Printable View
The predator support group is largely anti-hunters, but there are hunters in there too. Introduction of predators (read up on the grey wolf in the US) is an anti-hunting measure which has been fairly successful at reducing hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude Bro
http://www.petersenshunting.com/gall...-about-wolves/
"is an anti-hunting measure which has been fairly successful at reducing the need for hunting."Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
If native/natural predators can control the over population of wild life, then there is no need to have hunters thinning the herds.
From that report they say the Beaver is high on the tasty dinner list for Wolves....thank God at least there is a predator that will stop those destructive beasts !!!
Beaver makes up a large portion of the wolf diet - and the beavers know it. Do your best imitation of a wolf howl next time you see a beaver swimming nearby. Bets are he stops swimming and sits still, looking for the wolf.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Except Mike, and I wish we could stay with the knowns.
Currently theres no evidence science or otherwise that suggest Moose/WTs are over populated. And theres plenty of anecdotal to suggest others are down to. Beavers I think-don't really know-but want to say from trappers are stable.
So until and unless someone/anyone can start coming up evidence that clearly shows or at the least suggest fairly well that.
A) "Coy dogs" are dwindling.
B) M and WT are over populated
C) Others on the food chain are over populated
All arguments that would support more bans...
What arguments are there for further protection, because everything we do have say a,b, and c are the opposite (growing, down noticeably so much so there are concerns and down)
And on top of that.
Bears obviously are or approaching OP. Given the recent re-introduction of spring hunting, spike in human/bear encounters, undeniable evidence population density is pushing them South. 10 years ago Bears south of say Barrie/Washago were unheard of. Now they are common and every year there are bears in Durham region, and the west side of the gta
Stupid amounts of urban sprawl displacing many animals north
and so on.
All things that will have ripple effects including continued logging in AP and the land claim
But JBen...most of what the hunters are saying is anecdotal...."I remember when"....blah blah blah. So it's hard to say whether trends have truly happened unless it's been proven out through a research study.
Are bear and deer moving north/south due to weather...food....insects...decease....or human conflict?
Climate change has Grizzlies mating with Polar bears now...go figure :)
http://globalnews.ca/news/2720963/as...rs-interbreed/
Well I guess thats the rub in the end, because even the MNR and those in favour of increased bans are relying primarily on anecdotal, largely from hunters and trappers. And I don't see that changing, not in my lifetime, nor my children's.
/points towards the MoE and MNRF budgets which combined get less than 1% and are at the bottom of the food chain.
*****
So
Atleast in central Ontario where many WMUs are seeing big drops in deer numbers. And given a number of hard winters and increased predation.<<Facts, thats not anecdotal.....where would you lay your life savings.....I know camps that push with dogs and they didn't hang any last year. Years ago, you could likely hunt those woods without dogs and fill the poles. Heres a pic of blah blah blah from yesteryear and from the camp I go to for archery in Dec. how many do you count and while you probably can't make it out ( I had to crop it fairly hard) theres a guy there with a long bow while others used rifles. That should suggest to you, just how many there "used" to be. And that when wolves were open season....
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s11/v3/p2021910070.jpg
Come visit the GTA soon. See the devastation to fields and forest. Where do you think Deer, rabbits, fox, even birds of prey are going. Fields that used to be abundant with rabbits, voles, etc, etc....not so much anymore. Coyotes don't care much what they eat, ducks, geese, rabbits, squirrels, cats, lap dogs......cattle, sheep....
Bears. Please Mike. Tracing their slow but inexorable further ranging south is as easy as a 5 years olds connects the dots. We always said nothing would change at QP about bears until they started getting to numerous in the monied Muskokas and too close to the GTA........And guess what.
I have nothing against protecting wolves, happen to be my favourite animal bar none. If their numbers were dwindling, if other things be it Moose/WT weren't down very noticeably, or Grouse/Rabbit/Fox (its been 3 years since Ive seen a fox, 1 fox) if bears weren't, if coyotes weren't exploding concurrently.....Theres not 1 single good argument to bring in more bans. In fact, just keeping the status quo is arguable given
the big picture
This may well have been happening for millennia. Just because we have only recently started to discover them, may only speak to our modern advances into their lands in larger numbers. Certainly no one would deny that it is likely wolves and coyotes bred thousands of years ago as well in isolated cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I've posted this study/report a few times in the past and it is a 'count' study thru aerial surveillance etc for a long enough period of time in Algonquin park to see trends and account for the ebb and flow of the populations of some of the wildlife in the park..
Long read, but see if some of the data lines up to what is remembered of the good old days.
http://canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/in...ewFile/142/142
Mike don't have time this eve, but will read it later.
Your still avoiding some facts. Avoiding simple truths.
Deer numbers are down. So much so, the MNR has gutted tags. Moose are down, so much so, tags are gutted. Wether numbers now are where they should be, or below is immaterial. Why fuzzy logic is being used that says
more/increased bans are needed/justified at this time. I'm tired of repeating it (numerous species are down). Wolves are up, they aren't struggling. Their own study says in black and white mortality from hunting is minimal already. A non factor. So how does that warrant a larger ban?
So these non native coyote mutts are up in numbers, expanding as is, and hunting currently is a non factor. Coyotes also are up a lot throughout S and C Ontario. In fact ranging North , there's more totes today in C Ontario than not all that long ago. Do you think the prospects for more cross breeding is growing or shrinking? Do you think the prospects for competition for food amongst all the predators is growing or shrinking? Do you think as numerous species are being displaced to the S and from the N there's unharrassed/checked breeding of all three predators
didn't you call that a pincer move in the military?
so even IF their numbers are where "they should be". Why does that warrant expanded ban territory. What fuzzy logic justifies it
and lastly, is it not better to err on the side of caution? Which given tracks records (not stellar, there's a history of acting late) and further the lack of empirical, scientific data/studies and funding to do them.........
I think you may misunderstand the roll of a hunter in the conservation of wildlife if you think that the numbers are immaterial JBen...Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen