Printable View
:confused: WTH is up with this? OMNRF plans to add 39 more townships to the Algonquin Wolf (re-named Easern Wolf) prohibited townships list. Coments are open for 30 days,not that they'll listen to common sense from hunters,in the first place. It looks like the anti-hunting lobbyists have struck again.
See article on the main page:
http://www.oodmag.com/news/increased...-eastern-wolf/
Yes,I saw that. The OMNRF is proposing 39 additional townships. Those three areas,Kawartha Highlands,Queen Elizabeth II and Killarney PP only account for a half dozen townships. They don't say where the rest are and 39 townships will encompass a vast area of Southern Ontario which has traditionally been prime Coyote hunting territory. We always knew after the "studies" (Trent U and UofT) researched it to death,that the township restrictions around the Park were completely without merit. So now,instead of eliminating the restrictions,the Ontario government has chosen to do the opposite. It's beyond ridiculous and must be stopped.
The wolf tag system was a negotiated compromise only last time. The antis wanted a total ban on harvesting them. Looks like the government is following through on its ideological intent.
How many here have submitted a comment on this ? I'm still in the process of putting mine down and organizing them , I'd love to see what others are submitting , remember the other side will surly make time to comment and this is far more of a political issue then a science one .
Political rather than science,it was ever thus. I intend to comment,but,I want more info AND to let my blood pressure go down before I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
According to science released last week. There's only one species of wolf in NA.
Which would make the "Algonquin" wolf an invasive species.
odd they get protection when all other invasive/non native aren't.
********
be that as it may, can only imagine the impact on other species.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/28...DC9EEC1C90B201
Thanks JBen..good link..I like the question :
Playing a bit of the devils advocate; I don't see the issue as a 'us vs them'; sport hunters in essence provide our services to the MNR wildlife management program when they need our services to provide a cull of a native species. In this case they may have ascertained that they need a greater population of large predators in the management area to control other larger species.Quote:
Dr. vonHoldt and her colleagues found that the genomes of Eastern wolves that lived in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario were half gray wolf and half coyote. Red wolves are even more mixed: Their genomes are 75 percent coyote and only 25 percent wolf.
Some wolf experts were startled by the finding and said it would require further support.
Linda Y. Rutledge, an expert on Eastern wolves, questioned whether the new study was sufficient to reject them as a separate species. Two Algonquin wolves that were part of the new study, she said, lived during a period when hybridization between coyotes and wolves was unusually common.
“They’re potentially not representative at all,” she said.
In effect...their desire for larger population of wolves and has nothing to do with specifically denying hunters the opportunity to kill them...but to try and increase the number of Wolves in that area...no hidden agenda.
I do like the like the question however; why are they protecting, what has been determined to be, an non-native species.
One of the views emerging from recent science (which the paper everyone's citing agrees with) is that the concept of "species" is not particularly useful with canids. The line between species and hybrid is fuzzy.
However, many species around APP seem to be in decline. Moose and Deer come to mind right away. The family I hunted 53 with, don't even bother getting their small game anymore. Between the closed season for small game in Central Ontario and very, very few Grouse and Rabbits anymore ( they used to see numerous and get numerous some years ago). They see it (getting small game and wolf/yote tags) as a waste of good $ now. Can say in the years I hunted there we saw a total ofQuote:
[COLOR=#333333] In this case they may have ascertained that they need a greater population of large predators in the management area to control other larger species.
6 WTs and 1 Grouse over 3 years.
And from hunting 47 and the Loring yards the past 5 years. I can definitely attest to and increase in dogs and a big drop in WT numbers ( Not saying the increase in dogs, is responsible for the crash in deer) but they are certainly contributing and or not helping.The fact the MNR has gutted tags the past two years, bears all that out...So um...they are so concerned about WT and Moose in the area, but want to protect dogs now? yeah, that makes sense.
So on the surface theres a lot that doesn't add up. Not the least of which is that provincially and historically non native species aren't looked upon too favourably. Be they Asian carp, be they feral boars or even Pike having been introduced to waters where Musky reside. Why?
because they (the non natives will breed like rabbits and push out native species) and if Im not mistaken in the case of cross breeders or the potential for cross breeding ( Tiger Musky and/or boars) again. They aren't viewed with much affection
Would love the hear the MNRs rational behind all the conflicting stances.
There is no scientific rational Jben. Wildlife management is increasingly nothing but a political tool. Wildlife evolves over time. Always has and always will. Not many Sabre toothed tigers or mammoths around and I'm pretty sure primitive man didn't "mismanage" them. Canines cross breed, ducks crossbreed and I'm sure many other animals eventually do. The Algonquin wolf thing is government caving to pressure groups. No different than when Harris caved to the Shad foundation over Spring bear hunting. It is interesting Spring bear hunting is legal in both Provinces we border with. Algonquin red wolf is not a species, it's a hybrid so as long as there are wolves and coyotes it will exist.
We need an answer; are the numbers, the population of WT in MWU47, now in line with the management plan for the MNR so less tags available for the cull ? If they are, hunters will have to adjust their expectations if they hunt there.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Would think Mike, that the number would or should be somewhat fluid based on "the big picture" that takes into account winters/weather, habitat change, and includes the food chain be they predators or prey, rather than static. I am hopefully assuming the MNR understands capacity.......
Meaning, if they have a static baseline number ( say X deer per sq mile). Well what happens when an underlying factor changes enough?
Eg...warmer winters not only are easier on deer herds, but might also change the habitat such that, that same area now has the capacity for more....
Heres what we do know. The past couple winters were hard on the deer, especially 2014. That spring the owner of the place we hunt (who also has a BMA) reported coming across a fair number of deer that didn't make it through the winter. Lots of Does and fawns lost. He said he also came across more sign of dog kills. The winter of 2015 was also fairly hard on them and going into the fall of 2015, what really had him concerned was a dearth of fawns. He simply wasn't seeing many. I might note he lives in the heart of the yards and gets dozens of deer in his yard ever winter/day. Last fall was brutal for hunters in the area. They have a friendly competition amongst a number of camps for bragging rights. The camp with the most deer hung for the 2 weeks of rifle win. His camp won this year.
3 deer hung.
When we were there for archery in December our group saw a total of I think it was 6 deer....We tagged one.
The past 15 years
bears have increased substantionally
Wolves have been protected
Yotes are increasing in number concurrently.
Hence why we just say dogs when we see sign or hear them.
So if looking at the knowns.
Hard winters
A lot more pressure from predators
Moose in decline
Deer in decline
Grouse and rabbits (anecdotally) in decline.
Seems to me someone isn't looking at the big picture. And subsequent to that, it is odd that a non native hybrid gets "protection" where many others don't.
and that hunters also understand that not every year or even every decade will have plentiful sightings and lots of opportunities. There will also be lean years and it's not anyone's 'fault'.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Forgot to add Fox to the list of declining species (anecdotal).
No Mike I agree with that, hence why I and many others support the sudden and drastic cuts to the additional.
But it's completely illogical to add fuel to the fire by protecting dogs in the region at a time when they are in apparent serious (by numbers) decline. And gee is it completely coincidental that for the past 15 years, bears, wolves and yotes have been given a pass?
The MNR hasn't gradually reduced additional, they've gutted them. In some of the the area's from near 1,000 to zero in two years. Speaks volumes.
And thats just WTs. Grouse, Fox, Rabbits, more....
How are these animals threatened? I see more coyote/Wolf sign at our camp in wmu 49 than any other animal. This weekend I heard them howling every night.
Go ahead ban the hunt, I'll still shoot everyone I see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SongDog
SSssssshhhhh !!!!!!
This just will increase the SSS mentality! Hunters are the best 'biologists'. We spend more time in the field and see what's really going on. Let's continue to manage to protect the balance!
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
Most hunters spend a maybe week in the bush....most of it sitting in the camp telling stories...LOL...Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
Brings to mind the idiom.."The Fox guarding the Hen House" :)
I think you're wrong. I am an outdoorsmen. I hunt, fish, hike, forage and explore. I think there are many like me who don't just drink beer at deer camp once a year.
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
You may not be the person who only goes hunting for one week but there are a ton and I mean a ton of guys who hunt like this. They may have 1 week, they may have 2 weeks, they shoot the gun in a gravel pit on the way up if they are lucky and they hunt for 1 week a year for deer or 1 week a year for moose then 1 week for deer, it is a very normal thing to do in the Ontario woods. You wonder where all the guys come from in the pumpkin armies every year?Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
At the camp I was part of there were 14 guys that came over the years, 5 of those guys hunted for deer outside of the 1 week November rifle hunt, heaven forbid you don't apply for an antlerless tag in that area though. Of those 14 there were 3-4 that would hunt any other species of animals at any other time of the year.
Yup..back when we had a full camp (14) there were only 2 of us that hunted other species and spent anytime in the bush out side of the regulated seasons...
I think most guys get their hunting knowledge by watching Wild TV...LOL...
getting back on topic here... (regardless of how much time a hunter spends in woods) I think even the guy spending a week in the woods is still more knowledgeable than the tree huggin groups that the MNR is feeling pressure from right now and shoving these types of proposals down our throats... this is ridiculous, what an absolute mis-management of our resources... submitted a comment for the EBR and called and left a vm on the phone line for public input.
we are heading down a horrible path and I don't like it.
Just to be clear...the MNR is also facing pressure from hunters shoving their proposals down their throats...the provincial resources belong to both groups and the EBR system allows both sides a voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokes
Until you know the rational for MNR decisions, how can you call it "absolute mis-management of our resources" ?
I think if some of you spent a few minutes to read a study on the Algonquin Wolf issue you might get a better idea as to why the MNR is taking this approach.
The following study will provide some insight..specifically read chapter 4.0 (page 10)...Quote:
Mortality of wolves leaving Algonquin Provincial Park is clearly one of the most important factors identified in the population dynamics of wolves in the Park. It is likely that wolves are leaving the Park during winter on several fronts, even though direct evidence is only available from the east side. Regulating the mortality of wolves outside the Park during the period when they are likely to leave the Park may be one of the most critical management actions that is feasible. The additive nature of the human-caused mortality before spring recruitment appears to be the extra stress that puts this population at risk.
http://www.ottawavalley.ca/NaturalResourcesWolves.pdf
This study was done in 2006 and they called for a 6 yr study, so it sounds like the present proposal, in the EBR, is a follow up actions to these recommendations.
Quote:
Recommendations for the Management of the Wolves of Algonquin
Provincial Park
This section presents our recommendations for the management of wolves both inside and outside Algonquin Provincial Park. The wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park are part of a larger population that extends beyond the boundaries of the Park. However, Algonquin Provincial Park plays a special role as a unique Provincial Park that strives to maintain wildlife and ecosystems in a natural environment.
While protection of wolves that roam far from the Park may be difficult, wolves that temporarily leave the Park or live primarily in it should be afforded a high degree of protection.
The recommendations that follow are designed to ensure that wolves continue to play their ecological role while inside Algonquin Provincial Park, and a reasonable assurance of their sustainability despite their excursions outside the Park.
The Advisory Group considered two alternative, strategic approaches to satisfying the Terms of Reference requirement for an Adaptive Management Plan. The alternative approaches considered were:
i)Active Adaptive Management - an experimental design option involving evaluation of
alternative management policies and experiments in different places and times to tests
different policies. That design required intensive studies to evaluate the differences
between experiments; and
ii) Passive Adaptive Management - a management option that implements the best policy
option including regulatory control of wolf mortality and monitoring of the effects on
wolves over time. The Plan would specify the timing and location of season changes.
On the basis of an overview assessment of the two approaches, their respective abilities to effectively address the current significant risks to the wolf population in timely fashion and their relative cost and feasibility, it was determined that the Passive Adaptive Management approach should be pursued in the development of the Adaptive Management Plan.
sorry but if your bashing your opinion on this study , you need to dig a little deeper , anything to do with the Theberge's is tainted and that has been revealed long agoQuote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Correct. i just started a new thread with modern proof and DNA results.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
No...just to, hopefully, bring some light into what the biologists do and what goes into the decision processes. Most people have no idea and selfishly only see that they are being affected and not happy about it.
Note: Theberge has but small input, his study is only reference as background...his wife contributed more :)
Quote:
We would like to thank the following individuals for their significant contribution to our
understanding of the scientific information, the historic and current management of wolves, their
prey and habitat in and around Algonquin Provincial Park, and the many viewpoints and
concerns on the long-term management of these wolves:
John Winters, Ray Bonenberg, Evan Thomas and Dan Elliott for their support of our work; John
Deshane, Ed Reid and Rick Stronks for providing additional representation at meetings; Dr.
John Vucetich and Dr. Paul Paquet for their detailed scientific analysis of the viability of the
wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park; the participants of the PHVA workshop for sharing their
expertise, view points and concerns; the Fish and Wildlife Branch of the Ministry of Natural
Resources for providing the funding and administrative support that allowed us to do our work;
the Ministry of Natural Resources, the many donors to World Wildlife Fund and the Canadian
Wildlife Service for funding the PHVA workshop; the IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding
The Wolves of Algonquin Provincial Park – A Report by the Algonquin Wolf Advisory Group
Specialist Group for facilitating the PHVA workshop; the Friends of Algonquin Park for
providing scientific support; Dr. Brad White, Dr. Paul Wilson, Mary Theberge, John Pisapio,
Tim Haxton, Norm Quinn, Jeremy Inglis and Flytche Enterprises for providing us with valuable
background information; Paul Wilson and Venessa McCracken for supplying the figures
included in this report and Mary Theberge for contributing the cover art
Theberge's study was based on the east region of Algonquin but all surrounding townships were made a no coyote /wolf hunt zone. We hunt an adjacent township on the west side of the park and are effected, not that we have had opportunities to take either species. The MNR rattled the wrong deer hunt survey several years ago when they asked the typical questions on "How many deer were taken?" "How many deer were seen?". It further went on to ask "How many wolves were seen?" and "How many coyotes were seen?" and the best was "How much wolf scat was seen ?" and "How much coyote scat was seen?"
This prompted a letter asking the MNR really , since they were advising us that we could not shoot coyotes and wolves because we generally could not tell the difference then how could we possibly answer this survey and further how would we even identify scat, when the MNR has had difficulty identifying scat.
Dick
But according to some on here, Hunters know more about the outdoors than the biologists, so they should have no problem identifying different scat...LOL...(JK)..Quote:
Originally Posted by BDH
I think there's more scat in the MNR then there is out in the woods!
and good cleaning is in order.
They've been serving scat to us all and now - "once game rich Ontario" - is thriving with predators.
Bears out the wazzoo, cormorants, coyotes, hybrid wolves, lets save them all!
well said skeeter, exactly the point I was trying to make in my earlier post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
And whats troublesome, atleast AFAIC.
Is that, this is precisely when the MNR should be easing restrictions on predators (as they have for Wolves north of the Muskokas) because well. By their own calculations, and from feedback from hunters over the past 3 years Deer numbers and Moose are down, quite noticeably. Given they've gutted additionals..........And anecdotally grouse, rabbit and fox seem to be down quite a bit too.
So from all appearances, it would seem the MNR is having trouble understanding their own mandate and carrying capacity. Do they need to back to school and basics??
As for the Therberges and faulty science.
In the report they mention human caused mortality from hunting is near nil. So what gives. Further is this new hybrid non native species up in numbers over the last 20-30 years or are they to like others going down.
Theres only one answer
Amem brother!Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
We also have more ducks than ever, more geese than ever and way more deer than we did in the 80s.Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
Predator numbers go up with prey numbers.
Ontario is still very game rich, just not as game rich as 10 years ago when it was above carrying capacity and driving farmers to shooting deer in the spring to thin out the numbers, 5 and 7 extra tags per hunter and farmers losing massive amounts of crops.
Looking into a wolf population that may or may not be unique in an area of Ontario that is mainly forest and minimal farmers is an ideal situation. Remember that once there were deer and wolves and no humans and the deer and wolves survived just fine.
Did you hunt the 80's in the area in question ? When was then last time you can remember the deer and wolf relationship working in your home county ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Mentioned it in the other thread.
Is this a wolf?
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s1/v55/p2077455299-5.jpg
http://jbenphotography.ca/img/s11/v29/p1955189366-5.jpg
One has to wonder why "mutts" that are not native and as Werner said in the other thread, all a person needs to do is google images of Wolves, Algonquin from as late as the 60s to see what a wolf actually looks like. As a 6month old pup Nugs as she's named and who has way more wolf dna than these "mutts" was larger than these adult *cough* wolves being accorded special protection.
Now once you've answered the question above. Yes or No and too each their own.
If you think yes, than that calls into question all Kennel clubs, all breeds, hunt trials and more.
Because if She's a wolf and she has way more wolf dna, than the diluted coy dogs, or mutts, or "Algonquin" wolves. as they are now being called...Then a Labrador retriever, golden poodle, shepherd mix
Is a Labrador Retriever
******
with respect to capacity and other species and the impacts. I doubt even the MNR has a good handle on what really occurring. Obviously they believe Moose and WTs in the area are down. Down to where they should be? Well historically back to the 60s WTs were numerous in the region. These days thin. But assuming they are where they "should" be, and not down below what's healthy or can be carried.
Talk to people in the regions and even inside APP and it will be said. That fox, grouse and rabbit aren't as numerous either.
me, I rarely see fox anymore. Used to see them all the time.
As was mentioned in the study....a good relationship of predator / prey is required to have a balanced eco-system...once there is an imbalance they need things like culls (hunters) to try and balance it again. So yes, for the most part, the relationship between wolf and deer, especially in Norther Ont, works well.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
But can she take down a Deer ?...LOL..Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Have you ever tried playing sound clips of wolves baying to see if it triggers some of her DNA to respond.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGMsAYgoL3Y
Wolf, how pure IDKhttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...3b0cb138cb.jpg
Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk
A lot of coyote in that one. Light build and brown fur. Wolves should be shades of grey from pure white to pure black, including husky-like markings. Brown/tan is a coyote indicator.Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
We call those "Brush Wolves" and around here,they're thick as thieves. It looks exactly like the one that grabbed the ladies dog down the road from us in April.Quote:
Originally Posted by rippin_355
Grandpa started hunting that area in question back in the 40s, there was a crash in the population around the south end of Algonquin park which lead to the antlerless deer tag allocations, our family has been in the area of the wolf ban since the 1850s.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
Dad started hunting just east of there in 76, at that time they would be lucky to cut a track between 8 guys over an entire week. The population peaked around 2001-2002, this was around the same time that the people in Lanark were putting on a Fathers Day hunt to reduce the population and the creation of WMU 63A&B, 63B was the unit that had a lot of agriculture and was given a bunch of extra tags. The area around Ottawa was given up to 7 extra tags for deer at that time.
I moved to Ottawa in 2003, since then there have been at least 4 very hard winters on the deer without having a reduction in tag allocations until 2 years ago, a significant delay.
There are more coyotes but the coyote population will reduce as does the prey they have, it is a natural balance that we should be part of but not the controller of.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
Has anyone seen a list of the 39 additional Townships covered by the restricted area in the proposal?
You mean when they pulled the bounty and poisoning the wolves?Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
I guess you do not believe any predators should exist as they are detrimental to the number of animals you can hunt.
I am one who believes that predators and prey are both natural things and that we need to find a balance, wiping one species off the face of the earth is not an option in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SK33T3R
I've been buying my 3 S licence for quite some time now!!
:-)
I can't ever remember anyone poisoning wolves - I'm sure it happened, but not in my time. The end of the bounty (1972) came about long, long after the wolf boom and the wiping out of Renfrew counties deer herd. As far as Renfrew county goes there were no deer and very few wolves by the time the bounty was ended, making it a moot point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
I'm not sure why you're trying to rewrite history here. As far as "balance" - the "balance of nature" is something that only exists in the Disneyesque mind. Real nature is a series of booms and busts - there is no balance.
That's true..and that is how nature balances an ecosystem...thru cycles of good and bad. Most hunters just don't seem to understand that, they want a permanent target enriched environment and if there is an ebb, they start looking to blame someone or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Werner. Didn't a long standing winter yard also get logged into oblivion somewhere in there. I thought it was those three things, in order A) giving the wolves a break B) then logging their winter yard and C) the hard winters that followed that put the beat down on WTs. From which they have never recovered. Like googling images of actual wolves from the area. There was a day, not all that long ago, when WTs were thick as fleas in the park.
Fox, my thinking on the issue is along yours. The first consideration should always err towards the side of balance. Not sure how giving predators a free pass will ever result in something close to a natural or sustainable balance. And just like a teeter totter when one side is going down, one side tends to go up. Moose and WT are down, there's anecdotal evidence that rabbit, Grouse and Fox are very noticeably down as well. So how do you rationalize protecting the predators further, is helping maintain balance. Now, here's the thing. Are these dogs more numerous today, than they were 20 years ago?
yep, they are doing quite well. Long winded way of saying if the goal is balance, then arguements to further protect the dogs would really only hold water, if their number to, we're going down. They aren't, in fact they are up.
lets not also forget that once a person leaves the highway 60 corridor, and just over the ridges that tourist can see, the park is still getting logged hard. Which does what to the resident WTs (those few left) and wolves. Ah yes it pushes them around.
Lets not not also forget the Algonquin Land claim. Where once again, then hand of man is going to make life just that wee bit harder on various species.
all of them....... except for the "wolves".
Would love to hear rationale, that explains the illogical.
JBen - A few years back the MNR was pushing the story of the whitetail's decline in the park on the cutting of large stands of hemlock for beams for the Toronto subway. Given the area the park covers and the huge areas outside the park which were not cut, its a bit hard (impossible???) for a thinking man to believe. Re: the had winters - we see now that even with a moderate number of wolves/coyotes around, the deer recover from a bad winter in a couple of years. Back then the recovery took a couple of decades. Even the low pops following 2008 were nothing like the 60's and '70s.
I don't mind the small ups/downs like what we have had since the good times in the 1990's. What I don't want is the wiping out of the deer like what happened in the 60's and 70's.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
So what you are saying is that the predators followed the prey, no matter what caused the prey to reduce.Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
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.
