Wolf Issues - Let's Make a Change

[WestCoastHunter]

Hey everyone, so I was watching WildTV and James Brion talked briefly on the growing concern of the overpopulation of wolves. He touched on how they don't just eat young or old and sick game, wolves attack animals of all ages and health. So as everyone knows about the increasing problem and many are doing their part to change it, why is there not more efforts in the population control of wolves? How come there are no tournaments or competitions, where say a big portion of entry fees etc goes towards an organization such as BCWF, and a small part goes to prizes (to attract more people). Am I way out of proportion here or is this something that is a possibility for the near future? It made me think more about the problem and so I was curious as to why there are no events like this currently to get the hunting community more involved in this. Or are there and I am just oblivious to them?

Cheers
Brandon

[BiG Boar]

There are several events like that.

[Sofa King]

because this is Canada and not some redneck state where almost anything goes.
we aren't going to do "competitions/tournaments" to go out and slaughter animals.
we call it conservation.
it has to be determined just how out of balance the pred/prey #'s are.
I don't know if they really have any way of even determining that accurately.
people could do their own little competitions.
like hbc could have a pool with prizes for who gets the most in a year and the biggest, etc.
but I'd doubt we'd see the government put something like that together.
they won't even use hunters to do culls of animals.

[Singleshotneeded]

I'm into getting together with any hunters that have experience in hunting wolves and burning some powder. We need to whittle down their numbers and I'll put my time and money where my mouth is...who's going from the Okanagan?

[Sofa King]

There are several events like that.

they must be organizations I'd guess though.
they aren't government-based are they?

[Sofa King]

I'm into getting together with any hunters that have experience in hunting wolves and burning some powder. We need to whittle down their numbers and I'll put my time and money where my mouth is...who's going from the Okanagan?

send a party up highway 33.

[leadpillproductions]

Id like see them hire people like they use to to take care of problem predetors , but know its up to CO'S.

[Cordillera]

There is a draft provincial wolf management strategy that was out for review last year. I think a decision is expected soon. It does propose some increase in wolf management for particular goals like managing species at risk. In general the province has also liberalized regulations on wolves in the last couple years.

[BearSniper]

Saw my first Wolf, a huge black male , near Prince George last November. He was running right towards me on an old skidder trail, just as I was aiming for a shot at about 60 meters , he winded me and..... Gone ! They are very skittish. Not easy to hunt unless, I suppose, you use a blind and bait pile.

[GoatGuy]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.

[yama49]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.

I agree.. We can't control them through hunting IMO But it is sure fun trying, and it does help..

[steveo]

I say since there are only 30 percent of the provinces traplines that are active why don't we put the traplines back in the trappers hands. Yes I said " TRAPPERS " not just people with deep pockets who can put their name on a piece of paper to be a trapline owner but people who will get out there and trap. I am not saying this is the answer but it sure would be a great start to wolf management and it is just the right thing to do for wildlife management period. I don't believe the only way is poison or aerial gunning because on Vancouver Island there was a wolf cull/observation program in I believe 1983-86 and it concluded that wolf management was effective from trapping efforts. This was strictly done with footholds and a small paid staff within a 3-4 year period. Bring these facts to present day with more modern equipment, better trapping supplies and the most up-to-date trapping techniques noticeable success should be achieved.

[WestCoastHunter]

Bring these facts to present day with more modern equipment, better trapping supplies and the most up-to-date trapping techniques noticeable success should be achieved.
I think that's a good idea not that i have any experience or knowledge whatsoever with trapping.

And for the record if there is some confusion, my comment about the whole tournament/competition thing was simply an example.

I'm just a 17 year old kid with an interest in conservation and wildlife management and I want to be able to grow up and have my kids be able to hunt the same game species I did.

[steveo]

The wheels to get inactive traplines trapped again are turning we just need the local game clubs, guide outfitters, houndsmen association, cattlemen association, local FN bands and anyone with a vested interest in seeing game numbers rise to get in behind the trappers and see to it the wheels keep spinning. We already have the avenues in place to practice some sound wolf management that is in the realm of acceptance by the public more so than poisoning or aerial gunning. There are trappers in this province and for that matter in other provinces that are capable of putting up 10-20 wolves a year and even 30-40 in better years we just need more of them. It's all learnable and viable if there is enough will and a bit of financial incentive.

[jmo]

Whats the difference between that and your local gopher shoots?


because this is Canada and not some redneck state where almost anything goes.
we aren't going to do "competitions/tournaments" to go out and slaughter animals.
we call it conservation.
it has to be determined just how out of balance the pred/prey #'s are.
I don't know if they really have any way of even determining that accurately.
people could do their own little competitions.
like hbc could have a pool with prizes for who gets the most in a year and the biggest, etc.
but I'd doubt we'd see the government put something like that together.
they won't even use hunters to do culls of animals.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.

Right. Hunter's bullets won't ever affect wolf populations. Ever.

SSS

[pillpusher]

From a trapper's perspective, wolf trapping is a huge commitment both with respect to time and money. To trap them effectively requires as many traps as possible; having to check foot holds every 3 days necessitates having the ability to meet that requirement. The financial return for a wolf pelt equates to working for minimum wage, or LESS! I know of one trapper here that sent a pelt to auction and received $40.00 for it. Now you need to factor in his time for setting up, time to check, fuel and then the time to skin, flesh, splitting of ears, lips, and prep of feet for taxidermy , dry and turn the hide; probably 6-8 hours on average for a properly prepared wolf hide. There is not much incentive for a trapper to target wolves when the return really is non existent. Granted some trappers are not in it for financial gain, but you have to know when to draw the line. PP

[steveo]

Trapping wolves isn't for everyone and probably trapping in general isn't for everyone but we should at least be able to be in the position to find out for ourselves. Your absolutely right Pillpusher trapping wolves is expensive and time consuming for the immediate low financial return but if you are going to take on the role as a trapper managing your trapline isn't always about immediate financial return. As someone that wears two hats, one as a trapper and one as a hunter I have experienced good reading and input from both sides but I think we can't get hung up on dollars and cents for long term gain. Your points are valid but what I just witnessed at this last auction I wonder why I trap anything never mind wolves. There is a lot of trappers that would have a hard time proving they made any profit let alone covering costs. Are we all going to quit trapping, no probably not because like you said some are in it to turn a buck and others are in it just because they like it. As a hunter how much money is spent on equipment and hunting trips that quite often end with no game in the bucket and if game is harvested how much a pound is it worth. Now as a trapper over population of wolves means disease through the species which means mange in the wolves you do catch and that equals zero dollars return. With high wolf numbers kiss your beaver goodbye, they are hard on racoon population, any fox/coyote in a foothold is going to be eaten and they can potentially just wreck havoc on your trapline in general so protecting your investment like your trapline is sometimes a cost. We are all affected by this issue that is why I think the quicker resolve is to get mobile and work together.

