EBR Proposal 012-8104;8105

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

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

---

Did an interior park trip on the west side (entered near Kearney) back in the late 90s. Used logging roads to get in... saw a logging truck hauling out a good amount of timber. My understanding is that the type of logging is different today. It is done in a more managed way. They don't clear cut any longer but rather use selective cutting so that when the operation is done, there is still a good amount of timber left standing. I think the operations were huge back in the day b/c colonial Canada was basically supplying the mother country - the British navy - There is virtually nothing left of old growth save for a few isolated spots so basically the entire Algonquin forest canopy is second and even third growth. This applies to much of the rest of the province. Anyhow, logging at that level would have surely had more of an impact on wildlife (and even fish species) than any predator or modern hunter. Logging is good for the ecn. and is necessary since fires are non-existent in the south but it needs to be well-managed.

Cheers

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.

---

From what I've read, on the logging aspect:

The logging until mid 1900's was pretty much like you've posted, initially for square timber and then for pulp & paper uses. Pine and spruce was what was logged. Apparently the deer/moose flourished at this time, not surprising since there would be lots of new growth and deer are edge species anyways.

That left the hardwood parts of APP untouched except for forest fires that were decreasingly common until the 50s, and are now almost unheard of. The exception is that a few large hemlock swaths were logged out in the 60's, apparently removing some common deer winter yards.

There was a move to selective harvest, but again only the softwood species were the focus, so the hardwood forests have been maturing without much intervention. Selective harvest does not produce the regrowth of clearcut strip logging, so there is no real benefit to deer and moose from this softwood harvesting.

So now there is a relatively young coniferous forest, and pretty mature and stable hardwood forest in APP - neither is a great supporter of deer, especially in winter. Something that was mentioned the article that MikePal linked to was interesting. At the time of the study, deer were not exactly absent from the park - they had the same summer densities as the surrounding areas. It was in the winter that APP went deer-free, except for a few stragglers that the wolves promptly killed. The thought is that since deer will winter-yard in historic spots (learned behaviour from their first year), that the loss of winter habitat inside the park, hunting pressure from the wolves, plus the prolific feeding of deer by surrounding inhabitants of the region (popular since the 70's) has taught the deer to winter in the food-rich countryside outside the park boundaries.

Moose apparently do okay in the park, even though it is not prime habitat, especially since there is less deer pressure now. The winter tick problem has been plaguing them since the 80's though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

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

---

It was 78 percent recreational use previous to that change. Slow changes! The recommendation to increase the protected zone inside the park was put to the Government in 2006. Mostly, the recommendation created buffer zones around all of the waterways. Looks like the government chose to do that for some of the recommended waters.

Logging has likely had the biggest impact on the ecosystem here and everywhere else on this planet. Were there coyotes in Ontario before 1900? Nope. Whitetail north of the shield before 1850? Not likely... So there probably weren't many if any at all WT in APP in the 1800s. The existence of them in the 30s, 40s, 50s and to the present is a result of our intervention and alteration of the natural ecosystem. Pre-European settlement, South-central ontario wildlife was quite different with documented presence of cougar, elk, moose, even grizzly in N. Ont. Fish species were different as well with huge numbers of Atlantics in the GL... clear cutting and degradation of rivers and the entire native natural ecosystem has forever altered the flora and fauna of the province.

A little sad, but we now have a lot of great habitat for other game and we move on... things change slowly and naturally or suddenly due to our impact...

Deer are here to stay just not in the same explosive numbers of the past. I'm sure many farmers welcome this as well as the insurance industry...

Was just on a trip to the US. We drove through numerous states on our way to South Carolina. I saw a dead deer every few miles... incredible - We were actually concerned that we'd hit one - not a pleasant experience for a family with kids... So maybe having that kind of population isn't desirable either... It's hunting.. a little challenge is fun and keeps you sharp and appreciative of your harvest.

Interesting info gathered by the MNR in regards to Wolf Hunting in Ontario....

Quote:

---

The most reliable harvest information is collected through mandatory reports from fur dealers and taxidermists indicating wolves received from hunters for sale or tanning from hunters.


