EBR Proposal 012-8104;8105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

Lmao , I'd love to see you tell that to all the trappers that are losing an integral part of their trap line management

---

How many trappers base their trapping on wolf and coyote only?

Are they restricting the trapping of other things as well?

It looks to me based on the maps that by far the majority of the land to be protected is already provincial parks and outside of that we are looking at a block that is approx 30km x 30km and some border lands, so outside of provincial parks 1000 sq kms or so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

The crash in the deer population in the area around the park was a direct result of two things - the decision by the MNR to stop controlling wolf pops in the park in 1959 and a few hard winters in the 1960's. Prior to that there were no (or at least very few) wolves outside the park. It took about 25 years - until the mid 1980's - for the deer to recover, but they have never reached the levels they were at in the 1940's and 1950's. Our camp is in the crown land along 58 between Round lake and Pembroke - the "new" camp was built in 1953.

---

I always thought that that had something to do with the maturation of the forests in Algonquin. Makes some sense as older growth does tend to support fewer game, like deer and grouse. Young trees and areas burned out after a forest fire explode with game several years after. The Algonquin forests were largely cleared in the late 1800s and early 1900s if I am correct so it would make sense the that following decades would have supported smaller to mid-size game like deer, grouse, rabbit, etc... I just wonder how much of this (population increases/decline of ungulate and other small game) is actually driven by humans (logging, etc) and natural changes in the ecosystem (forest fires, maturing forests). Are predators the drivers? Not as convinced as some of you but I am sure they contribute to some of the population declines especially when their numbers are up and prey is in decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splaker

I always thought that that had something to do with the maturation of the forests in Algonquin. Makes some sense as older growth does tend to support fewer game, like deer and grouse. Young trees and areas burned out after a forest fire explode with game several years after. The Algonquin forests were largely cleared in the late 1800s and early 1900s if I am correct so it would make sense the that following decades would have supported smaller to mid-size game like deer, grouse, rabbit, etc... I just wonder how much of this (population increases/decline of ungulate and other small game) is actually driven by humans (logging, etc) and natural changes in the ecosystem (forest fires, maturing forests). Are predators the drivers? Not as convinced as some of you but I am sure they contribute to some of the population declines especially when their numbers are up and prey is in decline.

---

You are aware that Algonquin had been heavily logged up until 15 years ago or so. I think there is still some logging going on in the park - so the "Maturation of the forests in Algonquin" is a bit of a head scratcher.

http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/gener...nomy-products/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So what you are saying is that the predators followed the prey, no matter what caused the prey to reduce.

When I started hunting in Eastern Ontario the deer numbers were not bad but not great, you would always see a couple in a week of hunting but never a lot, the wolf population was also not very high. The deer population exploded, we had a number of mild winters (you know the winters where you do not bother taking the sled out) and the wolf population followed suit, they increased in numbers as the deer numbers increased, generally about a year or two behind the deer population increase. With the drop in the deer population the wolves remained high for a year or two and then started to decline as well, less food and less deer. Why does everyone always blame the government for everything? The wolf is a natural element to the wilderness and there have always been smaller wolves in Eastern Ontario that were not coyotes but not the same as the Timber wolves you would find in Northern Ontario, many people called them brush wolves. Do you think it is that crazy to think that there is actually a different wolf in Ontario? To me it is crazy to write it all off as just another government conspiracy. Nothing in the proposal says that you will not be able to protect your family and or your livestock, if a wolf comes into your barnyard or a coyote and goes after your livestock then have at it but wolves and deer have lived in that area for a lot longer than white hunters have been there and the deer survived just fine.

---

This is true - it is well documented that wolves in the eastern U.S. (Appalachia) were always smaller. Wolves tend to be bigger in colder climates. In Europe, this is/was the case too.. The Arabian wolf (still a grey wolf!) is smaller, skinnier than the wolves of central, eastern northern Europe. And the Etheopian wolf (still considered a subspecies of the grey) is even smaller and thinner than the Arabian. So the animals do tend to change in size. The biggest wolves in N. America are in the NW - Alberta, NWT, Yukon, Alaska... they make N. Ontario wolves look like pups as they can grow as large as 175lbs (this being the exception). The point is, it is entirely possible than a smaller sub-species of grey wolves (what they term "Algonquin" or "eastern wolf") exists in this part of the wold.

COSEWIC gave the following rationale for the “Special Concern” designation of theeastern wolf: ‘This wolf may be a separate species. Its exact range is not known, partlybecause it hybridized both with gray wolves and coyotes. Although there is no evidenceof decline in either numbers or geographic range over the last 20 years, it may bethreatened by hybridization with coyotes, which may be exacerbated by habitat changesand high levels of harvesting. In addition, it is difficult to identify this taxon without amolecular analysis.






Here is a snippet from the early 2000's when the wolf harvest ban was enacted , notice how it mentioned coyotes , and the potentional of genetic swamping , Mikepal I'm thinking this is what JBen was tiring to point out .

This whole deal was started by the Theberge's and their "doctored " data and has lead to imho mismanagement of our resources !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

You are aware that Algonquin had been heavily logged up until 15 years ago or so. I think there is still some logging going on in the park - so the "Maturation of the forests in Algonquin" is a bit of a head scratcher.

http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/gener...nomy-products/

---

Yes, I am aware of the current logging. But was it to the extent of the 1800s? I believe it is much more control today. They used to clear cut huge swaths of forest... Also, forest fires in south-central ontario are virtually unheard of today due to much better prevention/detection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splaker

This is true - it is well documented that wolves in the eastern U.S. (Appalachia) were always smaller. Wolves tend to be bigger in colder climates. In Europe, this is/was the case too.. The Arabian wolf (still a grey wolf!) is smaller, skinnier than the wolves of central, eastern northern Europe. And the Etheopian wolf (still considered a subspecies of the grey) is even smaller and thinner than the Arabian. So the animals do tend to change in size. The biggest wolves in N. America are in the NW - Alberta, NWT, Yukon, Alaska... they make N. Ontario wolves look like pups as they can grow as large as 175lbs (this being the exception). The point is, it is entirely possible than a smaller sub-species of grey wolves (what they term "Algonquin" or "eastern wolf") exists in this part of the wold.

---

Except that we have evidence (photos etc) of the original big Algonquin wolves that existed up until the 1960's or so. Some researchers even differentiate between the pre-60's and post-60's wolves. We're not talking about ancient history here - the existence of the pre-coyote Algonquin wolf is fairly well documented - and that wolf is not the wolves we have to day - which are almost indistinguishable from a coyote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

COSEWIC gave the following rationale for the “Special Concern” designation of theeastern wolf: ‘This wolf may be a separate species. Its exact range is not known, partlybecause it hybridized both with gray wolves and coyotes. Although there is no evidenceof decline in either numbers or geographic range over the last 20 years, it may bethreatened by hybridization with coyotes, which may be exacerbated by habitat changesand high levels of harvesting. In addition, it is difficult to identify this taxon without amolecular analysis.






Here is a snippet from the early 2000's when the wolf harvest ban was enacted , notice how it mentioned coyotes , and the potentional of genetic swamping , Mikepal I'm thinking this is what JBen was tiring to point out .

This whole deal was started by the Theberge's and their "doctored " data and has lead to imho mismanagement of our resources !

---

The Theberge's were complete frauds doctoring their study results for personal gain. Any study with their or Pimlott's name on it isn't worth the paper its written on.

Great response Trapper. And yes insn'tt the timing of the renaming highly suspect ....scuzze me. Interesting

you know what they say. Often what isn't said (or is suspiciously absent) is more important than what is said or present.

Aka ripple effects, on sooo many things. From Beavers and their importance, to pine Marten, rabbits, grouse (a critical food source for other endangered/threatened/protected) species.

ad nauseous. Sorry ad naseum

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

How many trappers base their trapping on wolf and coyote only?

Are they restricting the trapping of other things as well?

It looks to me based on the maps that by far the majority of the land to be protected is already provincial parks and outside of that we are looking at a block that is approx 30km x 30km and some border lands, so outside of provincial parks 1000 sq kms or so?

---

The harvest of wolves on registered trap lines is very important as a overall management tool for the health and stable management of the line