That is completely false. Prior to the 60's there were wolves and brush wolves (coyotes). Wolves were the big grey wolves. You do realise that prior to the 1920's there were no coyotes at all in Ontario - not even in the south. So yes, it is completely crazy to think that there is a "different" wolf in Ontario. It's not a different wolf - it's a coyote/grey wolf cross - well documented by researchers in Ontario and Maine and likely a few of the other northern states. There are still people alive - they're old though - that can remember when Ontario had grey wolves and no coyotes, so rewriting this bit of history will have to wait until they're no longer around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
As far as deer and wolves co-existing - well, the deer were not doing that well in Ontario prior to the settlers arriving and starting farming and killing the wolves.
Wasn't referring to wide scale logging, over the park. But thought there was a specific "small" area, that served as a winter yard. Perhaps for deer outside the park. Don't know. The gist of the thinking, was that when the hard winters hit, and that yard no longer existing, the deer got pummelled.......over and above no management of the wolves.....it went to bust very quickly.
for example.
dogs are up in number in 47. The Loring yards. Imagine if in 2012 which would be just prior to the winter of 2013 (the ice storm winter) the heart of the Loring yards were logged hard.
Can an anyone here or in the MNR predict what the winters of 2017 and 2018 will be like??
herds throughout central Ontario seem to be struggling thanks mostly to a few hard winters. On top of that, dogs have been in rise, and now will be even further protected.
faxt of the matter is hunting of wolves in the area already is minimal. That's actually acknowledged in that study. Funny I don't see that study mentioning deer/moose/grouse/rabbit/fox being down.
lets hope next winter isn't hard because from everything we have, or see they are really setting the table and it's simply illogical, or at best counter to striving for "balance". That's not achieved by stacking the deck
Re: rabbits and grouse - my guess on this is that its avian predators doing the damage here. Not sure about wider scale, but definitely up at my bush lot, that's what's been going on.
Few ways to look at that Werner. Let's assume it's Great Greys and a few others putting a beat down on Rabbits/Grouse. Which are a prime food source for Coyotes, if not "wolves".
if that food source for predators is going down, competition is up. So what will the coyotes and coy dogs turn to more, especially in winter if there's less rabbits/grouse/squirrel.
fawns?
who are already a source of "concern"?
So where's the logical rational, for further protection of a predator thats
A) on the rise
B) already, and this is acknowledged by the people putting forth the recommendation. That mortality from hunting is minimal, as is!!
Wow, we can't even get the hunting community on the same page. Looks like the anti-hunters are going to win this round too, on top of the win they got a few months ago when the northern Ontario wolf proposal was turned down.
well if wolves are not a problem and deer numbers are down then what's this.
this is in WMU 50 north of Huntsville
[IMG]http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/y...pscsiox1wt.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/y...pssye0zt4s.jpg[/IMG]
Looks more coyote than wolf to me, have been hunting and killing them since the early 1970's , have quite a few albums with pictures that look like that one , only they are dead.
And yes coyotes do kill and eat fawns and they also have their own families to feed.
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
Morning Mike. :)
2nd cup of coffee in front of me and reading that report, so far its a good read.
Please don't twist my words Mike, and I would hope you don't "misunderstand", because the fact is I'm looking at the big picture. Conservation of all species, not looking at a vacuum, whats best for the entire ecosystem. Moose, Deer, rabbits, Fox, Beaver and more. What's "immaterial" is whether M/D numbers today are below what some think they should be, or roughly where "they should be". Lets go with your preposition, accept it without question. Deer numbers in C Ontario are where they should be.
Does logic not then say, predator numbers should be kept roughly where they are today as well. And thats ignoring the fact that for the past 15 years, Bear and Coyote have exploded into the area. And theres little natural checks. They are apex predators after all.................What fuzzy logic says further bans are needed. No, at best predator numbers should remain fairly stable/static......Not intentionally set up for expansion.
So
if preys number are where they "should be" (which is arguable) having been trending down
If predators numbers have been on the uptick and theres nothing to suggest thats going to change. In fact the opposite given Coyote expansion ( a non native species) and the propensity for cross breeding.
If studies show mortality from hunting is a non factor
What on gods green earth warrants more bans..A simple question that no-one can answer.
And all of that also ignores the jaws of the anvil wildlife in Ontario is in, between unchecked growth/expansion of Predators in C Ontario and Urban Sprawl in the S.
Some excerpts, interpret however one wishes
[COLOR=#ff0000]The deer population declined again in the 1960s, suffered major mortality in the early 1970s, and has never recovered; deer are essentially absent from the present day Algonquin landscape in winter.
The Beaver population has, however, declined sharply since the mid-1970s
Of coarse, deer and beaver disappearing from the park in the 70s, co-incidentally the same time wolves went on the rise........has nothing to do with it, it's other forces.
******************************
[COLOR=#ff0000]The resettlement distribution of ungulates in centralCanada is poorly understood, largely because bonedeteriorates rapidly in the acidic soils of the CanadianShield (Reid 1988). It is widely believed, however, thatprior to European contact and the opening of the forests,deer did not range in Ontario north of approximatelythe location of Hwy 7, which is approximately 160 kmsouth of the centre of the Park
Thanks for supporting my argument, which no-one today wants to consider. No one today wants to look forward and think about "tomorrow", be pro-active, rather than re-active. What urban expansion around the GTA is doing to ALL species. Especially, or more-so today than ever, because wildlife really can't go East or West anymore. Just North. And the explosion in Urban Sprawl these days is insane (see just the wide swaths of destruction the 407 is leaving).
So once again, history looks to repeat itself.
*******
By the way Mike, that report basically agrees with everything we've said. Where it differs only is the opinion that Wolves and Coyotes should be protected as a result. And worse, broaden the area, make it larger rather than try to keep it "contained", stable.
One last thought.
By 'that" reports own admission: Deer, Moose and Beaver are the main source of food for wolves.
~They are all down substantially since the 70s in C Ontario.
By "that" reports own admission, growth below #7 sent all manor of wildlife fleeing north.
~Today, the expansion to the East of Toronto (directly south of the region being discussed) having exhausted the West and North (up to Barrie/Orilla now) is insane
No-where in "that" report does it talk about the invasion and explosion of Coyotes added to the mix.
No-where in "that" report does it talk about disappearing Grouse/Rabbit and Fox................
So what fuzzy logic is being used to argue, that reducing the territory all non predators can go to for "safe havens" is sound? What insanity is being used to argue, that rather than provide soft landings......no lets do the opposite, make the anvil even larger....One might hope such smart scientist could have learned from history the first time around.
Create jaws of a steel trap.
Un controlled predators pushing them South in the North and Urban sprawl pushing them North in the south.
nowhere to go
Morning John...good to see you got some of your old mojo back....:)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Not twisting your words, a direct quote....as you see in the report..it is all about the numbers...whether specific or general.
Remember in the EBR initial statement..it clearly says there is concern for the wolf population so it needs to have intervention. That is within the mandate of the MNR..it's their job.
So the decision has been made to further protect the Wolf (?)..as part of the bigger picture...they want/need a healthy wolf population for a balance ecosystem.Quote:
As a result of the species evaluation assessment by the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario (COSSARO), the Algonquin Wolf (formerly referred to as Eastern Wolf) has been re-classified from ‘Special Concern’ to ‘Threatened’ status under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ESA).
To help support the protection and recovery of Algonquin Wolf, it is proposed that hunting and trapping of wolf and coyote be prohibited in three additional core areas where Algonquin Wolf is known to occur.
Now you may want to ask....with the concerns for other species like the Moose...how many hunters complaining about the impact on the moose population as a result of this... will forgo filling their calf tags this year....
Yup as does the cyclical lifecycle of most creatures in Nature....most of the population summaries in that report are roller coasters :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Yes and it also provides the facts and reasons that the herd numbers have fluctuated thru the decades and what was done to try and reverse some trends. It's a balancing act for sure.
Curious Mike, what concern for them?
Hunting isn't touching them. their own admission
Their numbers are up and growing.........this is inarguable..
While they talk about Urban sprawl and encroachment...its marginal at "worst" in that area. If Urban Sprawl is a threat to anything, its to the prey species in the food chain, which is sending them north in droves...right into a hammer how convenient, a man made, created steady source of food....Atleast until......
is the concern dwindling prime source of food (M/D/B)?
Well heres a good idea, lets unnaturally send them more food.
Mike not sure why but you are completely, willfully ignoring its NOT natural, until and unless we cull the human race in the South...Its only going to get worse for everything low on the food chain.......
And ramping up, and utterly protecting the predators is pure insanity. Nuts, idiocy,
It will never be a natural balance. Good god Mike it doesn't take rocket science to see that if you create a steel trap..............and do keep in mind Mike, today unlike "yesterday" Coyotes..........So lets recap shall we.
Prime food sources are down.....veryfying what some of us have argued....
Predators are on the rise..
And the numerous species of prey are being pushed north.
And re your last quote.
Hows it working? Its not.
What no comment ???... LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I might say the same to you ( I know that "no comment" wasn't directed at me, but could ask the same of you)
And here's more
Look at map of Ontario.
Draw a ring around APP. A ring where the predators (all of them) are untouchable by man
From the South man is displacing a lot of wildlife..Where's it mainly heading? North
From the NE (Ottawa) man is displacing a lot of wildlife..Where do you think its heading..W and SW...into the ring?
Look East of the GTA and sprawl occurring now along the 401...Where do you think everything is going
Towards the middle....that ring?
As I mentioned Mike, right from the get go.
Coyotes are not native and are exploding. Everywhere..
Call the remnants of wolves in APP whatever you want. They are Coyotes mutts, not wolves. One wonders why they are getting special protection when they are nothing special and are exploding.
Be that as it may, theres nothing natural about it.
If man hadn't pushed Deer for the wolves to gorge on in the 1800s and early 1900s, their food would have run low, or out. And the wolves would have fled North in search of more food. Back then, it was open season on Wolves. However once they were protected in the 70s, their numbers started growing, albeit they are more Coyote than wolf.
Today, their main source of food (M/D/B) are down substantially from the 70s, when they were abundant. You can argue if you want that allowed them to "recover". To the point today where their numbers up and growing.
Curious Mike. if their primary food is down substantially, should they naturally be going down? So why are we not only protecting them, some want to enlarge that ring. One might argue, in the absence of Coyotes and if man wasn't unnaturally sending them more and more food....Naturally, there wouldn't be all that many of them.
you know, carrying capacity?
So why would you argue an ever larger ring in the middle squeezing the food chain, while the outer ring is concurrently squeezing the food chain in....And today theres this inconvenient truth of Coyotes.
In short Mike, unless you can find an answer that culls the human race in the south...........and the answer if one seeks some semblance of balance for the future, no major man made crashes or disease isn't by creating an even larger inner ring where the predators are untouchable and fed of steady diet of everything.....
well here's another pic from june this year. This is in unit 50.
there are actually 3 wolves surrounding this cow. there was no calf with her.
probably bears or these same wolves already got the calf.
ANYWAY the MNR needs to decide to support hunters and the cash flow from them OR to support an invasive (non-native) species.
from what I've seen so far I'm saddened.
I have a bag of hammers in the garage that's smarter then the MNR policy makers!
[IMG]http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/y...ps2jykbhvt.jpg[/IMG]
No qualms here providing some "protections" Skeeter. It could be argued these coyote mutts ( and in truth thats all they all) and if they were called that, and not some romantic "wolf"........#1 "justification" for protecting Coyotes as well? Because these "wolves" look way too much like them.
Funny that.
We could for example look at Yellowstone. See the success, see the problems it's caused. However there are some notable differences. The wolves there are actually wolves, and in fact are keeping the Coyote in check. Here they are Coyote hybrids and no-one is producing data or reports thats suggesting they are checking the advance of coyotes......wonder why, could it be because they are so diluted from grey wolves.........The US DNR is easing restrictions, we for some illogical reason want to further protect both these non native mutts and Coyotes by creating an even larger haven for them/anvil for all prey. Nor does Yellowstone have this problem thats unique to Ontario (aka Urban sprawl thats pushing a lot of all you can eat, lower on the food chain)...Truth is, if we weren't fattening up the residents of APP and surroundings, the wolves would likely be gone anyways.
See Cougars, so if the argument is let them be....Fine, put a fence up so we stop pushing food to them...
Or we could look towards Africa where hunting is banned, and all the problems there. And the few places where all species both prey and predator seem to be doing ok, are those places where big game hunting is supported.
And on and on and on and on.
The only time there are quasi rational/logical arguments for protection is when viewed in vacuums.
Just what threat is it exactly these coyote hybrids are facing?
From predation?
From other species?
From hunting?
From Urban Sprawl..Um if anything thats keeping them going vis a vie being more of a threat to species on the menu, and so the answer is make it worse?
Nice pic btw
As long as you have wolves and coyotes the Algonquin will never a threatened species. This is all a veiled attempt to incrementally kill off all forms of sport hunting and trapping.
Just some clarification on the 'mutt'....saw this in passing...
The amendment is in process under the EBR 012-8105Quote:
Wolves (Canis lupus), coyotes (Canis latrans var.) and hybrids of coyotes are classified
as Furbearing Mammals under Schedule 1 of Ontario’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Act, 1997, R.S.O. 1999, Chapter 41. The eastern wolf is treated under the Act as a
subspecies of C. lupus, and will remain protected under the Act in this manner until the
scientific community makes a final determination on the proposal that the eastern wolf is
not a C. lupus. The Act currently affords it protection because (1) it is hybridized with C.
lupus and C, latrans, two species protected under the Act, and (2) it is difficult to
distinguish from these species in the wild (i.e., it is treated as a look-alike under the Act).
Full recognition of the eastern wolf as a separate species under the Act would require
an amendment to add it to the list of species under Schedule 1 (Furbearing Mammals).
These Wolf Occurrence areas are now known because of GPS tracking collars. The Wolves have been leaving the APP in the winter in search for food (Deer) and venturing into now known areas...this is why these new MWUs have been put under the new restrictions...Quote:
Proposed approach for Algonquin Wolf
The Algonquin Wolf is difficult to visually distinguish from coyote and other types of wolves, the hunting and trapping of which are regulated under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA). Hunting and trapping of wolves and coyotes is currently prohibited in Algonquin Provincial Park and 42 townships surrounding the park. This prohibition was established in 2004 to avoid the accidental harvest of Algonquin Wolf mistaken for coyotes. The ministry is proposing amendments to O. Reg. 670/98 (Open Seasons – Wildlife) under the FWCA that would expand upon the current prohibition by closing the open season for wolf and coyote in core Algonquin Wolf occurrence areas. That proposal, titled “Amendments to wolf and coyote hunting and trapping regulations under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act in response to amendments to Ontario Regulation 230/08 (Species at Risk in Ontario List) under the Endangered Species Act, 2007 for Algonquin Wolf”, can be found at EBR Posting 012-8104.
