EBR Proposal 012-8104;8105

[Fox]

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?

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.

[MikePal]

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...

[kokes]

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.

[MikePal]

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..

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.

Until you know the rational for MNR decisions, how can you call it "absolute mis-management of our resources" ?

[MikePal]

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.

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.

The following study will provide some insight..specifically read chapter 4.0 (page 10)...

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.

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.

[trappermatt]

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)...

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.

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 ago

[TrapJack]

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 ago

Correct. i just started a new thread with modern proof and DNA results.

[MikePal]

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

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

[BDH]

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

[MikePal]

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.

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)..