EBR Proposal 012-8104;8105

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.

---

This is what I am getting at. My mom grew up near Kapuskasing and they had sheep, one day my grandpa shot a wolf that was killing the sheep, they never found the thing until months later and my uncle still has the rib. In a straight line from top to bottom on the rib measures 22in, that is one massive wolf. This same grandpa grew up just outside of what is now Algonquin park, he drove the trucks out of the park when the cut it, worked in the lumber camps and lived in that bush for all of his formative years. He talked of the brush wolves, being much smaller than the Timber wolves of Northern Ontario, the thought that the biologists are all wrong and that hunters who shoot deer in the area know more baffles me, it is not one guy, it is a pile of people and they are not sure but researching things. The ministry did introduce larger northern wolves into the southern area of the park though in the 40s and 50s, the deer population was really high and pushing the moose out, causing the moose population to crash in the park so they wanted to reduce the numbers. I know this because my grandpa drove the truck that held the wolves into the park. Maybe this is where Werner gets it that the wolves in the area were larger in the 60s and 70s but there are large and small wolves around and also coyotes, not just a bunch of mixed sizes of coyote hybrids.

Here's a pic of the extent of the logging ops. Pretty massive clear cut. Doubt they'd get away with this practice in the park today.. This had to have had an affect on the park's ecosystem (positive and negative). This is around canoe lake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trappermatt

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

---

Sure but is it the basis for a line?

I understand where you are coming from but if we do have a newly recognized species of animal in the area are we as conservationists not supposed to do something to protect them?

I hear all of these people talking about us as hunters being the first conservationists and we put all the money into protecting the populations but then we have a 12 page rant about how wolves should not be included and another rant about the moose tags and another one about the reduction in antlerless tags when the population drops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splaker

Here's a pic of the extent of the logging ops. Pretty massive clear cut. Doubt they'd get away with this practice in the park today.. This had to have had an affect on the park's ecosystem (positive and negative). This is around canoe lake.

---

Any idea the year? If it was the 40s then my grandpa probably helped there, he was in the lumber camps at 14 (1946)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

This is what I am getting at. My mom grew up near Kapuskasing and they had sheep, one day my grandpa shot a wolf that was killing the sheep, they never found the thing until months later and my uncle still has the rib. In a straight line from top to bottom on the rib measures 22in, that is one massive wolf. This same grandpa grew up just outside of what is now Algonquin park, he drove the trucks out of the park when the cut it, worked in the lumber camps and lived in that bush for all of his formative years. He talked of the brush wolves, being much smaller than the Timber wolves of Northern Ontario, the thought that the biologists are all wrong and that hunters who shoot deer in the area know more baffles me, it is not one guy, it is a pile of people and they are not sure but researching things. The ministry did introduce larger northern wolves into the southern area of the park though in the 40s and 50s, the deer population was really high and pushing the moose out, causing the moose population to crash in the park so they wanted to reduce the numbers. I know this because my grandpa drove the truck that held the wolves into the park. Maybe this is where Werner gets it that the wolves in the area were larger in the 60s and 70s but there are large and small wolves around and also coyotes, not just a bunch of mixed sizes of coyote hybrids.

---

Never heard of wolves being transferred into the park. There is pretty good documentation on the park ranges hunting wolves in the park to keep their numbers down, limited to 1 pack each in the east and west parts of the park. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to transfer wolves into the park at the same time you're hunting and trapping them to keep their numbers down. That's a bit of a head scratcher.


(They also shot loons, limiting them to 1 pair per lake). There are many pictures of "loon skins", which they used to line their boots.

[COLOR=#333333]Sure but is it the basis for a line?

[COLOR=#333333]I understand where you are coming from but if we do have a newly recognized species of animal in the area are we as conservationists not supposed to do something to protect them?

we already are Fox. A lot for them. Arguably too much given numerous things. Be that as it may (can be argued another day). What (absolutely nothing and this includes their own admissions...lets overlook omissions) warrants more!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Sure but is it the basis for a line?

