Jump to content

Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2025/Assessing the Role of Wolf Lake First Nation of Quebec and Ontario, Canada, in Managing Forested Ecosystems and Protecting Vulnerable Species

From UBC Wiki

Positionality Statement

I grew up and have lived most of my life in Ontario, Canada, on the traditional, unceded territory of the Anishinabewaki and Mississauga peoples.[1] This case study will investigate the lives and efforts of the Wolf Lake First Nation (WLFN) solely through secondary research. I am not a member of WLFN. I can and will not speak on behalf of the WLFN or any other Algonquin First Nation communities.

It must be noted that because the term 'Aboriginal' is used in various government documents, it will be used in certain sections, but it is understood and respected that it is not the preferred, current terminology. Indigenous Peoples will be used in all references outside government documents.

Abstract

This case study examines the tireless efforts of Wolf Lake First Nation (WLFN) in asserting rights to their unceded traditional territory in Ontario and Québec. It investigates how this community utilizes their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and longstanding connection with forests and their surrounding riverine ecosystems to inform conservation practices. Although WLFN has taken on a leadership role in safeguarding ecosystems, government legislation, economic priorities and weak consultation mechanisms remain significant roadblocks. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the gaps in the governance framework and the ways in which it undermines Indigenous rights, which ultimately threatens environmental conservation. In assessing the role of Indigenous-led conservation in protecting vulnerable ecosystems, recognition of the challenges faced by Indigenous communities, such as WLFN, will allow for a greater understanding of how Canada can implement more effective and inclusive environmental conservation systems.

Keywords

Wolf Lake First Nation; Algonquin First Nation; eastern wolf; ecosystem management; Indigenous conservation

Description of Wolf Lake First Nation

Territory

Wolf Lake First Nation (WLFN) is a member of the Algonquin Nation, which contains nine additional communities throughout the Canadian provinces of Québec and Ontario and spans the entirety of the Ottawa River.[2] The territory of WLFN is unceded; they never surrendered their rights to their traditional land and assert territorial rights in both Ontario and Québec.[2] WLFN members do not live on reserve land.[2] Members of WLFN occupy various regions throughout their traditional territory, with most members living in Lake Kipawa and Témiscaming in Québec, and North Bay in Ontario.[3] The livelihoods of the Algonquin Nation are, and historically have been, deeply intertwined with water and forests.[2] For centuries, Indigenous Peoples stewarding this territory have relied on the land for hunting, fishing, medicinal plants, spirituality and more recently, ecotourism.[2][3] All of WLFN's forested territory is tied up in a government-issued tenure agreement.[2]

Community

WLFN has 220 members. They value their traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and abide by the customary law of seven generations[3][2]. This guiding principle considers the impact of a decision on seven generations into the future, prioritizing long-term sustainability of the land, its resources and its peoples.[2] The Algonquin Nation Programs and Services Secretariat (ANPSS) was established in 1996 and includes the Timiskaming First Nation, the Algonquins of Barrière Lake and Wolf Lake First Nation. The vision of ANPSS is to ensure the inclusion and prioritization of each of these three communities and create tangible goals that produce direct benefits. The 2023-2025 ANPSS Strategic Action Plan places emphasis on building the capacity of the communities and their governments.[4] The ANPSS is an example, in addition to ecosystem management, of the efforts of WLFN's pathway to self-determination and strong Indigenous leadership.[4][2]

Consultation and Coordination with First Nations in Canada

Unfortunately, land claim battles remain a pertinent issue for Indigenous Peoples in Canada. Although some First Nations will submit an official Comprehensive Statement of Claim to the federal government pertaining to their lands, WLFN relies on legal decisions made by the Supreme Court of Canada as evidence for rights assertion to their lands in Ontario and Québec.[2]

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)

UNDRIP was established in 2007, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action in 2015.[5] The TRC has aimed to encourage non-Indigenous Canadians to recognize themselves as settlers and acknowledge the part they play in perpetuating colonialism.[5] Reconciliation for Indigenous Peoples is a continuous process, with efforts to build relationships on integrity and humility.[5] Unfortunately, progress related to reconciliation and decolonialism in Canada has remained slow, with only 10 of the 94 calls to action being fully implemented.[5] Much of Canadian leadership and governance remains particularly hostile towards Indigenous Peoples.[5] Canada's failure to return stolen lands and infringement of rights to Indigenous Peoples has damaging effects and continues to perpetuate the privilege, power and benefits of non-Indigenous Canadians.[5] Understanding colonial history in Canada remains vital, but it is also imperative to recognize and acknowledge the ongoing threats to Indigenous Peoples' rights to land, resources and traditional knowledge that stem from the colonial legacy.

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Tenure

The FSC National Forest Stewardship Standard (NFSS) of Canada details Principles, Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management activities in Canada.[6] 94% of Land ownership in Canada is public, deemed as 'Crown Land.' [6] Harvest and management rights related to forested ecosystems within Crown Land are dictated by provincial governments.[6] The Government issues a tenure license to organizations (land owners, companies, departments, etc.), which grants certain rights to access and manage the land, both of which are dependent on the type of license held.[6] Indigenous Peoples are granted collective rights under Section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.[6] Within these rights, there are basic human rights that are internationally recognized by UNDRIP and International Labour Organization (ILO) 169, including Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).[6] Customary rights of Indigenous Peoples are acknowledged by FSC to be traditions, values, beliefs and practices and are particularly relevant to forest management activities.[6] Principles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Canadian NFSS emphasize meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples and indicate that it should be mutually agreed upon by both the Organization and Indigenous Peoples, how Indigenous Peoples will participate in the management activities before they commence.[6]

All of WLFN's forested area is tied up in government-issued tenure agreements that require a certain annual allowable cut (AAC) of timber.[2] In 2004, WLFN signed a forestry agreement with the Québec Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife (MNRF), which considered input on AAC from WLFN, the local forestry industry and the provincial government.[2] WLFN also partnered with Tembec Inc., an industrial forestry company, to help maintain Tembec's FSC certification and encourage the careful management of ecosystems within their management unit.[2] Although FSC certification does provide certain protections, it does not ensure that all activities related to natural resources safeguard Indigenous Peoples' rights.

Wolf Lake First Nation's Experience with Government Institutions

An important component of this case study is revealing the obstacles WLFN has faced in ecosystem management, much of which comes down to government resistance. Although it will be revealed that there are certain government channels of support that have helped WLFN move forward, they have indicated valid frustrations that are important to discuss.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999

In 2016, WLFN released a review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) 1999 at the request of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.[3] WLFN argued that the timeframe provided for consultation and commentary with the First Nation was last-minute and without adequate funding, which contradicts Articles 18 and 32(2) of UNDRIP.[3] WLFN noted that TEK of their territory is deeply intertwined with ecosystem management and should be considered in the future CEPA.[3] WLFN land has been severely degraded through expansive, extractive and exploitive land-use activities.[3] This leaves the community calling into question whether those who have damaged and polluted their land will have to pay the consequences.[3] Suggestions were made to support skilled Indigenous Peoples in contributing traditional and land-based knowledge to the next CEPA.[3]

Aboriginal Fund for Species At Risk (AFSAR)

AFSAR was created in 2004 by the federal government of Canada to support Indigenous communities in leading and contributing to the protection of species at risk, utilizing traditional knowledge and management practices.[7] Environmental projects will receive funding if they can clearly demonstrate how they will contribute to protecting and/or recovering threatened species and defend the expected results of the program.[7] Lands that are directly or indirectly controlled and utilized by Indigenous Peoples, as well as reserve lands, are eligible for funding.[7] WLFN has received funding under AFSAR for their eastern wolf program, which will be discussed in the subsequent section.[8]