Because of the difficulty in visually identifying Algonquin Wolf, it is proposed that an exemption from section 9 (with conditions) of the ESA be provided to persons who lawfully hunt or trap outside of the core occurrence areas identified in the proposed amendment to O. Reg. 670/98. These proposals will help to protect the species within its known core occurrence areas, while alleviating confusion outside the core occurrence areas that may arise because of the difficulty to visually distinguish the Algonquin Wolf from coyote or other wolf species.
It is proposed that exemption from section 9 (species protection provision) of the ESA apply to Algonquin Wolf if the following conditions are met:
• The person is hunting or trapping (including protection of property activities) in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and its regulations; and
• The person is outside of the identified core Algonquin Wolf occurrence areas
This proposed policy approach is intended to provide certainty around interim direction for the protection and management of Algonquin Wolf in Ontario while the legislative requirements under the ESA are being developed, including a science based-recovery strategy and a government response statement within the timeframes afforded under the legislation.
if your a real keener....have a read of this paper...it will dispel any of your questions about the Hybrids....
http://www.algonquinpark.on.ca/pdf/2...lf_ontario.pdf
This is far from any truth...hunting and trapping is an important part of the Management plan and a much needed resource to the MNR...you just have to understand the bigger picture when restrictions are applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by terrym
You've lost me on the whole Coyotes problem JBen....they are not protected in the south (where human conflict is greater). Lots around and open season. Not many guys hunt them and even then, the success rates are low.
So they are flourishing with no restrictions, eating small game to control the numbers and the rabbits cyclical life-cycle continues as it always has...they aren't packing up and moving toward the APP..they are being eaten by local Coyote populations.
So, as predators, they are doing what they are designed to do and eat and control critters that would otherwise run amuck.
In the APP region, they want a greater Wolf population so they want to restrict killing them. The 'hiccup', is that they are often mistaken for yotes, so they also put on restrictions on them to protect the Hybrids. A good management plan unless your a trapper or hunter in those ares, but that is the give and take required to manage the Eco-system.
Mike, the area where the protection extends now is (not sure right word) fair. As I said draw a ring, APP alone is 1.2 million sq km. They want to add 36 more townships, and protect Coyotes as well as these mutts. Again these aren't "wolves" Mike. As you said often mistaken for Coyotes...Funny that. Call a spade a spade, honestly it ok to do so. They are mutts, offspring from an invasive species thats exploding and remnants of actual wolves. Given there are no wolves in APP anymore, or very very very few, they are being further and further and further diluted. They are no more wolves than a beagle is a staff.
Does calling them what they actually are scare you? Has it crossed your ming that the actual reason for A) changing their name the that oh so romantic wolf and now special "Algonquin Wolf" and B) the decision to act now ( lets be completely willfully blind to all other concerns currently) is they knew their dirty little secret was about to blown open.
AKA the research (you know scientific research) released this week?
Funny timing all this don't you think?
Flourishing: Maybe not quite (not sure) but yeah Id go with that. How does that warrant more protection? They aren't threatened, not by much of anything. Do you or the champions have scientific data to show that? And you keep completely ignoring all other facets, like primary food (MDB being substantially down) like Grouse/Rabbit/Fox apparently down (Food types other species rely on like Great Greys, Great Horneds, Snowies and more) PS do you know how important Beavers are to APP??? Ripple effects, like the expansion to the south and more....living in a vacuum. You accuse hunters of tunnel vision and self interest. Pot meet kettle. And ASAIK its never worked, has ultimately led to problems, sometimes big that ultimately does no good for any of them. Witness so many, just yesterday Cormies.
And to highlight your "hypocrisy"
Hunting and trapping is an important part of management:
So why are you arguing to remove it.
Yep you didn't need to quote part of the paper verifying they (like bears) are ranging further and further south, out of the park.
why?
Theres only two possible answers.
1) Theres too many
2) Not enough food especially in winter
Aka the parks capacity is at its threshold. So good of you to interfere, and sacrifice not only species low on the food chain (already possibly in trouble) but also Great Greys, Great Horneds, Snowies that migrate south in winter in search of much needed food and more.......
First off...take a look at the map at link...the new 'restricted area's are not huge...rather small in fact looking at the bigger picture;Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
https://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/fi...hanges-map.pdf
2nd; go back to post #81....scientist have moved past the 'mutt' stage and they WILL be classified as a bon a fide 'sub-species'...which will also come under the protection as 'threatened' in the FWCA ....pretty much a done deal...like it or not..it's a recognized Hybrid
You're still talking about coyotes ...the reason the small critters are disappearing in the south is because the coyote population in the south is going unchecked...not because of MNR restrictions, but due to lack of trapping and hunting. Blame guys for not killing yotes in Jan/Feb or townships that refuse to put bounties on them. They are and will still be open season in most of the south !!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
The proposed restrictions on hunting them is only up north and is only a small area where the Wolves winter. As I said earlier..it affects only a small percentage of trappers and hunters in those areas.
1.2m sq miles isn't large enough?
I am looking at the big picture, its you that's not. Not thinking about all things that will be affected, you hadntt even considered what Urban Sprawl in the S is doing until I spelled it out for you. Completely oblivious to the fact they aren't actually threatened, until now when it was spelled out for you. Your one report says Beaver were substantially down...(Me I don't know but its your report).
Do you know how important Beavers are to the Park? Not as a food source (hey are but also but for the parks ecosystem?
Argued that G/R/F were at worst collateral damage, nit down and it had to be spelled out,, thats bad news for Birds of Prey (also protected), and you want to substantially increase the competition for food? had to spell it out that the reason bears are ranging further and further and further south, had to spell it out.
Tell me Mike, what happens when deer who have the same kind of protection in numerous provincial parks..........
And your still completely oblivious as to why Coyotes pose a problem.
Yup..I'm totally oblivious ..as the where your rants keep going.
You've mixed up to many issue's to keep track off..confusing issue affecting the APP and surrounding areas with the Urban sprawl in the south....Coyotes in the South with coyotes in the north...
I can't try to explain it any better, my links have explained it thoroughly, but you're still fixated on an issue that has little to do with the Algonquin Wolf in the APP...
Do your part and get and shot a few Yote's this winter..save a rabbit :)
Been a slice...ta ta...
1) hardly "rants" Mike, but you know what they say when people realize their arguements have no traction. They start resorting to...
2) "mixed up". What you call not looking at "the big picture". If it's too much for you, to look beyond just one or two closely tied, obvious things such as say "just Deer and Moose" fine but you see Mike ecosystems/biodiversity etc are big things, where small changes can have big ripples and we really should weighing it all, including how it might impact Birds of Prey, and more.
as well as say, how things are going with Coyotes. Not hard to see that. Not hard at all to project out some years, we aren't talking about A) just "wolves" but B) coyotes hybrids/mutts and Coyotes. Do the math.
