anyone’s field, dyke or pasture to hunt.

It was pheasant hunters who stampeded the farmer’s cattle and fortunately there were no injuries. The majority of farmer-hunter problems that arise are caused by pheasant hunters, by the way. Ever hear of farmers having problems with rabbit, grouse, duck and deer hunters? Rarely ever. Ask any landowner why his land is posted, why he firmly says “no” when you ask for permission to hunt, and you’ll discover 99 percent of the time he’s had problems with pheasant hunters.

The majority of pheasant hunters, in fact the majority of small and big game hunters are responsible people. They respect the rights of the landowner, observe game regulations, and are considerate of fellow hunters.

But not that tiny minority, the proverbial bad apple in the proverbial barrel. Their thoughtless action, such as the recent incident with the farmer’s cattle, tars all hunters with the same brush.

It was an unfortunate incident but similar things have occurred before where pheasants are hunted. What group of hunters do you think is most responsible for legislation re hunting on cultivated land, asking for permission to hunt, for the shorter upland season in the Valley and so on. Right on if you guessed pheasant hunters.

“There was quite a ruckus here Saturday,” the farmer said. “Hunters with dogs came into my pasture from two different directions and stampeded the cattle. The cattle ran into my fences and tore them down. It took a long time to round them up.”

I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. First of all, to get anywhere near the farmer’s cattle pasture, hunters had to cross dykeland and through alder stands well posted with no hunting signs. Secondly, hunters are aware dogs and cattle are a bad mix and are best kept apart. Either dogs panic cattle into running into fences or cattle charge en masse at the dogs, often with damage to fences and to the cattle.

So how could this happen? Actually, I should ask why it happened, why some hunters ignore game laws, why they fail to respect landowner rights, and why they never think of the repercussions other hunters eventually face due to their careless actions.

I have one answer to all these “whys.” Some hunters – and especially some pheasant hunters – have the attitude that game laws were written for someone other than them and they have the right to go on anyone’s field, dyke or pasture to hunt.

It was pheasant hunters who stampeded the farmer’s cattle and fortunately there were no injuries. The majority of farmer-hunter problems that arise are caused by pheasant hunters, by the way. Ever hear of farmers having problems with rabbit, grouse, duck and deer hunters? Rarely ever. Ask any landowner why his land is posted, why he firmly says “no” when you ask for permission to hunt, and you’ll discover 99 percent of the time he’s had problems with pheasant hunters.

The majority of pheasant hunters, in fact the majority of small and big game hunters are responsible people. They respect the rights of the landowner, observe game regulations, and are considerate of fellow hunters.

But not that tiny minority, the proverbial bad apple in the proverbial barrel. Their thoughtless action, such as the recent incident with the farmer’s cattle, tars all hunters with the same brush.

It was an unfortunate incident but similar things have occurred before where pheasants are hunted. What group of hunters do you think is most responsible for legislation re hunting on cultivated land, asking for permission to hunt, for the shorter upland season in the Valley and so on. Right on if you guessed pheasant hunters.

“Is this a true story or are you kidding me?” I asked my friend and he just sat there grinning. He liked to string me along and I wondered if this was one of those times. His story about a stray that turned out to be a bird dog with a handicap sounded like blarney to me.

Over coffee at a local donut shop the friend mentioned a boyhood hunting companion whose family took in a stray dog. “It was a big red, handsome male setter that apparently no one wanted. No one came looking for it after they adopted it so it became their dog.”

Anyway, long story short, the stray soon got the opportunity to go duck hunting. “Buddy took it out one afternoon after school,” the friend said. “When I saw him the next day he told me he shot a duck the dog had jumped out of the bulrushes.

“He didn’t say any more about the hunt. One duck only. He said his dog, he’d named him Ranger by this time, worked okay.”

As fall progressed, Ranger became Buddy’s steady hunting companion. Buddy took him out from time to time, usually after school. “But always just him and the dog,” the friend said. “After a while we began to notice something unusual. He never came back with more than one duck.

“This was so darn noticeable Buddy’s friends dubbed Ranger the ‘one duck dog.’ There was a lot of teasing going on about Ranger and Buddy’s shooting. You know how kids can be. ‘Did you get your one duck today?’ ‘How did the old one duck dog do?’ ‘Can’t afford more than one shell, Buddy?’ That sort of thing was ongoing.”

The friend’s tale about Ranger the one duck dog reminded me a mongrel someone gave us when we were kids. Jock was supposed to have rabbit blood in him so we took him into the woods every day after the season opened. It took a while but eventually he started to hunt. Turns out he was a whizzer. Fast afoot, quick to start rabbits, a good nose on really cold days, a high pitched, squeaky voice you could hear even when it was windy.