Government of Québec

In 2008, the Government of Québec released the 'Interim Guide for Consulting the Aboriginal Communities.'[9] Its purpose was to iterate the guidelines for government departments, agencies and corporations on consulting Aboriginal Communities and understanding their territorial and customary rights.[9] The guide explains that Aboriginal rights can be directly, indirectly, or not linked at all to a specific territory, and can be seen in customs, traditions, language, etc. that are integral to Aboriginal culture.[9] With this understanding, it is suggested that the department consider who relies on the territory in question and how severe the impact of a proposed project will be on the community. It is made explicitly clear that the determination of the impact lies with the government.[9] Additionally, the guide states that although consultation is one way to respect and acknowledge the rights of Aboriginal communities, it is not always required, and the community does not have the power to override the decision made by the Crown.[9] In essence, the government suggests that consultation occur far in advance of when a decision regarding the project must be made, when possible.[9] It stipulates that the government is only required to accommodate Aboriginal communities if the departmental analysis identifies that the proposed action will infringe on their rights.[9]

In 2011, WLFN, with the support of Eagle Village First Nation, released an official review document regarding the 2008 guide.[10] They identified a list of six problems, much of which revolves around the contradictions with UNDRIP and the 2004 Supreme Court Haida decision.[10] Both sources set clear standards for how Indigenous Peoples are to be consulted and their rights respected.[10] The following 6 problems were identified by the Algonquin Nation Secretariat:

" 1) The threshold in the 2008 Guide for triggering duty to consult appears to be inconsistent with Haida;

2) The 2008 Guide is premised on the government of Quebec being the sole decision-maker, particularly with regard to whether consultations give rise to accommodation;

3) The 2008 Guide does not take into account of the nature of the right affected particularly with regard to contemplated accommodation measures;

4) Resource revenue sharing is all be precluded as an appropriate accommodation measure;

5) It is out of step with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and

6) The 2008 Guide is not strong enough in requiring that consultation take place at the strategic planning stage. [10] "

Wolf Lake and Eagle Village (WLEV) note specific problems regarding the duty of consultation with Aboriginal communities, with government departments being the ones deciding whether or not a rights claim is credible.[10] WLEV stated that this is a conflict of interest and questions the willingness to uphold Aboriginal rights by the Government of Québec, noting a history of dishonour and disinterest in collaboration.[10] The guide makes it clear that financially compensating Aboriginal communities is a last resort measure, when there are no other resolutions or modifications to be made.[10] WLEV found particular frustration with this, as noted above, in problem 4.

Within this commentary, WLFN also highlighted their dissatisfaction with the Québec Mining Act (Bill 14), formally rejecting both the process and the produced policy.[10] WLEV communities have territory with expansive uranium deposits, making it a hotspot for mining exploration.[10] This is concerning to WLEV because mining activities cause particular distress to fish and wildlife, which are vital to Indigenous livelihoods and culture.[10]

There are various lines of evidence of the Government of Québec's neglect of WLFN. In 2006, the government established the Sustainable Forest Development Act, which, according to WLFN, lacked meaningful consultation.[10] With this, WLFN questioned the legitimacy and commitment of the 2008 consultation guide and whether true consultation is really prioritized.[10] In 2013, Québec announced the creation of the Opémican National Park, without prior consultation with WLFN.[2] When questioned, the government claimed that it did not have time to consult.[2] The ANPSS Strategic Action Plan calls out the provincial government for a 'total denial of any systemic racism within government.'[4] Tireless legitimate efforts have been made to hold the Government of Québec accountable, particularly in accordance with UNDRIP, but true meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples seems to remain a low priority.

Ecosystems of the Algonquin First Nations

Dumoine River Watershed

Dumoine River, Québec, Canada

The Dumoine River Watershed is part of the boreal forest that has vibrant wildlife and ecosystem services, all of which are closely linked with the Dumoine River.[11] WLFN tradition and culture has relied on the Dumoine River since their establishment.[12] Unfortunately, the forestry and hydroelectricity industries are threatening the Dumoine watershed.[11] Québec often falls short of the conservation and protection of wildlife and their habitats when compared to other Canadian provinces, and this example is no exception.[11] Canadian Parks And Wilderness Society (CPAWS) has called into question the lack of initiative from the government in protecting this vital ecosystem.[11] They are proposing the establishment of a protected area to bring a stop to the industrial threats currently faced by the Dumoine River.[11] This would contribute to an existing initiative addressing the corridor from Algonquin Provincial Park and Adirondack State Park.[11] Adding on to this conservation project would expand the migration space for wildlife.[11]

In considering the economic priorities of Quebec, shifting to a more recreation, ecotourism-based industry would not only reduce environmental degradation, but it would also create new job opportunities.[11] Ecotourism is incredibly important to WLFN and has created sustainable employment for decades.[2] The youth in the community have maintained traditional canoe routes through summer programming.[2] WLFN emphasizes the importance of maintaining cultural and environmental integrity, which is a mindset that has spread beyond their Indigenous community.[2] With this in mind, the Dumoine River and its surrounding terrestrial landscape present an additional opportunity for ecotourism.

Maganasipi River

Maganasipi River, also known as Wolf River, is deeply intertwined with WLFN culture.[2] It's name originates from the eastern wolf inhabitants that roam the territory.[2] This river is surrounded by sections of the boreal forest with trees as old as 400 years.[2] In 2005, the sections of the old-growth forest were scheduled to be harvested, which is unsurprising considering the market value of old-growth timber.[2] This was deeply concerning to the WLFN community, knowing the impact this would have on the wolves and their habitats.[2] There were disputes between the community and Tembec because, technically, WLFN had been employed by Tembec to complete a forest inventory.[2] WLFN pushed for harvesting to stop, which created greater discourse between the community and the industry, with the latter prioritizing the supply and demand of timber.[2] In 2008, the Government of Québec released a proposal for the Maganasipi River to receive biodiversity reserve status.[13] This provision exists under the Natural Heritage Conservation Act and inhibits any industrial activities within the boundaries of the reserve.[13] The 2008 proposal mentions the inclusion of WLFN in developing and managing this protected area and alludes to potential future partnerships with the community.[13] Presently, WLFN has protected over 200 km2 of forest that was originally scheduled for harvest.[8] There is no doubt that WLFN's advocacy and willingness to challenge provincial and industrial provisions contributed to the decision to protect this vital ecosystem. The biodiversity reserve is a testament to the commitment of WLFN and the success of preserving what little old-growth forest remains; it is a significant achievement.

Wolf Lake Forest Reserve (WLFR)

WLFR lies on the traditional territories of the Anishinabewaki peoples and is not technically Algonquin territory. With that said, WLFR is a dominant red pine old-growth forest in Ontario and is connected to the Temagami forests through extensive waterways.[14] Old-growth red pine forests are rich in biodiversity that is not found in younger forests, particularly in the view of microhabitats that fulfill a niche for smaller plants, microorganisms and small vertebrates.[14] Protecting and preserving un-fragmented areas of old-growth is important for maintaining the diversity of species and habitats.[14] Currently, mining activities are a serious threat to WLFR.[14] Having the status of a forest 'reserve' vs a protected provincial park permits mining exploration.[14] This region is also important for the social and recreational value it provides, which is why there has been a significant push from the public to change the status from reserve to protected provincial park.[14] The decision to include this example within the scope of this case study was made with Indigenous ecosystem management in mind. Fire is important for red pine forests.[14] Maintaining natural fire regimes is crucial for the health of the forest.[14] Indigenous Peoples are stewards in fire management because of their deep-rooted tradition of cultural burning.[15] Parks Canada currently has existing partnerships with Indigenous Peoples to support cultural burning.[15] Because there is existing pressure to make WLFR a protected park, it seems that Algonquin and Anishinabewaki peoples may have the opportunity to be crucial actors in advising the management of this ecosystem. In considering the evidence of WLFN's involvement with old-growth forested ecosystems, the standards set by UNDRIP and by FSC, it would be incredibly beneficial for the Government of Ontario to seek guidance from Indigenous communities and create a space for Indigenous knowledge.

Eastern Wolves

Image of an eastern wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada.

The eastern wolf, also known as the Algonquin wolf, is an important top predator species.[16] Almost all eastern wolves in Canada are found in the region of Algonquin Provincial Park, with their range existing only in central Ontario and Southern Québec.[17][16] The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNFR) has not listed the eastern wolf as fully protected.[16] Eastern wolves are only protected within the bounds of official protected parks.[16] In 2015, the Committee On the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) pushed for the eastern wolf to be classified as a unique species and officially listed as threatened.[17] Even with this, hunting and trapping remain the largest threats to these canids.[16]

Eastern wolves are vital to maintaining a balanced ecosystem.[17] As top predators, they directly influence the population dynamics of their prey (beaver, white deer and moose).[16] Through controlling the deer population, these wolves allow for greater plant growth, thereby impacting the microhabitats of the entire ecosystem.[16] Suggestions have been made that coyotes can fill the ecological niche of eastern wolves as their population declines, but research does not support this. Eastern wolves have strict dietary requirements, so it cannot be assumed that coyotes, who eat diversely, including human food, will fill their ecological role.[17][16] Evidence suggests that this species is pivotal for maintaining biodiversity and integrity within forested ecosystems.[16]

European settlers in North America viewed wolves to be a threat to their livestock and pushed to wipe out their population completely.[16] This mindset persisted for a long time, allowing the government of Ontario to overlook the importance of wolves.[16] The government of Ontario makes a profit from hunting and trapping licenses, which makes full protection of these species difficult.[16] In 2005, the MNRF finally developed a monitoring strategy to better understand the abundance and range of wolves in Canada.[16] In comparison, WLFN has recognized the ecological and intrinsic value of eastern wolves for a very long time, and this species remains part of the cultural identity of the community.[8] Although the rules of hunting and trapping do not apply to Indigenous traditions protected under treaty rights, data from the MNRF confirms that very few eastern wolves killed are from Indigenous trappers.[16] WLFN traditional knowledge plays a pivotal role in observing and protecting this special species, which will be discussed further in the next section.

Wolf Lake First Nation Ecosystem Management

Successes

WLFN has been heavily involved in conservation and sustainable ecosystem management for quite some time. In 2007, they collaborated with a company to implement a microbial technology that increases tree growth.[2] It has proven to increase the growth of important coniferous species within the boreal forest (jack pine, white spruce and black spruce) by 25%. [2] To date, WLFN has protected over 9000 Ha of the Wolf River Watershed from invasive logging.[2] They have secured funding under the AFSR, along with several other grants to fund conservation research projects.[8] They are currently working with the Québec Government, the University of Toronto, Trent University, as well as the Algonquin peoples of Barriere, to protect forested ecosystems in Algonquin territory.[8] Within this, they are conducting research to understand and protect the existing eastern wolf population.[8] Algonquin elders have recorded traditional and customary knowledge that is the backbone of WLFN ecosystem management.[8]

Challenges

WLFN has advocated for the protection of the Wolf River and its surrounding area, seeing it as an ecologically beneficial and sensitive area. The internationally recognized World Wildlife Fund (WWF) supported this and recommended that it be conserved.[2] Unfortunately, Tembec and the Government of Québec have continued to harvest in this area.[2] The government has completely ignored WLFN's suggestion of a protection buffer from resource extraction, particularly mining and forestry.[2] Mining exploration in WLEV territory remains an imminent threat to their ecosystems.[10] Unfortunately, mining operations are not bound to a management plan under FSC, as forestry operations are.[6] Even though WLFN is incredibly conservation-focused, Québec falls short of the conservation and protection legislation of wildlife and their habitats, and this impacts the community's ability to expand its projects.[11] Soft language directives regarding how natural resource departments are to approach and consider the rights of Indigenous Peoples also pose a challenge, as they allow ambiguity and weak regulations to persist.

Conclusion

WLFN are the traditional stewards of their land and, through the seven generations principle, have worked tirelessly to protect and conserve natural ecosystems. The provincial governments of Ontario and Québec remain the largest obstacles to WLFN ecosystem management, as demonstrated in various legislative and administrative documents and decisions discussed in this case study. Although WLFN has achieved protection of forested land and is working towards protecting eastern wolves, natural resource exploitation and disregard for Indigenous rights lie at the heart of governance systems. Increased recognition and support for Indigenous communities trying to protect vulnerable ecosystems from degradation, such as WLFN, is crucial. In the face of climate change, the immeasurable value of TEK and Indigenous stewardship can no longer be ignored.




This conservation resource was created by Anna Hickey.
It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0.


References

  1. ↑ Native Land Map. (n.d.). Native Land Digital. https://native-land.ca/
  2. ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 Schie, R., & Haider, W. (2015). Indigenous-based Approaches to Territorial Conservation: A Case Study of the Algonquin Nation of Wolf Lake. Conservation and Society, 13(1), 72-83. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.161225
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 St Denis, H. (2016). Wolf Lake First Nation Review of Canadian Environment Protection Act (CEPA). https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/ENVI/Brief/BR8708962/br-external/WolfLakeFirstNation-e.pdf
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Algonquin Nation Secretariat. (2022). Strategic Action Plan 2023-2025. https://new-wordpress.algonquinnation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ANPSS-Strat-Plan-2023_2025_FIN_6-February-2023.pdf
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Abu-Laben, Y. (2019). Immigration and Settler-Colonies Post-UNDRIP: Research and Policy Implications. International Migration. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/imig.12685
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 FSC Canada. (2018). FSC national forest stewardship standard of Canada (FSC-STD-CAN-01-2018 EN_V1). https://ca.fsc.org/ca-en/forest-management
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Environment and Climate Change Canada. (2021). Aboriginal Funds for Species at Risk AFSAR): Program Overview. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/CW66-598-2022-eng.pdf
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 Algonquin Ecosystem Management. (2024). Wolf Lake First Nation. https://www.wolflakefirstnation.com/algonquin-eco-management
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 Government du Québec. (2008). Interim Guide for Consulting the Aboriginal Communities. https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/conseil-executif/publications-adm/srpni/administratives/orientations/en/guide_inter_2008_en.pdf
  10. ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 Algonquin Nation Secretariat. (2011). Comments Regarding the Government of Quebec's Interim Guide for Consulting First Nations. https://miningwatch.ca/sites/default/files/wl_ev_algonquins_to_charest_aug_2011_0.pd
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 McDonnell, J. (2008). Protecting Southern Quebec’s Last Wild Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(1). https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.63.1.9A
  12. ↑ Our Community. (2024). Wolf Lake First Nation. https://www.wolflakefirstnation.com/our-community
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 Proposed Vallée-de-la Rivière Maganasipi biodiversity reserve. (2008). Government of Québec. https://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/biodiversite/reserves-bio/maganasipi/PSC_Maganasipi-en.pdf
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 Anand, M., Leithead, M., Silva, L. C., R., Wagner, C., Ashiq, M. W., Ashiq, M.W., Cecile, J., Drobyshev, I., Bergeron, Y., Das, A. and Bulger, C. (2013). The Scientific Value of the Largest Remaining Old-Growth Red Pine Forests in North America. Biodiversity & Conservation, 22(8), 1847-1861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-013-0497-1
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Indigenous fire stewardship. (n.d.). Government of Canada. https://parks.canada.ca/nature/science/conservation/feu-fire/autochtones-indigenous
  16. ↑ 16.00 16.01 16.02 16.03 16.04 16.05 16.06 16.07 16.08 16.09 16.10 16.11 16.12 16.13 Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2017). Failing to Protect a Threatened Species: Ontario Allows Hunting and Trapping of the Algonquin Wolf. In Good Choices, Bad Choices: Environmental Rights and Environmental Protection in Ontario (pp. 252-269). https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/reporttopics/envreports/env17/Good-Choices-Bad-Choices.pdf
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 Benson, J. F., Loveless, K. M., Rutledge, L. Y., & Patterson, B. R. (2017). Ungulate Predation and Ecological Roles of Wolves and Coyotes in Eastern North America. Ecological Applications, 27(3), 718–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1499
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Documentation:Open_Case_Studies/FRST522/2025/Assessing_the_Role_of_Wolf_Lake_First_Nation_of_Quebec_and_Ontario,_Canada,_in_Managing_Forested_Ecosystems_and_Protecting_Vulnerable_Species&oldid=881142"