Etc
etc
etc
you say its hunter whining about not being able to hunt deer. Or moaning about dwindling deer numbers. Etc etc
no it's more than that, a lot more
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Lmao , I'd love to see you tell that to all the trappers that are losing an integral part of their trap line management
[COLOR=#1D2129]PUBLIC INPUT COORDINATOR
[COLOR=#1D2129]Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
[COLOR=#1D2129]Policy Division, Species Conservation Policy Branch
[COLOR=#1D2129]Wildlife Section
[COLOR=#1D2129]300 Water St
[COLOR=#1D2129]Peterborough, ON K9J 8M5
[COLOR=#1D2129]RE: EBR Registry Number 012-8104
[COLOR=#1D2129]Dear Public Input Coordinator,
[COLOR=#1D2129]On behalf of the Ontario Fur Managers Federation we thank you for the opportunity to respond to this EBR posting regarding the amendment to wolf and coyote hunting and trapping seasons under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for Algonquin Wolf. The OFMF wants our objection noted to the recent renaming of the Eastern Wolf in Ontario to the Algonquin Wolf. This renaming was not based on conclusive scientific data, but hypnotized simulations by Rutledge and White. The research and data that Theberge provided and that was accepted at the time led to the protection of Eastern Wolf in 42 Townships around Algonquin Park in 2004. This has since been proven and discredited as some of the research data was purposely altered or misrepresented. Yet the search to create an Iconic or Special Wolf for Ontario and the Park continues. This causes the OFMF and our members to question the motives or objectives to further areas being protected.
[COLOR=#1D2129]The OFMF is opposed to and does not support further protection of Algonquin wolf by prohibiting hunting and trapping of wolves and coyotes in three additional core areas. We base this stance on the Evaluation Report for Algonquin Wolf which was provided as a link for further information in this EBR Posting.
[COLOR=#1D2129]• It is stated in this document that the reduction or ban in hunting and trapping in the adjacent 42 protected areas reduced the human caused mortality threat (protection of property still allowed) however resulted in increased natural mortality rates in Eastern Wolf.
[COLOR=#1D2129]• The threat from trapping and hunting in unprotected areas around the protected areas is not increasing.
[COLOR=#1D2129]• The general consensus in this document is that historical and continued sympatric distribution of Grey wolf, Coyote and Eastern wolf will continue to have widespread and longstanding hybridization among
[COLOR=#1D2129]The Canis Lupus and two of its subspecies
[COLOR=#1D2129]• The intermediate size of the Algonquin Wolf has been attributed to hybridization with Grey Wolves and Coyote.
[COLOR=#1D2129]• COSEWIC acknowledges that “we lack enough specimens that have been collected before coyotes were present to characterize a pure Eastern Wolf”
[COLOR=#1D2129]The OFMF believes that the above information quoted proves that protecting Algonquin Wolves by banning hunting and trapping in the proposed areas in this EBR will lead to a higher population of Algonquin/Eastern Wolf or a recovery of them. This will only lead to higher concentrations of Grey Wolf and Coyotes, thus increasing hybridization with any increase in Algonquin/Eastern Wolf. The natural mortality rate was quoted as increasing and having a significant effect on the population in the existing protected areas.
[COLOR=#1D2129]Also in this same document referenced above is the Ontario Status Assessment (COSSARO REPORT), which states the following:
[COLOR=#1D2129]• 3.1.1 Criterion A- Decline in total number or mature individuals
[COLOR=#1D2129]Does not apply/insufficient information. The Algonquin Wolf populations appear to be stable (COSEWIC 2015)
[COLOR=#1D2129]• 3.1.3 Criterion C – Small and declining number of mature individuals
[COLOR=#1D2129]Does not apply. No Evidence of a population decline
[COLOR=#1D2129]• 3.1.4. Criterion D – Very small or restricted total population
[COLOR=#1D2129]Threatened. The Algonquin Wolf meets D1 because the estimated population of mature individuals is less than 1000. COSEWIC (2015) estimated that the minimum number of mature individuals in Ontario is 154, and the estimated maximum number of Algonquin Wolves inferred from sampled sites in Ontario is 488. However, under-sampling in some areas, e.g. between Georgian Bay and APP (L. Rutledge, pers. comm. 2015), combined with the need to genotype individuals in order to identify Algonquin Wolves, has almost certainly led to an underestimation of the Algonquin Wolf population size, and the actual number is most likely somewhere between 250 and 1000.
[COLOR=#1D2129]• 3.3.2. Rescue effect
[COLOR=#1D2129]Rescue effect is unlikely because individuals from geographically distant locations are unlikely to genetically cluster with APP wolves. Some rescue effect from Quebec populations may be feasible, although risks of human-caused mortality and hybridization with coyotes increase outside of protected areas.
[COLOR=#1D2129]The OFMF questions again how the Algonquin/Eastern Wolf gained the designation of Threatened by COSSARRO when in their own documentation quoted above states the population is stable, no evidence of decline, recognizes that population numbers are underestimated and recovery due to hybridization is not likely. Where is the scientific conclusive proof or evidence that is supposed to be considered by COSEWIC, COSSARRO and MNRF? OFMF has reviewed various research articles including “Whole –genome sequence shows that two endemic species of North American wolf are admixtures of the coyote and gray wolf” published in Science Advances on July 27, 2016, DNA Study Reveals the One and Only Wolf Species in North America” published in the New York Times on July 27, 2016, and The Wildlife Society “Supposed wolf species may actually be hybrids” published in the Wildlife Society on July 28, 2016. This recent research supports the inclusive results of wolf species. It is interesting that researcher L.Y.Rutledge Questions the samples years of Algonquin wolf that were used were in the 80’ and 90’ when hybridization was high in Ontario. We find this interesting as the samples that L.Y.Rutledge, P.J. Wilson, C.F.C. Klutsch, B.R. Patterson, B.N. White used from pre 64’ Algonquin Park did not contain all the data needed for DNA research on Eastern wolf. Therefore in the model that was built, they theorized what some of the missing data would have contained or look liked for their final report, “which the conclusions that the SNP array may suffer from ascertainment bias” as quoted on page 4 from the Science Advances article referenced above. Again we are left to question what the motive or expected objective to be achieved in the proposal actually is, as it is not clearly stated. What is the expected population change if further protection is imposed? What is the expected carrying capacity on the landscape for these three sub species of canine predators that are being proposed in these protected areas? When the carrying capacity in one area has been exceeded to support this overabundance, starvation, mange and other diseases threaten to diminish the presence of the Algonquin/Eastern Wolf; are more protected areas and wolf/ coyote protection really the only resolutions to be considered?
[COLOR=#1D2129]Also the OFMF questions what considerations have been made to the negative impacts on other furbearer, wildlife, livestock and human/wildlife conflicts. This has not been mentioned or addressed in this EBR and should be recognized and considered. The research shows that Beaver, Deer and Moose are the main diet of the Grey Wolf, Coyote and Eastern Wolf. It should be acknowledged by the MNRF that furbearers and wildlife populations will decrease as the Grey Wolf and Coyote population increases and even more if some Algonquin/Eastern wolf eventually shows some increase. The MNRF has the responsibility to manage all wildlife populations and programs. There should be no disregard for the species that have the ability to survive on their own without special protection and with human cause mortality through trapping and hunting over a specie that cannot survive outside of protected areas. Algonquin Park is a prime, living example of the decimation of beaver colonies and dead ponds that no longer can support other furbearers and wildlife. The Province has reintroduced Elk in certain areas in Ontario and two of the areas are in the proposal for protection of wolves and coyotes. It is interesting as predation on Elk by Wolves has had an impact in the population numbers of Elk! What consideration has been given to this program that the MNRF is supposed to be managing and involved in?
[COLOR=#1D2129]Also it is important to note that in the 1950’s and 60’s the Lands and Forest (called MNRF today) was trying to eradicate wolves in these and other areas of the Province with poison and bounties for hunters and trappers. Then in the later 50”s and 60’s there was an individual by the name of Mr. Pimlott who conducted documented research inside Algonquin Park. He was breeding grey wolves with coyotes inside the park in pens and releasing them. This is supported by documented research. There are also Parks Staff and Lands and Forest employees still living who remember picking up dead deer carcasses on local roads to feed captive wolves and coyote for this project.. This may have been the origin of the hybridization that is occurring with Grey wolves, coyotes and Algonquin/Eastern Wolves.
