Are Wolves the new Bears? From MNR Watch

[Old Ironmaker]

Another good read from MNR Watch. We study history so as to not repeat our mistakes. Many guys our way hunting Coyotes now. Not many reported bagged, I am told the fur and skins are used and the meat for Dogs. I am not one to support killing for the sake of simply killing.

http://mnrwatch.com/are-wolves-the-new-bears/

[Joeytier]

The MNRF has politicized the issue by throwing 'Algonquin' in the name and it has since become a poster child for emotional anti-hunting/trapping rhetoric.  Do you believe that trappers take wolves 'simply to kill'?  That's a dangerously slippery slope to walk on as a sportsman.  Do you fish just to hurt fish then release them?

Edited February 23, 2018 by Joeytier

[Tom S]

A tough topic to get anyone to agree on. Wolves definitely have a place in that ecosystem, the question becomes how many wolves can be sustained, both from an ecological perspective and a human-wolf interaction perspective.

Some interesting reading on what was seen in Yellowstone Park when they reintroduced wolves - things you wouldn't even think connected initially https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem

I wish that they would base decision like this more on data and statistics, rather than it being a political issue between treehuggers and resource users.

 

[misfish]

Around these parts, there are yotes and coy. Coy is mixed breed of yotes and the common dog. They are shot as they are attacking farm stock. As for the wolves, I see no reason. They are a natural breed. If they are a trappers means of livelihood and is granted by law, I see no issue as well. Im sure there is a quota for their harvest.

[Joeytier]

1 hour ago, Tom S said:

I wish that they would base decision like this more on data and statistics, rather than it being a political issue between treehuggers and resource users.

 

That's it 100%.

[dave524]

Coyotes are not wolves, apples and oranges 

 

edit: took an wildlife biology course  under Doug Pimlott in the early 70's.

Edited February 19, 2018 by dave524

[scuro2]

5 hours ago, dave524 said:

Coyotes are not wolves, apples and oranges 

 

edit: took an wildlife biology course  under Doug Pimlott in the early 70's.

We got to talking about that at the dinner table...they are a separate species? How does the basic biology work in comparison to Horses, Donkeys and Mules? Just checked on wiki, A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare). Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. So separate species can mate and produce offspring? Fish species seem to stay mostly true in nature.

Edited February 19, 2018 by scuro2

[John Bacon]

9 hours ago, scuro2 said:

We got to talking about that at the dinner table...they are a separate species? How does the basic biology work in comparison to Horses, Donkeys and Mules? Just checked on wiki, A mule is the offspring of a male donkey (jack) and a female horse (mare). Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes. So separate species can mate and produce offspring? Fish species seem to stay mostly true in nature.

Yes, two separate species can produce offspring; but their offspring are rarely fertile.  E.g. You cannot more mules by breeding the ones you have, you'll need horses & donkeys to make more mules.

I was taught that the ability to breed and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions is what defined a species.  However, I think that there is some flexibility in this definition.

Animals, including fish, rarely cross breed in nature.  But it does happen.  E.g. tiger muskie, saugeye, cutbow, etc.  In some cases the female offspring will be fertile but the males will not.  
 

[DRIFTER_016]

We have coyotes and wolves up here in YK.

There are lots of sighting of yotes in town and there have been some wolf sightings too.

In fact my friend saw a wolf in my driveway a couple of weeks ago.

Several years ago a couple of blocks away from me a guy was taking his dog out for a walk and when he turned to lock his door a wolf killed his golden retriever.

We have also had cougars, lynx, black and grizzly bears and I have even seen a wolverine at my house.

In Yellowknife you step out of the tour bus and into the food chain!!!!  

 

[AKRISONER]

Not to skew this way off topic but im sure thats the direction this is all going to head, I am all for hunting as a means to put food on your families table, but I have never been a huge fan of hunting for the sake of bagging trophies or wearing fur...if only 90% of the dummies that wear canada goose jackets understood what making them entails, they probably wouldnt wear them.

We as humans have done far enough to decimate our large game and predator species through habitat destruction, there's no need to add to it by shooting for sport.