[hunter1947]

I myself would like to see a registered trapper being allowed to trap in more areas other then that of private property ,, poison or shooting from a helicopter would work well I would like management to allow a year round of GOS on wolves..

[hunter1947]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.


Well said you are correct..

[adriaticum]

From a trapper's perspective, wolf trapping is a huge commitment both with respect to time and money. To trap them effectively requires as many traps as possible; having to check foot holds every 3 days necessitates having the ability to meet that requirement. The financial return for a wolf pelt equates to working for minimum wage, or LESS! I know of one trapper here that sent a pelt to auction and received $40.00 for it. Now you need to factor in his time for setting up, time to check, fuel and then the time to skin, flesh, splitting of ears, lips, and prep of feet for taxidermy , dry and turn the hide; probably 6-8 hours on average for a properly prepared wolf hide. There is not much incentive for a trapper to target wolves when the return really is non existent. Granted some trappers are not in it for financial gain, but you have to know when to draw the line. PP
Are you suggesting that wolf pelt is cheaper than coyote?
By the sounds of it.

[the bear]

If all the hunters crying about wolf numbers would put as much time, effort, and money into hunting wolves as they do chasing big horns we wouldn't have a so called predator problem. Look in the mirror get there out and do something about it, the opportunity is there to manage the resource. We hunters claim we are stewards here's you chance.

[bearvalley]

If all the hunters crying about wolf numbers would put as much time, effort, and money into hunting wolves as they do chasing big horns we wouldn't have a so called predator problem. Look in the mirror get there out and do something about it, the opportunity is there to manage the resource. We hunters claim we are stewards here's you chance.

Hunting helps but will never drop wolf numbers to amanageable level. The only way to achieve this is as GG says, aerial shoot or poison. The other choice is sit back and keep talking among ourselves. Eventually game numbers will crash and wolves will crash as well. Talk to your MLA's. Tell them what needs done. We don't need more studies as they have been done in the past with positive results to wildlife populations when wolf reduction was done. Another study will not make more game.

[BRrooster]

Get everyone on board. If you see a wolf , shoot it. Just remember , that by law, you must remove the hide, and take it "to the persons normal
dwellling place or to a meat cutter, the owner or operater of a cold storage plant or to a taxidermist, tanner or a fur trader. A person who kills
wildlife is exempted from the requirements to remove the hide if that person transfers possession of the wildlife to anouther person who
complies with the requirement"

[northernguy]

If all the hunters crying about wolf numbers would put as much time, effort, and money into hunting wolves as they do chasing big horns we wouldn't have a so called predator problem. Look in the mirror get there out and do something about it, the opportunity is there to manage the resource. We hunters claim we are stewards here's you chance.

Outstandingly well put. I agree whole hardheartedly...

[GoatGuy]

I say since there are only 30 percent of the provinces traplines that are active why don't we put the traplines back in the trappers hands. Yes I said " TRAPPERS " not just people with deep pockets who can put their name on a piece of paper to be a trapline owner but people who will get out there and trap. I am not saying this is the answer but it sure would be a great start to wolf management and it is just the right thing to do for wildlife management period. I don't believe the only way is poison or aerial gunning because on Vancouver Island there was a wolf cull/observation program in I believe 1983-86 and it concluded that wolf management was effective from trapping efforts. This was strictly done with footholds and a small paid staff within a 3-4 year period. Bring these facts to present day with more modern equipment, better trapping supplies and the most up-to-date trapping techniques noticeable success should be achieved.

That was done in one single drainage and there were paid staff doing it. So you're looking at a minimum of a 6 figure bill for one valley and no direct revenue as most of the hides were useless.

Have no idea, but there are probably more than 1000 valleys in BC, many of them are remote and inaccessible.

The math doesn't look good.

[proguide66]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.

I have to add in 'foot traps' as VERY effective. There is definitely a handful of 'quite' dedicated guys doing a superb job up north.
Guys I know have caught and killed over 100 of them north of Ft Nelson the last few years. This winter another wolf assassin I know isn't finding any tracks at all.
SO...the 'right' trapping methods work. People just need to DO IT and go out and get permission for dormant lines in problem areas or at least permission from trap line owners.

My 'enthusiasm' in my neighborhood has been shit beaten to say the least. 'One' of the trap line owners who lives here has gone basically 'insane' / anti trapping' and relinquished his trap line to the govt so no one can trap on it -EVER-.( and the wolves are THICK in there).

I as well had permission on another line where the wolves run thick , but someone else owns it and they don't seem to be eager to let anyone on the wolves.

The 3rd line I CAN trap on never see's wolves much as its on the 'wrong side' of the valley. I as well hammered the crap outta them in there for a few years so I think they know not to go there ( It CAN make a difference)

Anyway , few years back I did my part '+' in encouraging all. I dropped close to 10 grand of my own $$ getting my license, sled, gear, paid for my own fuel , time and killed a bunch of wolves. We eventually had the highest kid count with our goat herd and the deer count was a high.
And I DONT even hunt in the area's above - ever.

SO...... you guys want to make a difference??? SHAME the living SHIT out of any trap line owner you know who doesn't trap wolves or give someone who WILL permission.
Flood the ministry with letters of anger and protest.

IF , you can find permission and a good trapper , DONATE $$ or BUY AND 'GIVE ' multiple foot traps to the trapper and get his ass on them.( they can be $150 each).Foot traps used correctly WILL clean up the whole pack.

And YES , go out and hunt them. NO , you probably wont make too much a difference from 'hunting' , but its healthy, fun, and you will NEVER shoot a pack of wolves punching these damned keyboards with your free time.

In the right place, the right time , 'someone' WILL eventually get lucky and shoot a whole pack- it happens!!! And THAT makes a difference. But people have to be out there 'doing it' for that to happen.

Good example , my partner and I rode up on a whole pack with our horses - the pack has 1 member now. So , yes - there is potential for ALL to make a difference!!!!!

The #1 problem with wolves is human MOTIVATION - that's IT, that's ALL , end of story.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OnxCQ28Kw&feature=share&list=UUALaO58yDzt0djpHNGZqCDA&index=9


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsUxlwUALik&list=UUALaO58yDzt0djpHNGZqCDA&feature=share&index=3

[Moose63]

Hi Proguide;

Which camera do you use?

[hunter1947]

Bottom line is BC will never reduce the numbers of wolves like others have said there are to many remote areas the wolves follow the prey to low line areas in the winter months a lot of this land is owed by farmers and don't want no trapping on there land or it is crown land the only way to get the numbers down and to an acceptable number are what GG posted up a few posts back..