[COLOR=#1D2129]The OFMF recommends the following:
[COLOR=#1D2129]• That this proposal of more protected areas be rescinded due to the lack of scientific evidence and the fact that the population is considered stable
[COLOR=#1D2129]• That trappers and hunters be encouraged to harvest more wolves and coyotes right up to the current protected area of the park and 42 townships to allow the population of Algonquin/Eastern Wolf to maintain its current population.
[COLOR=#1D2129]In closing we would like to point out that whatever has created this anomaly within Algonquin Park and has allowed this Sub specie to exist should be observed and studied more before any further consideration of protection areas are proposed in the future. Natural existence of any specie is based on survival or adaptation of the fittest.
[COLOR=#1D2129]Sincerely on behalf of the OFMF Board of Directors and our members;
[COLOR=#1D2129]John Fitchett
[COLOR=#1D2129]OFMF President
[COLOR=#1D2129]cc: OFMF Board of Directors
Here is the response from the Ontario Fur managers
How many trappers base their trapping on wolf and coyote only?Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
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?
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Splaker
http://algonquinforestry.on.ca/gener...nomy-products/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
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
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.
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 Splaker
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
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
The harvest of wolves on registered trap lines is very important as a overall management tool for the health and stable management of the lineQuote:
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.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.
Sure but is it the basis for a line?Quote:
Originally Posted by trappermatt
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.
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 Splaker
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox
(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
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
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 managementQuote:
Originally Posted by Fox
[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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Cheers
From what I've read, on the logging aspect:Quote:
Originally Posted by Splaker
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
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....
Actually an interesting paper....http://www.web2.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/eb...ckgrounder.pdfQuote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
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.
The extreme environmental movement actually does intend to "cull" - they talk about ideal human populations of 500 mill. Anti-family, anti-capitalism, anti-technology.. lets all live in tree house and graze on nuts and berries.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Haha. :)
Mother nature is trying (super bugs, and others), though personally suspect we will do it to ourselves.
We are the only species on the planet that thinks we should, and tries to live forever. And as a result......
Here's a "thought". Throughout history nature has been fairly adept at "balancing". Coyotes have proven to be highly adaptable, highly resilient. Maybe natures way of providing a numerous, effective predator into S And C Ontario that can handle being hunted (has anyone smashed them down anywhere for good?), a long with Urban sprawl. Nature has also been trying to balance APP following our screw ups there. Funny that in Chernobyl, it's the beaver coming back that is largely credited with a lot.......these aren't Wolves, their hybrids more than happy to breed with Coyotes.
So why would we want to move the goal post
again
So do you guys think the "red" wolf of the Appalachians is a bogus breed too? Is it possible that these things (including what we see in APP) are true wolves, but not the greys you get further north/west?Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Suppose anything is possible, but given what dna testing has confirmed.......given that wolves tend to have packs of 4-6 and 8 is considered large, coyotes???? ( I've seen a pack of 8 of these in 53...watched them circle one guys stand with zero fear of man ( he was yelling at them) does that sound like wolves?
...given a breed/species like Coyotes.(natures super bug).....maybe nature is breeding any few "wolves" left out of existence......maybe nature is replacing wolves in the area with Coyotes, as it has in S Ontario giving beaver (decimated) a break, and more. In short maybe nature intends and knows theres only room for one "canid" predator. Maybe nature knows that while coyotes will also take down large mammals (M/D) that they to can use a break, because M/D/B are the primary source for Wolves. coyote not so much, they will eat anything ( I'm guessing beaver isn't high on their list).
why move the goal post again. Why protect them ( and coyotes) more. Is that status quo not "good enough/working"?
Yes it is, read the response by the OFBM and their own report ( their admissions and omissions)
OFAH has a form to submit comments on their website:
https://www.ofah.org/issues/wolf-coy...-trapping-ban/
There's a map showing the new areas where the ban is proposed. When those folks find out,it'll be SHTF time because it's encompassing prime hunting and trapping areas where it's really a big deal in northern CKL,Peterborough and Hastings Counties. This is just nuts!Quote:
Originally Posted by Dude Bro
Flying in winter north of Nakina we often saw packs of 10 or more timber wolves on the trail of moose and caribou.Quote:
given that wolves tend to have packs of 4-6 and 8 is considered large
I know trappers involved with the red wolf program in the U.S. And they will tell you that the whole program is a billion dollar flop due to coyote introgression , if there truly was a real red wolf when they started , there isn't now, it's all crossbread muttsQuote:
Originally Posted by Splaker
Most reading I've ever seen, say/suggest they tend to be 5-10 in number. While there are always exceptions (there might be a pack of say 13, there might be a pack of 2 or 3). So 8 in a pack would be considered large, getting close to the point where typically younger offspring, disperse and start forming their own. So ignoring mortality keeping a pack under say 10. As it starts to get crowded, maybe at 8, if 2 or 3 split off, it resets the pack to 5.Quote:
Originally Posted by redd foxx
"Life History and Reproduction
[COLOR=#363636]Wolves live in packs. Most packs have four to nine members, but the size can range from as few as two wolves to as many as 15. Occasionally, a pack can increase to 30 members until some individuals break off to find new territory and form their own pack."
https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlif...Gray-Wolf.aspx
Don't know off hand what the typical pack size for Coyotes is, but for wolves it tends to be "small". Hollywood and TV shows like to show packs of 10+ (so much more romantic) and while that does occur it's not the norm.
Either way, I have run into a pack of these hybrids in 53. First day of rifle in 2013 that was. They came in, circled one guys tree stand for about 30 seconds while he barked and yelled at them. He got some great video of it on his cell phone. Afterwards 4 of them approached another guys stand, with two of them belly crawling to within 10 feet of him.
Two things:
1) Does that sound like normal wolf behaviour?
2) If packs in the park are hitting the upper end of typical pack size...Well that suggest theres too many of them for the park
Trimmer, re the map of the proposed area's.
Notice how the biggest chunk extends due south. As you said, its huge and also perhaps "oddly" get really close to the northern edge of 73, and is on the edge 74 A and B. Say from Lindsay to Omemee or PTBO. Where just 15 minutes south is massive amounts of Urban Sprawl now and coming as the 407 links Brooklin (just South of Lindsay to Orono, just South of Omemee.)
Gee I can't imagine that will be good for all the various animals on the food chain being pushed right into the jaws of a steel trap. Nor for all that territory with unchecked, unharassed free passes for predators running and breeding amok. Not like Coyotes already.......
That was the first thing that jumped out at me. Those areas are full of farms where Coyotes are a huge issue with animal predation,unless the exemption for farmers for livestock protection is left in place. Trapping will take a huge hit,though. I'm sick of the OMNRF using these conflicting "studies" as justification for hunting bans of Algonguin Wolf/Red Wolf/Gray Wolf/Coyote in areas where the "science" couldn't offer definitive proof,only mere speculation. It's like they're pissing on your leg and telling you it's raining.
Call me cynical, but my career in Bay Street taught me to take nothing at face value, question everything. I don't know and can't be bothered to cross reference. How much of that swath (which does oddly seem to want to move real close to 73/74) right into the alley.
fall within the Algonquin Land Claim area, which I think is somewhat more east, and thus not in it. May be nothing but I almost want to see a map with both areas overlaid/superimposed.
From what I can see from the map and the knowledge I have of the ALC,none of the proposed additional areas fall within it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen