Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty S
I must admit that I am trying to get a handle on the situation. To date my perception of the Algonquin wolf is that it is simply an over-glorified coyote. There are many special interest groups on the other side that will attempt every angle, excuse,or otherwise that they can, in order to bring end to the trapper, regularly based upon human emotion, and not science. Welcome to the modern age where emotion is regularly trumping science and kicking science into the back corner. Perhaps this is the case on this issue and the trappers are doing it?
I see these "wolves" in the fur auction annually when I go to Toronto. Looks exactly like a nice big coyote, but has been labelled and graded as a wolf, yet the hair looks the same, the size seems the same, the color as the 3XL eastern coyotes. Guys even go thru the trouble of skinning the feet out for taxidermy, yet this is not an animal that is impressive enough for any wolf taxidermy market buyer although I suppose there are people looking for complete coyotes.
I apologize for coming back a little strong, I'll blame that on my Dutch upbringing. With so many special interest groups coming after the trapper, it is easy to get oneself backed into a corner.
Please educate us as to why these canids are wolves and not coyotes?
|
No worries.
I will try an explain it (and bear with me - it's somewhat generalized)
From a genetic perspective Algonquin Wolves are up to 70% "wolf" (canis lupus) most closely aligned with sub-species Gray Wolf other common names are timber or western wolf.
The grays we have out here in the west are only slightly "more pure" if you can use that as a defining characteristic to determine heritage. In many cases of these isolated populations that's in the neighborhood of only 80% (so not a huge difference really).
All canids (dogs/wolves/coyotes) have some "mutt mix" in them.
The simple reason that leads many to believe the Algonquin wolves are coyotes is based on physical appearance.
Although they have "more mutt" in them - and probably more coyote - it's not a huge difference (from a genetics perspective).
Having said that .... Things can be misleading when looking at genetics - size, coloration, or any other associative trait one might point to establish genetic heritage can be flawed.
The best example we can relate to is people from different parts of the world - just like people, certain areas of the world have different people in size, coloration, and other common physical traits.
That's overly generalized - but should be representative of the most unbiased opinion I can give you (I have zero skin in this game if you pardon the pun).