Ive heard of some folks eating Yote...anyone care to chime in on this one?

Also my opinion doesnt matter at all...to each his own, if you are doing what you are doing legally more power to you!

Edited February 20, 2018 by AKRISONER

[dave524]

1 hour ago, AKRISONER said:

Not to skew this way off topic but im sure thats the direction this is all going to head, I am all for hunting as a means to put food on your families table, but I have never been a huge fan of hunting for the sake of bagging trophies or wearing fur

Ive heard of some folks eating Yote...anyone care to chime in on this one?

To further skew this, I am not a fan of these total catch and release, trophy fisherpeople looking for that social media hero shot,  preaching their holier than thou ethics. Do they not realize that there is a kill factor to Catch and Release angling, an optimist would put it at 10% an a pessimist at 20% from my observation. These righteous C and R anglers who  catch several times the daily limit may actually be killing more fish on a outing than the guy who puts a few on a stringer for the table. I shot furbearers, coyotes , fox and coon 30 some years ago, good money then , i was making about 7 bucks a hour in the steel mill and was getting around 50 for a prime pelt in 78, a day's wage. Also shot groundhogs all summer, best day was 31 for 40 at ranges out past 400 yds with a 220 Swift and a high power scope, lots of fun and I don't feel guilty one bit 

[Joeytier]

Yeah, trapping wolves and yote is definitely nowhere near being financially lucrative (at least in comparison to the past).  The people I know that do it take a few every year to help out the moose and share the pelt with friends and family, and to keep their trap line active.  I think a lot of people have a misconception that there's hordes of people out in the bush chasing after every wolf in sight.  To try and infringe on a sportsman's right to sustainably trap and hunt predator animals simply because you don't like it is seriously off, in my opinion. 

I'm sure if we cancelled every bass and walleye tournament in Ontario, you would see a notable increase in fishing quality on many popular cottage lakes in a few short years, but I am not about to tell a tournament angler that he/she is wrong in doing so.

[Rod Caster]

2 hours ago, AKRISONER said:

Not to skew this way off topic but im sure thats the direction this is all going to head, I am all for hunting as a means to put food on your families table, but I have never been a huge fan of hunting for the sake of bagging trophies or wearing fur...if only 90% of the dummies that wear canada goose jackets understood what making them entails, they probably wouldnt wear them.

We as humans have done far enough to decimate our large game and predator species through habitat destruction, there's no need to add to it by shooting for sport.

Ive heard of some folks eating Yote...anyone care to chime in on this one?

Also my opinion doesnt matter at all...to each his own, if you are doing what you are doing legally more power to you!

Hunters and outdoorsmen, and/or people who have a financial stake in wildlife generally pay for the vast majority of habitat protection  and wildlife management (thank Hunters for the Elk in Bancroft - thank trophy hunters in Africa for paying for anti-poaching programs that will save our charismatic mega-fauna). A few less coyotes and wolves through shooting will have no perceptible effect, if not the opposite effect (see below). First of all, I'll give you 5 guns and unlimited bullets... now go find a shoot a wolf/coyote while you still have a normal life/job/family/everyday concerns. Goooooood luck. I never see them on my large property that is loaded with them, and I spend a LOT of time alone in the bush (only saw one coyote while driving my bush truck on my trails).

If people did not wipe out wolves in the late 1800's to mid 1900's (like we did with cougars), then they are at no risk of currently becoming endangered. Timberwolves in particular are extremely well-adapted to north America, just like white tail deer, they are fine and will be here forever.

 

With coyotes, if you start killing them off, it will trigger the mothers to have MUCH large litters. If anything, shooting the coyotes is a dumb idea because their will be a natural bounce-back. It's crazy stuff

 

 Any hoopla associated with wolves is just hot wind with political overtones.. nearly nobody is causing any serious damage to their populations... if you can identify an individual who is being a turd, then he should be reprimanded on an individual basis.

 

I suggest reading Dan Flores' coyote America.