I understand where you are coming from but if we do have a newly recognized species of animal in the area are we as conservationists not supposed to do something to protect them?

I hear all of these people talking about us as hunters being the first conservationists and we put all the money into protecting the populations but then we have a 12 page rant about how wolves should not be included and another rant about the moose tags and another one about the reduction in antlerless tags when the population drops.

---

Im not into placing harvest restrictions on something based on "science" from devout anti harvest reasercher's , and most certainly not interested in it when there is no data to show that the species is in decline , not to mention the polar opposite finding of this latest study about what these animals are , coyote /grey wolf crosses .

if you want to talk about size of an animal in relation to latitude , fine all we do is reference the Bergeman principle but that doesn't create a species

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Sure but is it the basis for a line?

I understand where you are coming from but if we do have a newly recognized species of animal in the area are we as conservationists not supposed to do something to protect them?

I hear all of these people talking about us as hunters being the first conservationists and we put all the money into protecting the populations but then we have a 12 page rant about how wolves should not be included and another rant about the moose tags and another one about the reduction in antlerless tags when the population drops.

---

Not sure what you mean by basis ? Not all registered line trappers take wolves , but I can tell you that the ones that make an effort to harvest some wolves each season have more stable year to year harvests of all other species , and I'm sure one could argue that the wolf packs living there are healthier as well due to decreased competition for the available food sources , This is the cornerstone of good registered trap line management

[COLOR=#333333]Dr. Patterson and colleagues documented an increase in annual survival rates of yearling and adult wolves in Algonquin Park following a ban on all hunting and trapping of wolves in the 40 townships surrounding the Park. However, increased survival has not resulted in a detectable increase in either pack size or overall population density. This appears to be due to high rates of dispersal by both juvenile and adult pack members. That relatively high survival is apparently being offset by high dispersal with little overall change in wolf density suggests wolf densities may presently be "self-regulated" at a level suitable for the present abundance of prey (Moose, White-tailed Deer, Beaver) available to wolves in the Park. The idea that the wolf "population" in Algonquin (as a whole) was at risk of extinction because of human-caused mortality outside the Park assumed that wolves from western Algonquin were leaving the Park during winter, and being killed, at a similar rate as observed in the eastern half of the Park during the 1990s. Preliminary findings suggest that most packs in western Algonquin remain within their territories, and the Park, year round. This suggests that wolves in the west side of the Park may never have been subject to the same level of human caused mortality as "east side" wolves. Findings of considerable immigration into the Park based on genetic studies and the common emigration of collared wolves from the Park suggest that it is inappropriate to consider wolves in the Park (moreover a particular section of the Park) as a discrete biological population. Although intense harvesting in some years may have severely depressed wolf numbers in eastern Algonquin it seems unlikely that complete extirpation of wolves in this area was ever a possibility. Moreover, immigration from western Algonquin, and surrounding areas, would facilitate re-colonization of vacant territories within a few years.

[COLOR=#333333]Overall then, our preliminary conclusion is that although the harvest ban does not seem necessary for wolf persistence[COLOR=#333333] in Algonquin, the marked shift in dominant mortality sources for wolves (from human-caused to natural), and apparent natural regulation of wolf numbers presently occurring, indicates that the ban has played a positive role in promoting a naturally functioning wolf-prey system

here some more to consider , the ban around the park was never needed and now we want to protect dispersal wolves at the expense of the rest of the ecosystem , how long till we end up with a total harvest ban because someone might kill a mythical subspecies ?

And as as far as some of the posters that claim oh don't worry you can still protect your property and livestock , is that what we value our resources as pests to be wasted when we enact policy that makes them into such a thing ?

Re logging. There's still a ton occurring in the park. Somewhere out there are maps. There's very little logging that occurs in the public/tourist eyes ( highway 60, popular canoe routes). But just beyond the ridge..........

i think (?) this is still current and these days 65% of the park is still logged.
http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/visit...k-planning.php