Then came the day someone fired at a rabbit when Jock was close behind it. A number six pellet struck Jock in the rib cage, barely penetrating the skin and we plucked it out. Another shot went through the muscle of a foreleg.

Jock was never the same after that. We would take him out and he’d start a rabbit. But one rabbit was all you could shoot over him after he was stung with the pellets. Fire one shot and the hunt was over. Jock would slink back to our vehicle and hide under it. Being shot had made him gun shy.

This occurs even with the very best of hunting dogs, by the way, and it’s the saddest thing that can happen to a four-legged hunting companion. I figured it might have been the same with Ranger, the one duck dog. It must have been gun shy; someone probably gave up on him and let him run loose, hoping he would find a home somewhere. As I said, no one came looking Ranger anyway.

When I asked my friend if Buddy ever hunted without Ranger, or if he was ever seen going home without him, he gave me a puzzled look. “How’d you guess that?” he said. “We thought it was odd Buddy was seen heading out with Ranger and Buddy would be alone coming back. We even kidded him about that. ‘Ranger stayed out to get a duck on his own, ey?’ we’d tease.”

Buddy’s family gave Ranger a home until he got old, the friend said. And Buddy kept on hunting him even after he left home and got another bird dog. But until the day he had to be put under, Ranger was never good for any more than one duck a day. The friend said Buddy eventually outlived the one duck nickname but he never admitted Ranger was gun shy.

I’d bet most of the summary of regulations booklets handed out when you purchase a hunting license end up gathering dust somewhere and rarely are looked at by hunters. Well maybe one or two of the report forms are utilised and season dates are checked, but that’s about it I’d say.

However, utilised or not, unread and ignored or not, the booklets are issued season after season without fail. The Department of Natural Resources apparently feels obligated to issue the booklets so hunters and trappers know when they can do their thing. The advertisements and notices may change, but for the most part the content of the booklet remain the same year after year. In other words, it’s dull reading and wasted printing on the government’s part. Except for season dates, bag limits and any occasional regulation changes, which are the necessary things we need to know, the remainder of the booklet is of little use to the majority of hunters and trappers.

One exception may be the page listing sunrise and sunset times. This is an important, useful guide. Take note, however, that the times given are for Halifax, Yarmouth and Sydney. If you hunt in the Annapolis Valley you’re left on your own (by “rough reckoning” maybe) to determine legal shooting times. But then, maybe the government figures no one hunts much between Halifax and Yarmouth.

I mentioned “dull reading.” How about confusing reading? Take a look at the descriptions of the various deer management zones and tell me a lawyer didn’t write them. Or tried to write them. After I read them and in my mind took all those “southerly” and “westerly” turns along this or that river, boundary edge or power line I was lost. Once when I tried to follow the directions I wound up beside an old outhouse on a back road.

But confusing as they are, someone did an admirable job of describing the boundaries of the management zones. I wouldn’t want to try it.

Anyway, as mentioned, the booklet is a summary and a summary only, of the regulations. A note in the booklet advises us to seek out the original Wildlife Act if we require further clarification of the regulations. As if anyone would but backwoods lawyers.

For a while now, by the way, someone has attempted to be politically correct (if that’s the correct term) when posting the bag limit and seasons on pheasants in the booklet. No more do we hunt cock pheasants in the uplands. However, there’s a season and a bag limit on “male pheasants.” Following this line, I assume we’re still not supposed to bag female pheasants.

And what happened to buck deer? Oh, they’re antlered deer now. There must have been something lewdly suggestive about the word “buck” that I missed. Otherwise, why drop it.

At least they haven’t started referring to deer as male and female. But give them time. They may yet.

The geographical setting of Nova Scotia has important effects on its birdlife, Robie Tufts writes in his book, Birds of Nova Scotia. “The province is well situated to receive transient and vagrant birds from other parts of North America,” Tufts says, “offering a last landfall for birds coming from the west and a first landfall for birds migrating or displaced over the sea.”

Tufts calls these displaced birds “storm-driven vagrants” and “stragglers,” summing up what birders and other people interested in wildlife have often observed: That from time to time some really unusual bird species wind up in Nova Scotia thanks to storms and such, birds that often are driven hundreds, even thousands of kilometres from usual haunts.

Such may be the case with a “mystery goose” first observed on a local marsh two years ago. I first heard about the bird when a friend said there was “an unusual looking goose or duck hanging around the river.” I spotted the bird shortly after and from the distance it appeared to be some sort of goose. Later I saw it close up, after it left the river and settled into a pond on a nearby marsh.

Now, finding a stray bird on a local marsh is probably no big deal, except that in this case the goose may an unusual distance from it home grounds. At first it appeared to me the bird was a White-fronted Goose. Another observed declared it was “farm goose,” a bird someone decided they didn’t want and had dropped it off in the marsh.

Meanwhile the goose took up with a flock of Canada Geese and it seemed it could fly, which would eliminate it being a farm bird since most domestic ducks and geese are incapable of flight. The bird spent the summer with the Canadas and along with them, disappeared once the marsh froze over.

I was convinced it was a White-fronted Goose, which would make it a rarity here. Robie Tufts says this goose breeds on the west coast of Greenland, wintering in the British Isles, and is rarely found here.

As mentioned, the unusual goose left the marsh after freeze-up. It turns out the bird wintered alone on the river below the marsh, later joining a pair of nesting Canada Geese in the spring. Bob Devine owns the area on the river where the goose passed the winter. He took photographs of the unusual visitor and believes it could be a Snow Goose, a color phase known as Blue Goose; if it’s a wild bird, that is. Again referring to Tufts, he notes the Snow Goose breeds in Siberia, across arctic Canada and in Greenland.

Whatever it is, White-fronted Goose, Snow Goose or Blue Goose, or possibly a farm bird that can fly short distances, this unusual bird has taken up with a family of Canada Geese. This spring Bob Devine shot several photographs of the bird mingling with a brood of Canadas. If it is a farm bird, it has somehow survived for two winters in the wilds.

About eight or so years back a friend’s very determined Beagle, which was in estrus, escaped confinement, somehow scaled a fence and visited his German Wirehaired Pointer. A brief romantic interlude followed and nature being that way, some puppies eventually saw light of day.

The pups were Beagle-sized, but in coat and color all looked like their sire. After the friend had the tails of the puppies docked – “just to see what they’d look like,” he said – he had himself what appeared to be miniature Wirehairs.

More as a joke than anything, I dubbed the pups German Wirehaired Beagles. A new dog breed arrived I announced, tongue in cheek, in one of my outdoor columns. A few months later someone asked me where they could buy one of the Wirehaired Beagles, as if it was a real breed.

Now, scroll back to about 20 years ago. An acquaintance who lives down the Valley in Kingston informed me proudly about arrival of a new dog at his house. “What breed?” I asked. “A Valley Bulldog,” he replied. “Never heard of it,” I said. “I don’t think there is such a thing.”

The acquaintance was adamant that there was. “There certainly is,” he said, a bit miffed I doubted his word. “They originated here in the Valley.”

I thought about the friend’s “Valley Bulldog” when people took me serious about the German Wirehaired Beagle being a legitimate breed. Were some people convinced there’s actually a breed called the Valley Bulldog? Or like me with the Beagle/Wirehair pups, was someone breeding Bulldogs, English or whatever, and tongue in cheek, adding the “Valley” appellation to their dogs?

I figured this was the case and I didn’t bother checking it out. But recently I heard about Valley Bulldogs again. A neighbour showed me his dog last summer, a magnificent animal I assumed was an English Bulldog. This spring a mutual friend told me my neighbour was buying another dog like the one he had – “another Valley Bulldog,” he said.

“Valley Bulldog, Valley bullpuckey,” I thought to myself. “It’s a bulldog bred here and someone added “Valley” to the name to distinguish where it comes from.”

Still believing there was no such dog breed but now beginning to wonder, I googled Valley Bulldog and surprise, surprise! Wikipedia has quite a write-up on the Valley Bulldog, giving their origin as here in the Annapolis Valley. Not only that, the breed is recognised by the International Olde English Bulldog Association (IOEBA). On their website, which notes that the IOEBA is the registry for alternate bulldogs and rare breeds, there’s a lengthy write-up on the Valley Bulldog.

Apparently the breed originated here in the Valley, says the IOEBA, and it roots can be traced back to the 1950s and possibly earlier. According to the IOEBA the breed derives from a cross between the English Bulldog and the Boxer. This organisation is based in Missouri. A similar U.S. organisation, the United Canine Association, also recognises the Valley Bulldog as an established breed and like the IOEBA, publishes rigid breed standards on its website.

So, bottom line, does recognition by a couple of canine groups in the U.S. mean the Valley Bulldog is a legitimate breed? Not knowing, I turned to the Canadian Kennel Club, the association that has the final word on dog breeds, and asked a simple question: Does the CKC recognise a dog breed known as the Valley Bulldog?

The answer: “No, the CKC does not recognise a breed of dog known as the Valley Bulldog.”

This doesn’t mean the Valley Bulldog isn’t legitimate, of course. The CKC occasionally recognises and accepts new breeds and this may happen in the future with the Valley Bulldog. Apparently the Valley Bulldog is breeding true after generations of crossings. Looking at the countless photographs published on various websites, there’s a wide variation in Valley Bulldog color phases, which might suggest otherwise; but that’s typical of many dog breeds.

Anyway, in future I have to be careful about even hinting that the Valley Bulldog is, well, a mongrel breed. Really careful. The Valley Bulldog is described as gentle in temperament, but I wouldn’t want to rouse up some of their proud owners.

A few days ago, when I was sweltering in a heat wave, Cabela’s 2012 waterfowl catalogue was delivered by the postman, followed a few days later by Cabela Canada’s general hunting catalogue.

Then while I was still sweltering in the heat wave, a friend dropped by to update me on the progress of his Labrador Retriever puppy. He’d just had the pup out on the marsh, putting up this year’s crop of pheasants, and he was excited about how well it was coming along.

And down on a local marsh, where I’ve been walking early every morning, the mallard broods I’ve been watching since they were ducklings have matured.

Then a noticed arrived through the mail, advising me that Waterfowl Heritage Day is September 15 this year and the farmland restriction has been removed for the special September 4 to September 18 goose season.

I’d guess from all these hints and signs we can start thinking seriously about the waterfowl season. It may seem a bit early, but why not start counting down the days now. I know I am.

Anyway, most of us senior hunters like to get ready for waterfowling earlier than the rest of you anyway. Some of us are long in the tooth and gray under the camou cap so it takes a bit more to get us started motoring than it used to. All those years wandering the marshlands were bound to catch up to us eventually and slow down the getting ready process.

This reminds me that as senior hunters slow down and think about taking it easy – read retire – there are fewer young hunters coming along to take their place. That’s what they’re telling me anyway. They say the stats prove hunter numbers are declining and from experience I’d have to agree.

Take woodcock hunting as one example. Hardly anyone around here hunts woodcock anymore, but at one time it was a much sought after, prized game bird. Hunters here kept bird dogs that specialised in woodcock (and grouse) hunting. I’m thinking of dogs like the English Setter, a breed I haven’t seen in the game bird coverts for decades. Most of the younger hunters I meet have Labrador Retrievers, if they have a dog at all, and wouldn’t waste time hunting them on anything smaller than a mallard or goose.

The same goes for snipe hunting. This precious little game bird, with its erratic flight pattern, was much sought after by previous generations of hunters. Today few if any shotgunners seek out the snipe and woodcock coverts, a sign not so much of changing hunting preferences but of an aging hunting population and fewer hunters.

At the Federation of Anglers and Hunters annual convention, which usually is held towards spring, the various affiliated wildlife associations and clubs present resolutions re changes they’d like to see in fishing and hunting regulations.

To give a few examples, the Queens County fish and Game Association presented a resolution at the last convention asking that the bag limit on black bear, for hunting and snaring, be increased by one bear in the 2012 season. The Kings County Wildlife Association, citing evolving agricultural conditions, presented a resolution asking that the pheasant season in Valley counties is changed so it is the same as the remainder of the province. The Valley season runs November 1 to December 15, while in the rest of the province the season opens October 1.

Some of the resolutions presented at the annual meeting are interesting since they reflect changing wildlife conditions and suggest a general change in the attitude anglers and hunters have towards their sport and the environment. The resolutions are voted on by the general membership and are either passed or voted down. But even when resolutions are passed, this doesn’t mean we will see any of the changes requested by the proposals. Generally speaking, the resolutions are changes the clubs and associations would like to see implemented; whether they will come about is another question.

That being said, here are a few other resolutions brought up at the general meeting. One that I see as sensible was presented by the South Shore Wildlife Association regarding the flimsy and awkward paper hunting license we are issued every year. The resolution asked that the paper license be replaced with a plastic card the size of a credit card with stickers being used for big game, small game and so on.

The Big Game Society presented a resolution that hopefully might slow down an ongoing decline in hunter numbers. The Society suggested the province look at offering free licenses to qualified hunters in the 12 to 17 age group.

The Cape Breton Wildlife Association presented a resolution I’m sure most waterfowlers will agree with. This resolution requested a two week delay in the waterfowl season and the two weeks added to the end of the season. If it was ever implemented, this would eliminate that period of the season when the weather is generally summer-like and not all that great for waterfowl hunting.

I should point out again that the resolutions mentioned here are just that, resolutions only. Think of them as a wish list, things wildlife groups in general would like to see changed. Consideration may be given them by the government but that could be as far as they will go. Once in a while some of the changes requested by wildlife groups actually are implemented, but don’t keep your fingers crossed.

For example, the resolution asking that the waterfowl season be delayed to start two weeks later and end two weeks later has been brought up before without success. The resolution by the Kings County Wildlife Association on the pheasant season won’t go anywhere either since such a change will generally be opposed by anyone working in agriculture.