 

[scuro2]

18 hours ago, Rod Caster said:

Hunters and outdoorsmen, and/or people who have a financial stake in wildlife generally pay for the vast majority of habitat protection  and wildlife management  - thank trophy hunters in Africa for paying for anti-poaching programs that will save our charismatic mega-fauna).

Oh so all local and international government attempts to save a species are totally useless but put it in the hunter's hands and the species will be SAVED!!!! Yup, letting them kill the animals is the surest way see a population explosions in species like Elephants and Rhinos. This must prove the law of supply and demand!?!???

Somehow I knew it was a little more complicated then this. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC helps sort it out.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/

"But a closer look at trophy hunting in Africa shows that the industry employs few people and that the money from hunt fees that trickles down to needy villagers is minimal".

 

 

[SirCranksalot]

22 hours ago, AKRISONER said:

Not to skew this way off topic but im sure thats the direction this is all going to head, I am all for hunting as a means to put food on your families table, but I have never been a huge fan of hunting for the sake of bagging trophies or wearing fur...i

We as humans have done far enough to decimate our large game and predator species through habitat destruction, there's no need to add to it by shooting for sport.

Totally agree.

[Rod Caster]

45 minutes ago, scuro2 said:

Oh so all local and international government attempts to save a species are totally useless but put it in the hunter's hands and the species will be SAVED!!!! Yup, letting them kill the animals is the surest way see a population explosions in species like Elephants and Rhinos. This must prove the law of supply and demand!?!???

Somehow I knew it was a little more complicated then this. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC helps sort it out.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/

"But a closer look at trophy hunting in Africa shows that the industry employs few people and that the money from hunt fees that trickles down to needy villagers is minimal".

 

 

I said 'generally', and my statement holds very true for North America where we have pretty much the best hunting/ wildlife populations in the developed world. Local government support generally comes from those who have an actual vested interest in the animals and purchase the licenses, and contribute the excise taxes (in the US anyway) to governmental resource managers, Not the feel-good, crowd-funding,  'like' button, stuffed animal crowd that knows nothing about wildlife other than what they've read on their favourite self-biased websites. 

Every animal dies eventually, you know that, right. Hunting doesn't necessarily reduce a population, especially if you focus the kills on older animals and support the younger, more prime-breeding animals. Hunting is the furthest thing from a free-for all. It's a highly controlled management system usually overseen by educated people like biologists. There are a billion (made up that number) car-attacking deer in ontario and still it's very hard to get a doe tag in many places. Legal hunting is very restrictive and is based on population studies.

 

And yes, in places where the animals have no monetary value to the locals, they get poached and eaten and nobody cares about them. Louis Theroux has a good documentary that highlights this. 

Africa can swallow the entire North America plus more, one link to Zimbabwe elephants doesn't not cover an entire topic. Who's simplifying now. 

Your statement of "Somehow I knew it was a little more complicated then this." couldn't be more accurate. It's a super complex topic, but looking at the best examples of proper management, you see that hunting is often a major contributor of creating vested interest and genuine care for the animals, as well as a constant flow of money towards management. 

 

If we didn't have our modern hunting management systems in North America, our game-species population would be fraction of their current selves. We were well on our way to killing everything including habitat prior to this (yes, our old-school hunting forefathers are an example of how hunting can go BAD! Management, management, management).

[scuro2]

4 hours ago, Rod Caster said:

I said 'generally', and my statement holds very true for North America where we have pretty much the best hunting/ wildlife populations in the developed world. Local government support generally comes from those who have an actual vested interest in the animals and purchase the licenses, and contribute the excise taxes (in the US anyway) to governmental resource managers, Not the feel-good, crowd-funding,  'like' button, stuffed animal crowd that knows nothing about wildlife other than what they've read on their favourite self-biased websites. ....

If we didn't have our modern hunting management systems in North America, our game-species population would be fraction of their current selves. We were well on our way to killing everything including habitat prior to this (yes, our old-school hunting forefathers are an example of how hunting can go BAD! Management, management, management).

Well it is a lot more complicated then that.

I just didn't buy your intro salvo that Hunters saved the animals of the world just like I woudln't buy that fishermen have saved the fish. Of course those with a vested interest in a population can make a big difference especially when they are integrated into a plan. But it's not an absolute that Hunters are required to protect animals and their habitat. ...ie Costa Rica.

If NA is ahead of the game it's got to partially be because of the farsighted policies of the governments of the time to reserve huge chunks of land to create National and State/Provincial parks, and this at an early time when the all the wild life wasn't wiped out. Add to that list of "protected" land some private reserves and ranches.

 

 

[Rod Caster]

1 hour ago, scuro2 said:

Well it is a lot more complicated then that.

I just didn't buy your intro salvo that Hunters saved the animals of the world just like I woudln't buy that fishermen have saved the fish. Of course those with a vested interest in a population can make a big difference especially when they are integrated into a plan. But it's not an absolute that Hunters are required to protect animals and their habitat. ...ie Costa Rica.

If NA is ahead of the game it's got to partially be because of the farsighted policies of the governments of the time to reserve huge chunks of land to create National and State/Provincial parks, and this at an early time when the all the wild life wasn't wiped out. Add to that list of "protected" land some private reserves and ranches.

 

 

Such as Teddy Roosevelt who was a well-documented hunter  He set aside ridiculously huge chunks of public land, in part, because at that time it was becoming clear that wildlife populations were severely diminished. They started wiping out the wildlife long before the 1900's. 

 

I agree though... hunters aren't universal saviours. I would be silly to think that any statement holds true in every single part of the world for all time periods. In modern times, i argue that well-managed and well-intentioned hunting culture has shown to be one of the absolute most effective means of changing over-harvesting behaviours and raising funds with the intent of protecting wildlife populations, and having measurable positive results.

 

 

Edited February 21, 2018 by Rod Caster

[scuro2]

3 hours ago, Rod Caster said:

 

3 hours ago, Rod Caster said:

Such as Teddy Roosevelt who was a well-documented hunter  He set aside ridiculously huge chunks of public land, in part, because at that time it was becoming clear that wildlife populations were severely diminished. They started wiping out the wildlife long before the 1900's. 

 

I agree though... hunters aren't universal saviours. I would be silly to think that any statement holds true in every single part of the world for all time periods. In modern times, i argue that well-managed and well-intentioned hunting culture has shown to be one of the absolute most effective means of changing over-harvesting behaviours and raising funds with the intent of protecting wildlife populations, and having measurable positive results.

Yeah Teddy and other leaders in the US and Canada. There is a Ken Burns documentary on the US parks and another on the Roosevelts...both good and revealing on this history.

I have no argument with you about hunters potentially and realistically being good stewards of game land. You could say that in a more tempered way without "shooting down" others to make your point..  Those FB loving youths with their stuffed animals and self affirming websites can be just as much part of the answer to our natural world in decline. Consider, hunters as a population are getting older and can be just as ridged and unrealistic in their viewpoint on the most pressing nature issue of our time, climate change. We need more communication as a society, not less. Have a good day!

 

Edited February 22, 2018 by scuro2

[AKRISONER]

case and point...Ducks unlimited as far as I am aware has done more to preserve wetlands than anyone.

 

Theres a big difference IMO though than shooting a few ducks for table fare, and shooting wolves for not much else aside from shooting them. 

 

The whole argument that "wolf populations are doing great" is pretty Bull because when was the last time you saw a wolf in the GTA? How many deer are there around the GTA? hmm something seems out of balance right? Old argument, wow the population of this species is doing fantastic in this very small area...much like ontario elk...great the population is "sustainable" in the area that they are basically confined to live in, meanwhile all of these animals should technically be everywhere but the damage in totally decimating all of these animal populations was done a long time ago...let us not be short sighted about that.

Same can be said for cougars...we know they exist but the reason the government wont even aknowledge it is because they dont want to have to open up a cougar hunting debate. People shoot polar bears and elephants too...IMO they are asses.