These reports indicate a small harvest of wolves and coyotes by hunters within wolf
range (2000/01 – 151 animals, 22 identified as “wolves”; 2001/02 – 109 animals, 11 of
these identified as “wolves”, 2002/03 – 170 animals, 23 of these identified as “wolves”).
Some of these coyotes may be eastern wolves, as it would be difficult for hunters to
visually distinguish wolves from coyotes in the field particularly in central Ontario.

Wolf harvest data are also obtained from questions on wolf harvest included in the
voluntary annual postcard surveys of moose and deer hunters, the periodic postcard
surveys of bear hunters (2003), and the provincial mail surveys of moose hunters
(2001) and small game hunters (2001 and 2003). These data suggest that 1,000-1,600
additional wolves/coyotes may be harvested annually by large and small game hunters.

However, the level of confidence of this data is low due to the difficulty in hunters
visually distinguishing wolves from coyotes in the field, low survey response rates, and
possible duplication of harvest data submitted by the same hunter through various
surveys.
The large discrepancy in harvest data from tanned and sold wolves and from hunter
game surveys suggests that hunters are either harvesting these animals for personal
use (e.g., self tanning) or are not using them at all.

---

Actually an interesting paper....http://www.web2.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/eb...ckgrounder.pdf

Agreed Splaker.

particularly agree with logging. Another reason why I wonder if the importance of Urban Sprawl thats occurring just south of the territory in question is perhaps being grossly under appreciated ( its almost, not quite completely omitted/glossed over by those arguing for). And like the name change, have to wonder why.......

Potato/potato
Wolf hybrid/Coyote hybrid
logging/razing for parking lots
A rose by any other name.
*******
And really, really agree with "things change slowly and naturally or suddenly due to our impact"
Truth!

but it can cut both ways, be it over hunting, be it over logging, be it protecting something.
And typically mistakes are costly, affecting a great number of things and take a long time to "correct" (rebalance).

If this goes through given numerous things repeated to0 often here, there's many reasons to say "slow down here", and not one that says yep, go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

And really, really agree with "things change slowly and naturally or suddenly due to our impact"
Truth!

but it can cut both ways, be it over hunting, be it over logging, be it protecting something.
And typically mistakes are costly, affecting a great number of things and take a long time to "correct" (rebalance).

---

The Chernobyl exclusion zone provides some fascinating insight into how fast an area can change where wildlife populations are concerned in an area with similar species and climate to our own.

Take an area a little over half the size of Algonquin, remove human beings essentially overnight, contaminte it radiologically in the extreme and than see how the wildlife is doing 30 years later.

Amazingly virtually everything (both predator and prey) have increased dramatically and are thriving. It seems our presence was more problematic for the wildlife than gross radioactive contamination.

Obviously we cannot remove humans from the equation in Ontario but i still find it interesting to postulate on what would happen if we did.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...rsary-science/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Species8472

The Chernobyl exclusion zone provides some fascinating insight into how fast an area can change where wildlife populations are concerned in an area with similar species and climate to our own.

Take an area a little over half the size of Algonquin, remove human beings essentially overnight, contaminte it radiologically in the extreme and than see how the wildlife is doing 30 years later.

Amazingly virtually everything (both predator and prey) have increased dramatically and are thriving. It seems our presence was more problematic for the wildlife than gross radioactive contamination.

Obviously we cannot remove humans from the equation in Ontario but i still find it interesting to postulate on what would happen if we did.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...rsary-science/

---

Speaking of Chernobyl and on a completely different plane, if ya wanna have some fun with that, watch Chernobyl Diaries! Silly sci-fi zombie flick that is about exactly what you bring up except there's a few zombies in there for extra interest!

Or watch this cool documentary on wildlife in [COLOR=#333333]Chernobyl... wolves play a prominent role in the documentary... this is just the short version. A full-length video can be found on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-h15wX14po

By chance is that tropic cascade?
as mentioned "ripple effects" and if we should have learned anything by now, our track record at being smarter than nature. Is pretty woeful. So myself, I'd prefer the side of caution.

Chernobyl
as I said to Mike until we are prepared to cull the human race, (in this case primarily to the south) "natural" balance is impossible, there's nothing natural at all about what is or isn't occurring. We screw it up all the time.