The only other way the wolves will die out in numbers are that they eat themselves out of food I dough this will happen because the just keep moving on after they have eaten everything in one area..

[GoatGuy]

Here's the paper from the Nimpkish

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/techpub/b73.pdf

[proguide66]

trail cams? or video ?

[proguide66]

Hi Proguide;

Which camera do you use?
trail cams or video ?

[GoatGuy]

I have to add in 'foot traps' as VERY effective. There is definitely a handful of 'quite' dedicated guys doing a superb job up north.
Guys I know have caught and killed over 100 of them north of Ft Nelson the last few years. This winter another wolf assassin I know isn't finding any tracks at all.
SO...the 'right' trapping methods work. People just need to DO IT and go out and get permission for dormant lines in problem areas or at least permission from trap line owners.

I agree people can catch wolves, and some people a lot of wolves, but the question is: Are game populations increasing due to wolf trapping? The secondary question to that is are hunters seeing increased harvest or opportunity?

You have to remove >70% of wolf populations every year to see any kind of response in the wolf population, so that's probably close to the starting point for prey species - and that is only if it's enough so that other preds don't pick up the slack (typically bears when dealing with moose pops).

For example Alaska has the incentives for trappers, aerial permits for resident hunters and still weren't doing it. In some areas they've now included bear reduction through aerial because the wolf reduction hasn't led to an increase in moose. IIRC they managed to see a response in the yukon through trapping, but that was short-term. The gun ships were far more effective.

So, can trappers kill a lot of wolves? Yes. Can trappers kill enough wolves that game populations respond? It doesn't look like it.

[Moose63]

You're videos are awesome, you've gone to the next level.

[Moose63]

trail cams or video ?

Trail Cams

[proguide66]

It still boils down to 'human motivation'.

[proguide66]

Trail Cams

I'm not 'sold' on the brands we are using yet so I will avoid ' marketing' for them at this time!! We have three brands out now, all three piss me off equally at times.

[Wild one]

The issue with trapping help with wolves comes with issues that are in the way.

Lack of trapline availability is a big one. The system of enforcing trapline owner to trap or loose their line is lacking and the current way they monitor if harvest is happening is easily cheated. Lots of lines owned for the cabin rights and no trapping going on. Even when lines are deemed inactive the govt is dragging it's @ss when it comes to putting them up for auction. Have seen lots of promises from govt officials on putting lines for auction but results are lacking. Records on which lines are even active are out dated and some lines are owned by dead trappers.

Wolves take skill to effectively trap. When it comes to trapping each species not all trappers are equal. A good wolf trapper can raise hell on a wolf pack but one lacking experience with wolves will get poor results. You can take courses and research wolf trapping methods but applying this knowledge in the field takes time to get good at.

Expenses involved in trapping wolves can be high. As others mentioned a lot of traps are needed to get good results and when it comes to footholds it is not cheap. Because of the large range of a wolf pack a trapper will burn a lot of fuel checking empty traps before the pack comes through.

Value of a wolf pelt is an issue and more so in some areas than other. It takes a lot of time and effort to get a wolf pelt ready for auction. Wolves are graded at auction by colour and primeness of the hide. Wrong colour and wrong time of year that hide is almost worthless. Some areas do not hold wolves of any real value. Because of the money/time involved in running a line many trappers will focus there efforts on fur that is more profitable. There are many trappers who take small numbers of wolves each year for fur management because they impact populations of other fur they target. Not a big number of trappers who run a hard wolf trapping program.

If you have a line not being trapped for wolves the pack will just move into the un pressured area. If you have a large area of active traplines targeting wolves even a little it makes a big difference. Rather then wolves having large safe havens the pack gets bounced back and forth between trappers improving there success rate. When you get multiple trappers with lines targeting wolves it makes a difference even more so when the you have communication between the trappers.

Lots of trappers are getting up there in age and because of this many stick to trapping fur that involves less physical effort. But some of these old trappers still target wolves and have knowledge to make up for physical age.

I do believe if traplines were put back in the hands of TRAPPERS new or old it could help make an impact but not the end all solutions. An increase in wolf pelt value would make a big difference because for the most part it just cost trappers $ to target wolves. Unfortunately the trappers really knocking down numbers of wolves are either paid to do so, enjoy the challenge, or truly trying to do their part to help limit the predation.


Proguide if the new line owner in your area is who I think it is he would welcome any info you could provide regarding the pack on his line. If I am thinking of the same guy he is starting to target wolves but it is all new to him. He did catch his first this winter and is making an effort to trap them now. He is increasing his effort but it is a learning experience as it is a new species to him. He is actually one of those trappers that is willing to try to make an impact just needs to gain experience and is willing to learn.

[pillpusher]

Are you suggesting that wolf pelt is cheaper than coyote?
By the sounds of it.

In this instance it was, however I have to admit that it is an exception, and not the norm. This same trapper received $125 for a coyote pelt. I was merely highlighing the time and effort required to treap wolves effectively. He happens to be one of the guys that enjoys trapping wolves, and is able to afford the necessary time to chase them He and his partner must have at least 50 wolves to their credit the past 3 years.

This is my second year trapping and only managed one snared wolf last year. I had a more knowledgeable wolf trapper come with me this year to put out some footholds and we had 3 out of 13 footholds holding surprises for us on the first check. . So as mentioned above, foot holds and pee post sets can be very effective, but are not easy to establish and maintain.

[steveo]

Thanks for the link GG but there were several more water sheds involved with this wolf cull and possibly the Nimpkish was just the model for the study part of the program and there were not 6 trappers in everyone of the water sheds involved. There were a couple at the most and sometimes one trapper for every cull area. The Nimpkish area had more paid staff because along with trappers there were deer counter and bios involved as well as some volunteers. Along with wolf predation there was cougar, bear predation on fawns, unregulated hunting, regulated GOS, roadkill/traffic mortality and winter kill. Considering none of factors just mentioned were altered, wolf removal alone had a positive effect on deer population. Something that is also important for this study is that blacktail deer is almost the only food source for the large predators on Vancouver Island and the whole while the wolf cull was in affect the deer were still being attacked by all those other factors and they still made a come back after only the removal of wolves. I just haven't seen a comprehensive study before my eyes that concludes that wolves can not be effectively managed through trapping at least even if it is in certain geographical areas. Agreed that even if there are some management tools in play right now such as the ones you have mentioned in Alaska it might be found we are just too lazy and unmotivated to take advantage of them. Also agreed that poison and bait are probably more feasible but 1080 is banned and have no knowledge of it's replacement and aerial gunning I assume is effective but probably quite costly. You probably could comment on the cost of aerial gunning better than me, I would be interested. Both those methods are very controversial in the public eye and I don't know if that dog will hunt. I am just trying to work with the tools we have and develop something from there. I could sit all day banging keys, telling stories and providing research to prove my case but I feel like it is not necessary. Just look at our wolf trapping poster child............ " PROGUIDE ". He just posted he does not even hunt the areas he has trapped wolves in so he just wants to do his part, motivate people and draw attention to the state that our trapping industry is in. To my knowledge he has not been trapping for years and years, is leasing traplines so he doesn't have intimate knowledge of it like an owner would and is funding it himself. When I followed his wolf trapping thread I saw no red cape, he never walked on water and he never pooped ice-cream. This is one man, I repeat....... one man...... so it can be done people but like what was already stated will and motivation have to be there.

[GoatGuy]

Here's a start:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/about/management/wildlifemanagement/intensivemanagement/pdfs/refs/wo-intensetrap02f.pdf


50 years back in BC:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=vpcone


Decline in deer populations Alaska:

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/12/18/state-looks-at-southeast-alaska-wolf-control-programs/


Wolves and Moose in Alaska:

http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/15-Intensive%20Management%20of....pdf


Bit of a more recent summary out of Alberta:

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aenweb.ca%2Ffiles%2FWebb-Merrill%2520wolf%2520experiment_Jan08.doc&ei=WyAUU7rvG5booAS66YGwCA&usg=AFQjCNHsAZR0M6jRHJC75a6k0ZHglrBJ4w&sig2=ENfUUjwNahg1CVvWbTNXcQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.cGU
A lot of this stuff is easy reading and publicly available - definitely not hard science but some half decent sources. Think it's great Proguide is doing his thing, just trying to grapple with the issues at hand, which I believe is reducing predation by wolves to increase prey populations.

[steveo]

Thanks again GG for the links, I don't think most people will look to hard for some info pertaining to any topic. Unless the topic is in your face I guess why would you. I have always been a bit of a sponge when it comes to wildlife issues and like the challenge of trying to balance the equation. How I got into trapping was to trap wolves and try to help the deer in my hunting grounds. After meeting the trapping industry with a big brick wall it took awhile to bonk a few people on the head to get their attention, bash a few doors down and join the local trappers association to figure out what was going on. I have been told too many times something can't be done and gone out and done it. I just think it's a win-win getting more trappers and more people in general out there in the bush to at least educate themselves how things are done and see what it is about. I agree there are some areas in B.C. that are too remote to carry out management goals but there are a lot of areas that are not remote that should be on the menu. We need 60 percent harvest rates to reduce wolf pops so it will hopefully have the desired effect but I am not thinking we have to have this province wide. 60 percent harvest rates in the Okanagan will not effect wolf pops in the remote areas of northern B.C. but who cares at least we are chewing the numbers down where we can. I think some areas will always be harder to manage because of remoteness and a lack of population to carry out the necessary efforts. If I have my info right even some wolf harvest of around 30 percent is enough to stabilize numbers so they will not keep increasing. I think we just need a lot of education about the whole issue because it seems like we lost a generation with the trapping lifestyle.

[GoatGuy]

Thanks again GG for the links, I don't think most people will look to hard for some info pertaining to any topic. Unless the topic is in your face I guess why would you. I have always been a bit of a sponge when it comes to wildlife issues and like the challenge of trying to balance the equation. How I got into trapping was to trap wolves and try to help the deer in my hunting grounds. After meeting the trapping industry with a big brick wall it took awhile to bonk a few people on the head to get their attention, bash a few doors down and join the local trappers association to figure out what was going on. I have been told too many times something can't be done and gone out and done it. I just think it's a win-win getting more trappers and more people in general out there in the bush to at least educate themselves how things are done and see what it is about. I agree there are some areas in B.C. that are too remote to carry out management goals but there are a lot of areas that are not remote that should be on the menu. We need 60 percent harvest rates to reduce wolf pops so it will hopefully have the desired effect but I am not thinking we have to have this province wide. 60 percent harvest rates in the Okanagan will not effect wolf pops in the remote areas of northern B.C. but who cares at least we are chewing the numbers down where we can. I think some areas will always be harder to manage because of remoteness and a lack of population to carry out the necessary efforts. If I have my info right even some wolf harvest of around 30 percent is enough to stabilize numbers so they will not keep increasing. I think we just need a lot of education about the whole issue because it seems like we lost a generation with the trapping lifestyle.

Sponges are good. Best to know as much as possible to make an informed decision. I like that.

BCWF Response to BC Draft Wolf Management Plan:

http://www.bcwf.net/images/stories/Committee/Wildlife/2012.12.11_BCWF_Response_Draft_Wolf_Management_Pla n.pdf


Generally speaking: Sustainable harvest rates for wolves generally 29-50% (that doesn't mean you're controlling them, just that your harvest doesn't negatively effect the population)
Reduction so that you see a response in prey is typically 80% annually


Other wolf related papers - some are probably available online. A google search will show you what you can and cannot access.

Wolves of the Kenai Peninsula, Peterson et al

Managing Minnesota's Recovered Wolves, Mech

Status and conservation of the gray wolf in wildlife reserves of Quebec, Lariviere et al

Population Dynamics and Harvest Characteristics of Wolves in the Central Brooks Range, Alaska, Adams aet al

Demogrpahy of a harvested population of wolves in west-central Alberta, Canada, Webb et al

Considering for Developing Wolf Harvesting Regulations in the Contiguous United States, Mech

Meta-Analysis of Relationships between Human Offtake, Total Mortality and Population Dynamics of Gray Wolves (Canis lupus), Creel and Rotella

Demography of a recovering wolf population in the Yukon Hayes and Harestad

Wolf Population Dynamics in the U.S. Northern Rocky Mountains Are Affected by Recruitment and Human-Caused Mortality Gude et al

Experimental Reduction of Wolves in the Yukon: Ungulate Responses and
Management Implications, Hayes et al

Surgical sterilization of free-ranging wolves Spence et al

Cumulative effects of forestry on habitat use by gray wolf
(Canis lupus) in the boreal forest, Houle et al

Winter Habitat Use by Wolves, in Relation to Forest Harvesting in West-Central Alberta, Kuzyk et al

Spatial decomposition of predation risk using resource selection
functions: an example in a wolf
/elk predator
/prey system, Hebblewhite et al

Calf Survival of Woodland Caribou in a Multi-Predator Ecosystem, Gustine et al

Caribou encounters with wolves increase near roads and trails: a time-to-event approach, Whittington et al



There are a pile more but these will help inform your opinion. Education is a good thing.

[horshur]

you guys know that if the CO's looked away industry would do what needs to be done up north for free ...........

[steveo]

I have now read it takes anywhere from 60 -80 percent annual wolf harvest to see a response in prey numbers. If this is the case holy cow but this seems really high for the reproduction capability of a wolf. This means out of the estimated 10,000 wolves in B.C., and yes this is also an estimation I have read, if we killed 8,000 wolves one year this would be the only way that we would see a response in game numbers. If there was a wolf harvest of 5 or 6 thousand out an estimated 10,000 this would not show a response in prey numbers. I find with these studies and wolf culls is that they are always done when things are in dire straights and wolf pops have peaked and prey numbers are way down so yes I can see a wolf harvest of 60-80 percent is the only way to see prey numbers respond quickly. What about areas that have decent game numbers still and modest wolf numbers, these areas would probably only need modest harvest levels to keep game levels stable and on the higher side of carrying capacity. This has to be a management program of year after year maintenance not a shock and awh campaign as most wolf culls are done when wolf pops have peaked and prey is way down. Studies and research for the most part are relevant on a lot of levels when comparing wolves on Vancouver Island to Alaska to the Okanagan to any where in B.C. but there are still a lot of dynamics that might be different and relevant in coming up with wolf management programs throughout the province. Just for a quick example, on Vancouver Island wolf reproduction as far as producing numbers of pups annually may be at par with other wolves in the province but pup mortality is very high possibly to the wet climate and get a form of pneumonia.

[GoatGuy]

I have now read it takes anywhere from 60 -80 percent annual wolf harvest to see a response in prey numbers. If this is the case holy cow but this seems really high for the reproduction capability of a wolf. This means out of the estimated 10,000 wolves in B.C., and yes this is also an estimation I have read, if we killed 8,000 wolves one year this would be the only way that we would see a response in game numbers. If there was a wolf harvest of 5 or 6 thousand out an estimated 10,000 this would not show a response in prey numbers. I find with these studies and wolf culls is that they are always done when things are in dire straights and wolf pops have peaked and prey numbers are way down so yes I can see a wolf harvest of 60-80 percent is the only way to see prey numbers respond quickly. What about areas that have decent game numbers still and modest wolf numbers, these areas would probably only need modest harvest levels to keep game levels stable and on the higher side of carrying capacity. This has to be a management program of year after year maintenance not a shock and awh campaign as most wolf culls are done when wolf pops have peaked and prey is way down. Studies and research for the most part are relevant on a lot of levels when comparing wolves on Vancouver Island to Alaska to the Okanagan to any where in B.C. but there are still a lot of dynamics that might be different and relevant in coming up with wolf management programs throughout the province. Just for a quick example, on Vancouver Island wolf reproduction as far as producing numbers of pups annually may be at par with other wolves in the province but pup mortality is very high possibly to the wet climate and get a form of pneumonia.

Because wolves are so productive you have to do it every year. A one-time cull won't really give you a lot.

That is why doing it in one drainage isn't the best approach. You can have infill and predator sinks as we've seen with cougar harvest. Often needling at the wolf population just creates social chaos.


Where you have good game and wolves, that's usually tied to productive habitat. In that case you actually have to harvest more wolves to see a response. Predator management seems to work best in marginal habitat or when prey populations are depressed.

Part of the VI issue is that wolves are an indirect impact due to old growth logging and road creation. Once the logging started they found deer became less migratory increasing predation. They also found old growth logging on winter range resulted in higher snow depths and increased predation (decreased survivorship). They also found vancouver island marmots went downhill at the same rate as the deer for principally the same reasons (old growth logging, access). Lastly, roads give wolves travel corridors which make them more efficient killers (this has been shown with elk, caribou and moose as well).

The rates in these papers are for populations across North America. You've been given the range and the minimums. It gives you a broad-based spectrum and an absolute minimum. As stated, in some cases removing 80% of wolves still won't net you a response as other predators fill in the gap, particularly with neo-nate moose and bear predation.


Glad you're reading and learning - that's what it's all about. And again, no to dump on anyone who's trying to help people on the hunting front - we all want to contribute and make things better. Just dealing with the science here.

[kebes]

I was working on a petition to encourage more activity in regards to wolf control from the government (specifically using compound 1080/aerial methods). I've been hesitant to go live with it mostly because - in all honesty - biology isn't something I'm well versed in and I don't want to be the voice behind something that someone else may do a better job at defending/promoting. If anyone is interested in what I've got and would like to go forward with that I will pass it on.....it may be helpful in putting some pressure on the powers that be.

[GoatGuy]

Here's a presentation Doug Janz gave at the BCWF convention in 2013 on wolves in BC. Doug is a retired biologist who was involved in the VI study.

It's broken in to two files.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ou39dneafxyopr/BCRdxbYbe_/Thurs%20April%2025/Doug%20Janz%20-%20Wolf%20Management%20in%20BC_1.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5ou39dneafxyopr/vrxLlGK40W/Thurs%20April%2025/Doug%20Janz%20-%20Wolf%20Management%20in%20BC_2.pdf

It's a presentation so you don't get the narrative but it's another piece of information. Doug is a been there done that type of guy.

[steveo]

The wolf issue has to be meet with a full approach with not just wolf management but all wildlife management at play. The big task is wolf management because it is so expensive and time consuming. Almost every large predator can be controlled through normal hunting seasons and LEH but wolves are at an entirely different level. Logging has a huge amount to do with the wolf bloom from loss of prey habitat to the addition of more roads. Your exactly right wolves become more efficient with wide open clear cuts and main lines and spurs shooting every where to hunt in because they are a new forest predator. They use their nose but most of their hunting is sight especially the last closing distance before the kill. We probably did them a favour more than anything but what is done is done. Cougars kill ungulates as well as bears and various other species who prey on the young but most of these other species have alternative prey and are not so hard on ungulates as wolves are. I don't think most people realize how hard wolves are on ungulate populations as they are.

[two-feet]

An increase in quality habitat for our ungulates would serve to help populations and would be far more palatable than poisoning etc. for many BC residents, and would probably cost less as well.

[steveo]

I guess I should probably admit I take most of these reports and studies with a grain of salt, even though they are science based it seems the people who can benefit from a report always seem to fund it. I really think this province has management issues from top to bottom and if I was a wolf I would be sitting on the side lines with a big smile on my face. One of the last strategies was to open up the Parsnip area to increased LEHs and target decreasing moose numbers thinking if there were hardly any moose left the wolves would simply move on and leave alternative prey such as caribou alone. I want the right to harvest a wolf through trapping to be put back in the hands of the trapper because I can't see myself sitting on the edge of my chair to see what this government is going to do next about wolf management or should I say lack of wolf management. From what I can tell government has only been reactive to wolf issues not proactive and we have never had a viable wolf management program in play for any length of time. I still feel there is not enough knowledge and incentive for non government people to try to deal with wolf management so we don't have to rely on government. How does adventure Trev catch 50 plus wolves in a season, I really want to know.

[bearvalley]

An increase in quality habitat for our ungulates would serve to help populations and would be far more palatable than poisoning etc. for many BC residents, and would probably cost less as well.

That works but in the case of the large clear cuts it will be 30+ years in happening.

[biggyun68]

An interesting article and the question for me is where is the science when it comes to prooving some of the authours claims about wolves?
http://outdoorcanada.ca/34428/hunting/article/rethinking-the-way-we-manage-wolves-in-canada

[GoatGuy]

An interesting article and the question for me is where is the science when it comes to prooving some of the authours claims about wolves?
http://outdoorcanada.ca/34428/hunting/article/rethinking-the-way-we-manage-wolves-in-canada

There is no science behind that - it's an ideology.

[steveo]

Like GG said, that article is not science based and fairly easy to shoot holes in most of the scenarios the author provided. I would think science is still evolving with new studies and discovering things about wolves and wolf behavior that were never realised. Even Dr. Valerius Geist changed his thoughts about wolf behavior when in his own neighbourhood wolves lost fear of man and became a danger to residence and livestock. Most of his literature on wolf research was more or less refuted on his own accord.

[Dannybuoy]

An interesting article and the question for me is where is the science when it comes to prooving some of the authours claims about wolves?
http://outdoorcanada.ca/34428/hunting/article/rethinking-the-way-we-manage-wolves-in-canada

Wow ! "Where a wolf pack isn’t killing domestic livestock, it just makes sense to leave it alone." Hows that for a quote !

[BlackOwL]

If you want to manage wolves politicians need to be onboard.

The only way it works is aerial shooting or poison.

Just listen to yourselves, poisoning wolves can cause a chain reaction of poisoning other species who eat carrion like bears and jackrabbits , etc.
Aerial shooting does not target the alfa male, and in conservation is paramount to eliminate the alfa male and female so the pack will disperse and will take a long time to reorganize.
What You folks are talking here is not conservation, is extermination.

[BlackOwL]

If all the hunters crying about wolf numbers would put as much time, effort, and money into hunting wolves as they do chasing big horns we wouldn't have a so called predator problem. Look in the mirror get there out and do something about it, the opportunity is there to manage the resource. We hunters claim we are stewards here's you chance.

Yey! Exactly!

[GoatGuy]

Just listen to yourselves, poisoning wolves can cause a chain reaction of poisoning other species who eat carrion like bears and jackrabbits , etc.
Aerial shooting does not target the alfa male, and in conservation is paramount to eliminate the alfa male and female so the pack will disperse and will take a long time to reorganize.
What You folks are talking here is not conservation, is extermination.

Where's the science?

Show the effects of 1080 on bears and jackrabbits. You are actually referring to the use of strychnine and its effects but you have incorrectly interpreted the hazards of using it and if the objective is wolf or dog specific 1080 is the only choice.

It is true aerial doesn't target the alpha - it targets the entire pack other than the wolf with the collar. BTW the alpha theory, which you have incorrectly interpreted, applies to neutering and spaying and has been only shown to provide marginal results at high costs. There is also data that disproves this concept showing that other females in the pack are bred.

There have been a number of publicly available research articles posted on these threads. Probably want to read one..... or two.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Just listen to yourselves, poisoning wolves can cause a chain reaction of poisoning other species who eat carrion like bears and jackrabbits , etc.
Aerial shooting does not target the alfa male, and in conservation is paramount to eliminate the alfa male and female so the pack will disperse and will take a long time to reorganize.
What You folks are talking here is not conservation, is extermination.

There are canine-specific poisons...although Alberta isn't using them.

Removing entire packs is the best way and can be done from the air.

SSS

[BlackOwL]

Where's the science?

Show the effects of 1080 on bears and jackrabbits. You are actually referring to the use of strychnine and its effects but you have incorrectly interpreted the hazards of using it and if the objective is wolf or dog specific 1080 is the only choice.

It is true aerial doesn't target the alpha - it targets the entire pack other than the wolf with the collar. BTW the alpha theory, which you have incorrectly interpreted, applies to neutering and spaying and has been only shown to provide marginal results at high costs. There is also data that disproves this concept showing that other females in the pack are bred.

There have been a number of publicly available research articles posted on these threads. Probably want to read one..... or two.

No is You who got it wrong and you are trying to throw your last dying kicks, 1080 is an indiscriminate killer, 1080 not only has devastating consequences for the animals who directly consume it, but it also affects the surrounding environment and its inhabitants. Scavengers and carnivores are killed through secondary poisoning when they feed upon unrecovered carcasses. Indeed 1080 spreads so thoroughly through an ecosystem that insectivorous birds have been killed in baited areas by eating insects who have fed on carcasses and poisoned food.
As for You twisting My words ( or perhaps again You read between lines so You can make up things) Targeting the Alfa male and female is the most effective way of conservation, in a combined effort of killing (hunting) and the use of vasectomy to reduce a population's reproductive potential. Because most wolf packs contain a single breeding pair.
There is no one single method to control wolves is a combination of 2 or more.
However where is the science in what You said? I found Your statement about poisoning and aerial shooting reckless dangerous and with no value whatsoever.

[GoatGuy]

No is You who got it wrong and you are trying to throw your last dying kicks, 1080 is an indiscriminate killer, 1080 not only has devastating consequences for the animals who directly consume it, but it also affects the surrounding environment and its inhabitants. Scavengers and carnivores are killed through secondary poisoning when they feed upon unrecovered carcasses. Indeed 1080 spreads so thoroughly through an ecosystem that insectivorous birds have been killed in baited areas by eating insects who have fed on carcasses and poisoned food.
As for You twisting My words ( or perhaps again You read between lines so You can make up things) Targeting the Alfa male and female is the most effective way of conservation, in a combined effort of killing (hunting) and the use of vasectomy to reduce a population's reproductive potential. Because most wolf packs contain a single breeding pair.
There is no one single method to control wolves is a combination of 2 or more.
However where is the science in what You said? I found Your statement about poisoning and aerial shooting reckless dangerous and with no value whatsoever.

Post the science.

Been plenty of peer reviewed articles put up here in the past.

If you have something that contradicts and is related to commonly employed methods in BC/Alberta please feel free.

Always up for some learning.

[BlackOwL]

Post the science.

Been plenty of peer reviewed articles put up here in the past.

If you have something that contradicts and is related to commonly employed methods in BC/Alberta please feel free.

Always up for some learning.

If I have something that contradicts...? I already did! You can't kill an entire pack by aerial shooting, thats for one science, is paramount to get the alfas they are the breeding pair. Am I repeating Myself? And as for the 1080 goes You can google it, there is Your science and learning. 1080...? Come on! Haven't You see how many cattle roams in BC?

[GoatGuy]

If I have something that contradicts...? I already did! You can't kill an entire pack by aerial shooting, thats for one science, is paramount to get the alfas they are the breeding pair. Am I repeating Myself? And as for the 1080 goes You can google it, there is Your science and learning. 1080...? Come on! Haven't You see how many cattle roams in BC?

Cite it, support it, substantiate it.

Question marks and exclamation marks haven't made your posts any more believable.

[GoatGuy]

Here's a bit on 1080 locally.

There is no concern over environmental contamination or bio-accumulation in the food chain through BC’s use of 1080. Compound 1080 is a synthetic organoflouride compound. It is a salt derivative of a natural poison that occurs in a variety of African, South American, Asiatic and Australian plants. It is water soluble and biodegrades quickly causing no environmental degradation in the very small quantities used in British Columbia. The baits are quickly metabolized in wolves and coyotes before death occurs and the poison disperses throughout the tissues, so that other animals scavenging a carcass ingest an insignificant amount of 1080. No secondary poisoning of scavengers has ever been recorded in British Columbia during the controlled use of 1080.

The Review of Compound 1080:
The 1999 independent review of Compound 1080 use in British Columbia by the Canadian Cooperative Health Centre concluded that 1080, deployed as proposed in the permit proposal and associated policies, was the most suitable available poison for the killing of wolves and coyotes given the objectives of:



minimizing poisoning of non-target species.
avoiding environmental contamination.
achieving a reasonable level of safety to humans


The review also concludes that no available poison for predator control can be considered humane, and that cyanide is considered more humane in its action than is Compound 1080. Cyanide, however would not provide the same level of protection to non-target species, and poses a greater risk to human safety and the environment.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________


There's other stuff and I'm sure this has been posted before.

Always up for learning so if you have something that is supported with fact (ie peer reviewed article/research) that contradicts what has been shared here would be great.

Please share

[BlackOwL]

Cite it, support it, substantiate it.

Question marks and exclamation marks haven't made your posts any more believable.

The problem with You is that is has to be cited by someone in the internet, someone that can say anything without any proof or experience in a real scenario, Someone who can be altering the facts to favour certain groups, and You are willing will believe it. But You are far away of any contact with reality, poisoning by logic (and You lack a lot of that) with kill other species unless You put a Note Saying: "this poison is only for wolves, other species DO NOT eat this bait" Happy? :mrgreen:

a bonus of contradiction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaUhEZmK-S4

[Phreddy]

The ranchers association in the Quesnel area were going to put a bounty on them at one time but discovered they couldn't so the held (don't know if they still do) a wolf competition with a nice cash prize for the most wolves registered during the year.

[Fred1]

I agree aerial shooting and trapping local wolf populations can be very effective. As for spending as much time and $ hunting wolves as I do big horns, that's a crap statement. Personally I just cant spend that kind of time and $$ to wage war on wolves (but you wont hear me complain about them either). By that logic I guess we should all start fishing perch instead of Coho... hahahaha... come on...
The bottom line is govt... to make any real province wide impacts on "the wolf problem" we need govt to be on board. Sure as proguide66 has said/done "we can" make impacts ourselves, but too few of us have made hunting the lifestyle he has. Good on him!! Im soooo jealous!!!
You may have seen the "helihoggin" they do down in Texas with the wild pigs. Whoa man!! Tell me that aint fun!! Wolves and pigs are prolific breeders/ survivors. One season of "heliwolfin" will not solve the issue. The management will most likely have to be done and continue over a period of years, and I just cant spend $10,000 like that. As the Texas helihoggin boys say, "if you let up on 'em one year, you cant buy enough bullets the next". So regarding our "wolf problem" unfortunately we will have to go through the slooowwww expensive channels of govt to try and set some province wide changes in action. Until then, if you have the time and $$ by all means hunt a few wolves!

[GoatGuy]

The problem with You is that is has to be cited by someone in the internet, someone that can say anything without any proof or experience in a real scenario, Someone who can be altering the facts to favour certain groups, and You are willing will believe it. But You are far away of any contact with reality, poisoning by logic (and You lack a lot of that) with kill other species unless You put a Note Saying: "this poison is only for wolves, other species DO NOT eat this bait" Happy? :mrgreen:

a bonus of contradiction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaUhEZmK-S4

Is this a long, drawn-out way of saying what you came up with was fiction?

Or that the best place for news is off youtube?

Not sure which is which.

[bearvalley]

Just listen to yourselves, poisoning wolves can cause a chain reaction of poisoning other species who eat carrion like bears and jackrabbits , etc.
Aerial shooting does not target the alfa male, and in conservation is paramount to eliminate the alfa male and female so the pack will disperse and will take a long time to reorganize.
What You folks are talking here is not conservation, is extermination.

Pretty uninformed post. 1080 is canine specific. When the Alfa's are targeted and the pack disperses the end result is more wolves with more packs. The effective method is complete pack removal. A lot of people are hung up on this Alfa thing but in many cases more than 1 bitch wolf in a pack has pups. Lock 6 dogs in your back yard. 3 male and 3 female and see what happens.

[bearvalley]

The ranchers association in the Quesnel area were going to put a bounty on them at one time but discovered they couldn't so the held (don't know if they still do) a wolf competition with a nice cash prize for the most wolves registered during the year.

They donate some money to the local trappers association who in turn have a competition among members.

[steveo]

I agree with the Alpha wolf statement and even more of an add on to there being possibly more than one female breeding is that there is often more than one male that will sire a litter of pups. I think the general public has a lot of misconceptions about wolves and are quite willing to give uneducated votes on the subject. Again we need to get the correct info out there not only in the wolf management end of it but the public sector including the hunting community. In this entire thread does anyone mention the word " EXTERMINATION " when talking about wolf control, no. Soon as Blackowl posted about aerial shooting wolf extinction was soon to follow and this word is the favourite one to use for some reason when talking wolf control. These are the kind of knee jerk reactions we are always dealing with when it comes to making a comprehensive wolf management program.

[bearvalley]

You are right. No one is talking extermination. What we need is control and management as there will always be a place for wolves. Also there will always be wolves. What people need to realize is we cannot have a managed big game resource and leave predators unchecked. This just creates the "Roller Coaster" scenario of high ungulate numbers followed by high predator populations. Then they both crash, ungulates first then the predators. Wolves will be the last to go and there is nothing noble about a pack of starving wolves cannibalising on their pack mates. Most of the knee jerk reactors do not have any personal experience or knowledge of wolves, instead they are guided by Farley Mowat type literature that could not be farther from the truth. There seems to be a belief that if something is written it must be true. In some instances maybe a lot of paper and ink was wasted by someone trying to pass off fiction as fact.

[biggyun68]

There is no science behind that - it's an ideology.

Thank-you - I thought so

[GoatGuy]

An interesting article and the question for me is where is the science when it comes to prooving some of the authours claims about wolves?
http://outdoorcanada.ca/34428/hunting/article/rethinking-the-way-we-manage-wolves-in-canada
Remembered I saw a post on this. A bit more on the author.

SHOULD HUNTING BE ALLOWED IN PARKS? Maybe - Sometimes; Never
KEVIN VAN TIGHEM
SOME THINK big wilderness parks should be opened to hunting. Others say hunting would pose a threat to ecological health and biodiversity. As a hunter and ecologist, I know that wilderness hunting poses no threat to park ecosystems. But I also know it doesn't belong in most parks.
Protected parks and wilderness areas, by themselves, can't protect Canada's biodiversity, no matter what we may say or wish. There will never be enough of them. Nothing less than protecting biological diversity over the entire landscape will do. We must protect and restore as much as we can, in spite of all our other ambitions.
Calving off a part of the landscape and calling it a park can't save it from anything if the world around it falls apart. For parks that are too small and isolated to sustain the ecological processes that keep ecosystems vital, protection can contribute to ecological collapse.
Point Pelee, Elk Island and St. Lawrence Islands National Parks, for example, are too small and isolated to sustain the predators who play so vital a role in keeping deer and other prey healthy, alert, mobile and uncrowded. Degraded vegetation shows the results of this ecological dysfunction. Even inside these protected areas, nature is sick.
How can we get wolves, cougars and bears back into those parks? Failing that, how can we duplicate their impacts? Some call for human hunters to replace them. That would be better than no predators at all, though not as good as a full suite of predators. Human hunters, unfortunately, don't select for the young, the weak and the unhealthy. In a healthy ecosystem, these vulnerable prey fall to other predators first.
Faced with too many deer, park agencies either surrender to people's aversion to seeing death as a part of nature and let the ecosystems continue to unravel or they have their staff conduct organized culls. In either case, the "draw a line around it and call it a park" school of conservation clearly fails to protect ecological integrity - because these small parks are unnatural social constructs that carve ecosystems into unsustainable chunks.
Some large parks have wild predators and enough landscape to allow natural processes relatively free play. Alberta's Willmore Wilderness Park is an example. So are the Bob Marshall/Scapegoat Wilderness complex in central Montana, the Quetico-Superior wilderness that spans the Ontario-Minnesota boundary, and the newly established complex of protected areas in northern BC's Muskwa/Kechika region. These big wildernesses are among those that come closest to preserving ecosystem health.
They also allow human hunters to join other predators on the landscape.
From a historical point of view, that seems fair. Hunter-conservationists, after all, led the lobbies to have each of those big wilderness areas protected. In the same way, hunters helped protect Denali National Park (Charles Sheldon), the Arctic National Wildlife Range (Olaus and Mardie Murie), Yellowstone and Glacier (George Bird Grinnell) and Waterton Lakes (Frederick Godsal and Kootenai Brown). We owe most of our protected wilderness heritage to hunter-conservationists whose passion for the wild was the product of long days afield in pursuit of game.
Some argue that human hunting threatens the ecological integrity of such areas. That argument is at least debatable, given that humans have hunted North America's elk, deer, moose, caribou, rabbits and other animals for thousands of years.
When a white-tailed deer lies flat and extends its neck on the ground to avoid detection by a nearby human, that's a behaviour selected for by countless generations of aboriginal hunters. This kind of hiding is a dumb way to avoid a predator like a wolf or bear that hunts with its nose - but it works admirably for avoiding a tall, two-legged predator that relies on its eyes. Human hunting, in many ways, helped give shape to North America's ecology.
Hunting, however, has changed in recent decades. Many modern hunters use off-road vehicles, attractant scents, high-resolution optics, and other technologies that cheat their prey of a fair chance for escape. Unfortunately, like too many other human endeavours - farming, forestry and even hockey come to mind - the finest aspects of hunting have increasingly given way to management based on maximum economic return and, trying to keep everyone happy, adjusted to the lowest common denominator.
Hunters have been poorly served by the failure of wildlife agencies to regulate our activities so that hunting continues to select for the best qualities of both the hunters and the hunted. Wilderness hunting, properly regulated, could help restore hunting's best attributes by separating hunters from their motor vehicles, limiting their technology, and forcing them to rely on woods skills.
Is there a place for hunting in places that we have set aside as parks? Maybe. Sometimes. Under certain conditions. Certainly some of the larger wilderness parks can absorb a moderate amount of hunting activity, on the understanding that this must be different from other kinds of hunting. Wilderness hunters must accept and celebrate the fact that other predators have priority. In wilderness areas, other predators aren't going to be killed or manipulated in order to free up more prey for humans to hunt.
Those who enjoy the privilege of hunting in North America's last surviving wildernesses must meet that wilderness on its terms, not like an invading army complete with armoured vehicles and high-tech gear. Wilderness must always be where we become human, and humble, again. Or we go somewhere else. Those are the rules.
In most cases, however, hunting simply doesn't belong in parks. Not because it's ecologically harmful - it needn't be - but because it conflicts with the needs and expectations of most park visitors. Park animals should be relatively visible, able to interact with humans in a neutral manner. Hunted animals avoid people. Parks should be places where people can immerse themselves in nature and contemplation without being disturbed by the sound of gunshots or the disturbing sight of armed strangers.
With so much of the landscape available to hunters already, parks offer sanctuary for those who don't like hunting. In short, the reasons for not hunting in most parks, are social, not ecological. But those are important reasons, because parks must fulfill their social mission of transforming the understanding and values of those who control the future of our nation's ailing ecosystems.
Society will continue to debate the ethical and philosophical issues involved with hunting. Hunting will either evolve and accommodate itself to evolving social values, or cease to be tolerated. As a hunter, I dread that latter prospect. But at the end of the day, in the crowded, degraded and threatened ecosystems that comprise modern Canada, conservation of habitat and restoration of ecological processes matter far more than whether parks allow hunting or not.
If we let philosophical debates over human predation distract us from the far more serious matter of reconciling our society to our nation's ecology and healing our wounded homescapes, those parks that hunter-conservationists helped set aside aren't going to matter anyway.
Kevin Van Tighem is author of Coming West: A Natural History of Home and seven other books on wildlife and conservation.