Edited February 22, 2018 by AKRISONER

[DRIFTER_016]

Do you realize that without the $$$$ big game hunters in Africa pay for their tags they would not have enough $$$$ to counteract the rampant poaching done by the locals in Africa. The tag $$$ goes straight to enforcement.

The game wardens in Africa shoot first and ask questions later due to the number that have been killed by poachers.

[AKRISONER]

57 minutes ago, DRIFTER_016 said:

Do you realize that without the $$$$ big game hunters in Africa pay for their tags they would not have enough $$$$ to counteract the rampant poaching done by the locals in Africa. The tag $$$ goes straight to enforcement.

The game wardens in Africa shoot first and ask questions later due to the number that have been killed by poachers.

hmmmm im gonna say thats more than likely incorrect. Ill let statistics if anyone has them to prove me wrong, but my understanding is that a far larger segment of individuals visiting game reserves in Africa is comprised of individuals visiting purely for tourism purposes.

I know quite a few people that have been to Africa and gone on safaris, I dont know anyone personally who has gone there to shoot trophies. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by AKRISONER

[scuro2]

2 hours ago, DRIFTER_016 said:

Do you realize that without the $$$$ big game hunters in Africa pay for their tags they would not have enough $$$$ to counteract the rampant poaching done by the locals in Africa. The tag $$$ goes straight to enforcement.

The game wardens in Africa shoot first and ask questions later due to the number that have been killed by poachers.

It ain't exactly like that. As posted before...https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151715-conservation-trophy-hunting-elephants-tusks-poaching-zimbabwe-namibia/

If you still think hunters will be the Saviours of the Elephant and Rhino I can dig further to completely destroy that myth. In Africa it's extra complicated. Hunters, like fishermen can be part of the problem or solution. You most definitely want to give hunters a seat at the table and have them onside with a plan anytime extinction is an issue.

Edited February 22, 2018 by scuro2

[Joeytier]

On 2/22/2018 at 7:25 AM, AKRISONER said:

case and point...Ducks unlimited as far as I am aware has done more to preserve wetlands than anyone.

 

Theres a big difference IMO though than shooting a few ducks for table fare, and shooting wolves for not much else aside from shooting them. 

 

The whole argument that "wolf populations are doing great" is pretty Bull because when was the last time you saw a wolf in the GTA? How many deer are there around the GTA? hmm something seems out of balance right? Old argument, wow the population of this species is doing fantastic in this very small area...much like ontario elk...great the population is "sustainable" in the area that they are basically confined to live in, meanwhile all of these animals should technically be everywhere but the damage in totally decimating all of these animal populations was done a long time ago...let us not be short sighted about that.

And what demographic of people do you think contribute most to Ducks Unlimited?  I would bet that hunters are at the top of the list.

 

"The whole argument that "wolf populations are doing great" is pretty Bull because when was the last time you saw a wolf in the GTA? "  Not sure what evidence you're willing to put forward on that, but the Grey Wolf and Eastern Coyote, and any genetic hybrid thereof, are both officially listed as 'Not at Risk' in both Ontario and in Canada.  66% of Ontario is forested land, not sure why the GTA is even being brought up, since it contains approximately zero suitable habitat for wolves.  Don't like trapping and hunting wolves?  Then don't trap or hunt wolves.  I don't participate in either myself (not particularly interested), but do you not see the hypocrisy as a sportsman to insult those that do?

 

 

 

 

[Joeytier]

My thoughts pertaining to the original issue at hand:

As far as I can see it, the race has already been lost when it comes to sustaining a genetically pure strain of Eastern Wolf in Ontario.  Most in the know seem to agree that hybridization has already been widespread for many generations, and since it is impossible to distinguish between the two based on appearance alone, it is a difficult thing to quantify.  Regardless of whether or not humans harvest any of these dogs, the eastern coyote will continue to thrive in these areas and interbreed with the eastern wolf, so how long will it take until there are no true eastern wolves left?  And if there is still a strong population of apex predator dogs in its place, will the ecosystem as a whole suffer at all?  My guess is no.