MN Moose permits to be halved

[matchset]

sorry guys, but i have to agree with JK.

if your not up there, observing; then you really have very little insight as to the real issue.

there is a significant correlation to moose decline and wolf growth/population explosion.

i spent ten days in moose country last fall. i saw 3 moose. two deer.

my buddy and i even sat multiple times overlooking a turnip food plot.

simple put, there aren't the deer numbers for the wolves to prey upon. and moose; well they offer a much more rewarding meal for the pack than a button buck does.

[creepworm]

Well, according to matchset I have no reason to post here. Although, I will do it anyhow.

It can not be good for the Moose population to be chased by wolves. However, all of the scientific research points to other causes for the Moose decline. Google Moose-Wolf population dynamics and read some of the findings. Wolves kill a very small portion of the Moose. About the same as hunters would.

But lets not look at ourselves the same way as the wolves. That would be inconvenient. And certainly, lets not look at scientific research, because that would be inconvenient to our own baseless opinions.

[MJ1657]

The problem with alot of that research is it rely's on the whole global warming/climate change/whatever they plan on calling it next hype.

[Bowfin]

/quote]

Habitat loss (logging of old growth) may be the biggest factor of all.

[JayinMN]

I wonder if some people ever put any thought into the situation instead of crying wolf. Wolves surely are the cause of all conservation issues in Minnesota despite the science and research proving otherwise. I realize a biologists research does really can't compare with 10 day deer hunting trips up north, moose shed hunters thoughts and road side observations though. On my own roadside observations, I have seen more moose this winter then wolves so there must be a lot of moose. Besides those dang moose and wolf biologists spend too much time at their computers and not enough out in the woods or on the roads observing nature. I also realize the biologist studying this issue are far less equipped mentally, have less tools to test their research and surely have not researched the large number of animals that a average guy can from a deer stand or car so their work is rather pointless. The research is clearly pointing in the wrong direction it must be wolves. Moose have evolved to deal with wolf predation for thousands of years but now in Minnesota the moose and wolves have changed their relationship with one another and thats a key point being missed by those biologist. Based on deer stand observations and 2 week hunting trip research moose should not exist on Isle Royale but despite the odds they do contradicting the deer stand observations. How can it be the wolves have not depleted the herd of moose on a island where no one controls the wolf population but are going to take out the moose population in a whole state? Surely the mainland wolves have evolved a new trick, stalking moose in their bedding areas. Those tricky critters! There is a winter on isle royal and the snow gets deep but those wolves are not smart enough to chase moose off their beds that must be the new trick. The wolves of royale have nothing else to eat but moose and soon the gluttons will eat all the moose according to common beliefs. Weird, moose survive wolves in Canada and Alaska too.

Now man has nothing to do with the situation because we are the greatest conservationist of all. Our track record my prove otherwise but lets forget that. I bet if we had a year long open season on whitetail in lake and cook counties then cut down on the logging so the moose had more thermal cover to escape the summer heat the moose numbers would begin to climb after a few years. Less logging would also mean less contact with whitetail deer to bring in the parasites that rely on whitetails to complete their life cycle, ticks and worms. The moose that walk circles for days at a time disoriented from brain worms or just lay around in the same place doing nothing because their brains have been eaten picked the parasite up from white tail deer. They would make easy prey but still show up more frequently then they should be especially with all the wolves on their heels waiting for a easy snack. History repeats itself, man and whitetail deer already helped kill off the woodland caribou. Moose may be the next too go. Blaming wolves sure do make things a lot less complex. Now lets try some moose management and forget about the white tails for a while.

[matchset]

Weird, moose survive wolves in Canada and Alaska too.

wolves are also managed and their population is kept in balance in alaska and canada too.

the north woods does not have the "Prey" population size to support a nearly identical population of wolves.

[tonkapat]

/quote]

Logging is not the reason of moose decline. In fact, logging has replaced fire as "the" reliable modern tool for regenerating the forest and increases browse quality which enhances habitat for browsing species such as moose and deer along with benefitting other species such as grouse, bear etc.. While logging creates better habitat for moose through better browse, we also need to make sure we plan to regenerate an adequate component of conifers which provide cooler habitats for moose during the hot summer months.

The cutting of most old growth forests is what expanded the whitetails range. Thus creating the intermixxing of the animals and taking away the mooses habitat. As you pointed out with the conifers gone they don't have a place to hide in the shade all day. Also the national forests are rarely clearcut anymore, the state still does some clearcutting but the fed have been doing the selective harvest which doesn't help much of anything. With the way the timber industry is now I doubt there will anywhere near the amount of logging as the past.

[Pinusbanksiana]

When you look at a species, (any species) disappearing from a landscape it is habitat that causes the disappearance and not predators. Habitat changes and some species adapt while others cannot. I equate ticks to habitat change. It is the same on Isle Royale, the moose/wolf cycle is directly tied to moose numbers and carrying capacity. In a sense they end up eating all the browse available when numbers are high. This causes a crash in numbers as they starve to death. Once the numbers are down, there is enough browse again and the numbers of moose will climb. The wolves population numbers mimic the moose, just a few years different but the trends follow the same track. While most backyard wildlife biologists would like to believe that the wolf is responsible, it is not. Hakim's Razor states the simplest explanation is the most likely, so keep that in mind when trying to come up with complex and unlikely arguments to refute evidence that logically seems true. In my mind, habitat is the most likely explanation and not the wolf.

[Pinusbanksiana]

I don't see harvesting as creating long term moose habitat, I see it as a short term fix with ancillary side effects like an increase in deer. I see the best moose habitat being old growth deciduous forests left to succeed to upland and lowland brush like mountain maple. Plenty of this along the north shore. The shade in these areas is incredible, as this mountain maple can reach 15 feet tall and taller, shading out the ground enough that birch and aspen cannot regenerate at all. When you find areas like this, you find high moose numbers and low deer numbers. If you want to go look at such an area, ask and I will point some out to you and you can make your own conclusions.

[Scott M]

Good information on the inevitable subject that has come up, why is the moose declining... MN Moose Advisory Committee

[Pinusbanksiana]

Good information on the inevitable subject that has come up, why is the moose declining... MN Moose Advisory Committee

All I see there is window dressing. Seeing moose gives us the warm fuzzies, yea we know that. How about some cold hard facts and research? Boots in the woods kind of research and not theory and models. The cold hard facts are that if a species is on its way out on a landscape, closing the hunting season and quick fix habitat changes will not have any effect. Throwing money at this problem will only make you have less money and no moose.

[goblueM]

jackpine, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at

you state that throwing money at the problem is a bad idea, but you call for more research (psst - that costs money)

cold hard facts were, in fact, provided - numbers of moose are down in the NW, and may be declining in the NE. Apparently you didn't read the reports, or bother to even look at the research reports cited. a cursory overview in 10 minutes revealed many "cold hard facts", such as population estimates (with error bars, even!), mortality rates, recruitment, and more. Researchers used aerial surveys, radiotelemetry, and analyzed stool samples, performed autopsies of dead moose, and much more. That's your "boots in the woods" rearch.

Perhaps you overlooked the majority of the information on that HSOforum?

also i am unfamiliar with this hakim's razor you speak of... are you referencing Occam's Razor?

[Pinusbanksiana]

Guess I spelled it wrong. You are correct there is good research.

[JayinMN]

Quote:

wolves are also managed and their population is kept in balance in alaska and canada too.

Really? Just because you can shot them there doesn't mean there population is being "managed". The amount of wolves shot has little effect if any effect on their population there.

Quote:

the north woods does not have the "Prey" population size to support a nearly identical population of wolves.

And the north woods does not have nearly the population of wolves they do. How do you figure approx 3k wolves in MN to be identical to approximately 11k Alaskan wolves? Also keep in mind a large number of wolves in MN have never even crossed paths with a moose. Wolves are not going to be a deciding factor in whether or not MN has moose in 15 years.

[leech~~]

And the north woods does not have nearly the population of wolves they do. How do you figure approx 3k wolves in MN to be identical to approximately 11k Alaskan wolves? Also keep in mind a large number of wolves in MN have never even crossed paths with a moose. Wolves are not going to be a deciding factor in whether or not MN has moose in 15 years.

Alaska has 579,200 more squire miles then Minnesota. I'm not that great at %'s but if you take the 3K in Minnesota as compaired to the 11K in Alaska as stated above divided by the squire miles available. Minnesota has by far more Wolves per squire mile then Alaska!

[certified jumbo]

2 years ago we drew a minnesota moose tag. we hunted about 30 miles up the gunflint trail. we spent 10 days scouting in August and mid September. We hunted moose for 10 days in October and shot our moose on that tenth day.

so we spent 20 days in that area driving, hunting and scouting. we had 5 moose sightings in the 20 days we were there. what surprised us the most was the number of wolf sightings. we saw at least 1 wolf per day and several days we saw a pack of wolfs. having spent a lot of the last 20 years traveling the BWCA i've never seen wolfs like that.

i have no factual evidence if the wolf is a big reason for the decline in our population of minnesota moose. but i have to admit that my findings changed my opinion on wolfs and there possible effects on moose.

[delcecchi]

Wolves are not the problem. The population decline is directly related to climate change. Moose are cold weather animals. They are stressed by heat in the summer, and moderate winters allow more parasites, ticks and brain worms, to survive. It is a combination of other factors too. Even the DNR cannot pinpoint a singular cause. If the trend continues the only place to see a living moose in MN will be at a zoo. How sad is that?! Skol.

But they are thriving in North Dakota and New England. New England in particular is warmer than here. And calf survival seems to be a big problem.

[delcecchi]

All I see there is window dressing. Seeing moose gives us the warm fuzzies, yea we know that. How about some cold hard facts and research? Boots in the woods kind of research and not theory and models. The cold hard facts are that if a species is on its way out on a landscape, closing the hunting season and quick fix habitat changes will not have any effect. Throwing money at this problem will only make you have less money and no moose.

As for hard facts, I found this of interest...

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/moose/mac/summit-butler.pdf

[matchset]

And the north woods does not have nearly the population of wolves they do. How do you figure approx 3k wolves in MN to be identical to approximately 11k Alaskan wolves?

i was talking about the relationship between the amount of wolves in northern minnesota vs. the amount of moose.

THAT number is "nearly" identical. not perfectly, because science isn't.

all i was saying was that we have a lot of wolves compared to the number of species they prey on.

[Pinusbanksiana]

As for hard facts, I found this of interest...

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/moose/mac/summit-butler.pdf

[fishfearme]

And the north woods does not have nearly the population of wolves they do. How do you figure approx 3k wolves in MN to be identical to approximately 11k Alaskan wolves? Also keep in mind a large number of wolves in MN have never even crossed paths with a moose. Wolves are not going to be a deciding factor in whether or not MN has moose in 15 years.

Alaska has 579,200 more squire miles then Minnesota. I'm not that great at %'s but if you take the 3K in Minnesota as compaired to the 11K in Alaska as stated above divided by the squire miles available. Minnesota has by far more Wolves per squire mile then Alaska!

Yes but you are counting acreage in high elevation and in the artic. These places are not wolf habitat.

One more thing is how the heck do they know how many wolves there are anyway? It seems that the pop in MN has been at 3000 for 20 years now.

[Scott M]

Minnesota moose: Can they be saved?

by Josephine Marcotty, Star Tribune

GREENWOOD LAKE, MINN. -- The young bull moose heaved himself out of the snow and lumbered away, paying no mind to the pod of humans who watched anxiously from a few yards off as he disappeared into the gloom of a winter day.

Moose Number 1160, foraging in the brush northeast of Two Harbors, had been tracked by helicopter and brought down by a sedative dart. When he woke up, a GPS collar adorned his thick neck and began sending more text messages than a teenager to researchers in Duluth, who will track his every move for the next two years.

If he lives that long.

Biologists are in a race to discover if they can save Minnesota's moose before they disappear from the state. Two years ago, researchers reported that the iconic North Woods animals appear to be succumbing to Minnesota's warming climate. Now, in a new round of studies, the scientists hope to discover whether humans can protect them from rapid ecological changes, including disease, parasites and heat stress. But if, as many fear, Minnesota is simply getting too warm, then within a few decades the moose will become just a symbol of a place that used to be.

"Do we just stop and let them disappear?" asked Ron Moen, a University of Minnesota Duluth biologist who will be following Moose 1160 and 62 others in a two-year study. "I would say no. Just about everyone who talks to me about moose says they want to keep them here."

But the political climate may turn out to influence their fate as much as global warming.

Funding promised for the next critical phase of moose research is at risk from two powerful Republican legislators who have said that they are skeptical of research or projects related to climate change. One project that could get curtailed is an ambitious $500,000 study designed to determine precisely why moose are dying with such startling speed.

Moose were once everywhere in the Minnesota forest. But the latest aerial survey by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) shows their numbers have dropped from 8,000 in 2005 to fewer than 5,000 today. They are also in decline on Isle Royale and southern areas of Manitoba and Ontario.

In the northwest corner of Minnesota, they are gone.

A pattern emerges

One of the many puzzles is a phenomenon one researcher described as "tip-over disease." The term makes biologists cringe a bit now because it's so imprecise, but it aptly described what they saw: apparently healthy adult moose dropping dead in the middle of summer for no clear reason.

There's always a reason, of course. But identifying the cause of death in an 850-pound carcass that has been chewed by scavengers in the middle of the woods is not an easy task. Nonetheless, that's what Minnesota researchers started doing in 2002 with 116 radio-collared moose. By the time the study ended, six years later, 85 moose were dead -- 49 from unknown causes.

But when they compared the outcome to temperatures, the researchers found a deadly pattern. A majority of the unexplained deaths were linked to higher than normal January temperatures, said Mark Lenarz, the DNR biologist who led the study published in 2009.

Moose are superbly adapted to cold. At temperatures above 23 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 57 degrees in summer, they burn energy to keep cool, according to one study from Canada. In summer, that means they stop their round-the-clock browsing and, like a hot black Labrador retriever, find a cool place in the shade and pant. If they don't eat, they don't put on enough fat to survive the winter. If they burn up their fat too fast in the cold months, they might survive the winter only to die in the spring.

And like their cousin the cow, Lenarz said, they might develop immune weaknesses when they get hot, making them more susceptible to disease and parasites they pick up from a deer population that has exploded into moose territory.

Zeroing in on a cause

Lenarz, who has studied moose in Alaska and Minnesota for decades, is among those who believe climate change means their fate is already determined. "I'd like to think I'm wrong," he said.

But there are enough conundrums to keep some biologists as stumped as they are hopeful. For instance, though moose have disappeared from northwestern Minnesota, they seem to be thriving in North Dakota, in agricultural areas and grasslands that have never been their natural habitat. Biologists are astonished at photos of moose browsing in sugar beets and sunflowers.

"It's hotter there, and there is less shade," said Erika Butler, a DNR wildlife veterinarian. "And they are dropping triplets on the prairie. There has to be something else going on."

That's what brought Butler to her knees next to Moose 1160 a few weeks ago. He had been brought down by a careful choreography of machinery. First, a small plane circled above the snowy landscape looking for the telltale dark backs of moose. Once the animals were sighted, the pilot called in a helicopter that swooped in under the low cloud cover. A sharpshooter hung out the door and took aim with an anesthesia gun -- one shot and the moose slowed and collapsed in a stretch of tall brush.

Notified by radio that the moose was down, Butler and others in the research group took off on snowmobiles across Greenwood Lake. They found the young bull peacefully asleep in the deep snow, his long legs curled beneath him.

He had one antler. The other, marked by a bloody stump, had already been shed. Butler opened an ultrasound machine and measured the fat on his rump. She took blood samples, collected scat, hair, a few of his winter ticks and gave him a dose of antibiotics. Another shot reversed the sedative, and half an hour after he'd been brought down, he was up and away.

Now, Moen and his colleagues will be able to intimately observe his every movement for the next two years, thanks to the remarkable technology hanging around his neck. The device on his collar will record his location every 20 minutes and the ambient temperature. An activity counter will record his movement every five minutes, telling researchers whether he is eating, sleeping or chewing his cud. Six times a day, all that data from 63 moose in the Arrowhead region, the Grand Portage Chippewa reservation, Quetico Provincial Park in Canada and Isle Royale, will be texted via satellite to the researchers' computers.

In two years, having transmitted a treasure trove of data, the collars will drop off.

All hands on deck

Moen said the data will help scientists understand the roles of diet, habitat and weather.

What it won't tell them is why the moose are dying.

That could come next winter, through a sort of moose CSI project headed by Butler, who hopes to collar 100 specimens. In addition to the other data, the devices would emit an all-hands-on-deck text alert if a moose stops moving for four hours -- a clear signal that it has died. A handful of wildlife teams around the state will be poised to go after the carcass before it's eaten by scavengers. They will conduct necropsies on the spot, or use snowmobiles and four-wheelers to haul all or parts of it out of the bush and into a lab. "Without it, we will never know why they are dying," Butler said.

More important, she said, the answers could ensure the moose's survival in Minnesota. If the threat is parasites from deer, the deer population could be reduced. If it's tick-borne diseases, then prescribed forest fires could help. If they are nutritionally deprived, their habitat could be improved.

This week Butler will have to defend her proposal before the new members of a legislative and citizens committee that controls her funding. Money for both her and Moen's research comes from the state's Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, which funnels about $25 million a year in lottery proceeds to environmental projects. Moen's was approved by lawmakers last year; Butler's is up this year.

Rep. Dennis McNamara, R- Hastings, the new head of the House environment committee and a new member of the trust fund panel, told the group last week that he's not interested in funding research. His Senate counterpart, Bill Ingebrigsten, R-Alexandria, told the group he thinks global warming is a "farce" and a "fallacy." They have already canceled 25 recommended projects. Butler's is one of about 16 others to be reviewed Monday night.

She'll get five minutes to make a case for the moose.

"If I can't convince them ... then we won't be saving the moose," she said.

[Scott M]

Quote:

If the threat is parasites from deer, the deer population could be reduced. If it's tick-borne diseases, then prescribed forest fires could help. If they are nutritionally deprived, their habitat could be improved.

I don't believe any of these management actions will work. That's why Lenarz is in effect saying its inevitable. Drop deer densities? In an area that receives very little hunting pressure per acre because of remoteness? Prescribed burns in NE MN? Not at a scale that will make a difference without taking out some homes and cabins. Nutritional deprivation? How will you speed up the process of succession to improve habitat on a large scale?

Kind of scary who we have heading our house and senate natural resource committees. McNamara and Ingebrigsten shooting down research and denying climate change. What leadership.

[goblueM]

its disgusting is what it is. denying proven facts and reality because it doesn't agree with your ideology and inner narrative? ridiculous

lets figure out why these moose are dying and what we can do to keep them around, rather than just say "i think its a bunch of [PoorWordUsage] so we shouldn't study it"

[walleyefisher0990]

Thats a very interesting article. From the sounds of things nobody including anyone on here has any real idea what is going on. Alot of speculation. Hopefully their research does get funded and they can figure it out. You never know though in the end humans think we can solve all of natures problems, the moose might dissapear in Minnesota faster than we think and that would be a bummer...