Moose gone in 10 years?!

[TylerS]

That's the prognosis by a 2009 study by the Moose Advisory Committee. Duluth News Tribune article here

So what's everyone's thoughts? I think there's no denying that moose numbers are dropping. The moose in northwestern Minnesota have all but disappeared, and now the historically strong numbers of the northeast are getting hit.

Is it hype? Overblown? Or do you think there's a real problem here that needs to be addressed? If so, what are the solutions? End or severely limit hunting tags? Start targeting predators (i.e. wolves, coyotes, etc.)? Carpet-bombing tick-infested areas with insecticide (OK, I made that one up, but I wouldn't be against it!)

Personally, I feel like finding a viable solution is nearly futile. If it truly is global warming as they say (whether you believe it or not) than I kind of think it's out of everyone's hands. If we were to limit or end hunting seasons for moose, it may just be delaying the inevitable.

Of course NOT doing anything really isn't an option, but with such a precipitous decline, it almost seems hopeless...

[pikestabber]

I cannot speak to the parasite or disease factor as I have no evidence of what is going on or how to prevent it, but I can say this: if the moose population is dropping or even at a stalemate, and the number of wolves are rapidly increasing, not opening up a wolf season is only expediting the process. There are FAR MORE WOLVES in the north country than people realize. I went from seeing one a year to one a month in recent years, and some right in the middle of the day which generally speaks to a large abundance. I am two hours south of the border, so not in prime moose location, but moose used to be spotted here with some regularity...now moose sitings in this area have dropped to just about zero. Maybe we are ill equipped to fight this extinction on all fronts, but why not fight the front we can? Open a season for T-Wolves!

[pumper317]

I kind of think it is over hyped. I have seen plenty of moose West of Duluth in the past 3 years that say the population there is good. Bulls, Cows, and calves. I think it may just be a swing in the population, like every other creature seems to have. We only have so many years of recordings, how are we honetly supposed to pattern something with such little data.

They are out there, just better at hiding now;-)

[Bear55]

I think it's a real problem and there is nothing we can do about it. Clearly the experts are puzzled and no one can pinpoint one major cause. It may just be mother nature doing her thing and the moose may be a thing of the past in MN, or who knows 50 years from now things could chance and we will have moose everywhere.

[B. Amish]

the population in the nw has disappeared. that's not debatable. not much for wolves or bears up there. some yes. but they didn't cause the moose to disappear.

raging war against wolves won't solve anything. never has, never will.

what can be done about the disappearing moose? probably not much. unless it's the result of something like lack of fire that we could easily duplicate with Rx burns to promote better habitat quickly.

[TylerS]

I've also heard that the expanse of whitetail deer into ranges they're not native could be expediting the disappearance of moose. Apparently, deer bring parasites and whatnot with them that the moose are not equipped to handle.

So all you iron rangers out there: how would you feel if the DNR suddenly made it a point to greatly decrease the number of deer in order to help increase the moose population?

[bigbucks]

I'm with others who've said that there's probably not much that can be done. If it is a warmth thing, it's just a low in the cycle, because I don't believe in global warming. There will still be moose in Canada. When it swings back to colder averages again, the moose will start showing up farther South again. They just survive where the climate allows, they don't know where the border is.

[pikestabber]

raging war against wolves won't solve anything. never has, never will.

Do you have data to support that?

Perhaps that is true in the NE part of MN if there aren't that many wolves as was mentioned earlier...which seems odd to me, but I have no data to argue that point, so I won't.

But would you argue that if we leave wolf populations unchecked in areas where there are a lot of them (North Central MN), our deer population will be fine? That is counter-intuitive at best...some might even say ignorant.

[Farmboy1]

I pulled a MN moose tag this year, so I have done more reading on Moose populations to help get a better understanding of the population and the quarry.

My take on some of these so called causes. My own humble opinion.

1. Global Warming: MN is at the same longitude as Maine and the population there is in a huge growth rate. To me this eliminates global warming as a factor.

2. Deer: This could contribute to the population decrease. Studies have shown a strong correlation, but it has not been proven. I think mainly because they cannot find, and study enough animals to make a solid determination.

3. Wolves: Could have a minor effect, but not any larger than a hunting season which has been shown to be statistically insignificant.

4. Habitat: Moose do best with areas of low browse and waterways. They need open area that are not very abundant in this range. I personally think logged areas that are more open are preferable to old growth trees.

5. The MN DNR has for many years managed the deer herd for numbers. Well we have numbers now, and this is a detriment to the moose. I think it is only a matter of time before they change tactics and decrease populations. This may help moose populations.

6. Population Counts: I don't think the DNR knows how many moose there are. Air Counts are not great, but it is all they have.

I really wanted to hold off on getting my tag this year, and wait to hunt with my Son in 10 years. I don't see this happening and would be surprised if this hunt is available in 5 years.

[Matt Breuer]

the population in the nw has disappeared. that's not debatable. not much for wolves or bears up there. some yes. but they didn't cause the moose to disappear.

raging war against wolves won't solve anything. never has, never will.

what can be done about the disappearing moose? probably not much. unless it's the result of something like lack of fire that we could easily duplicate with Rx burns to promote better habitat quickly.

Not much for bear or wolves in NW MN?

[Kim1212]

This all comes from the DNR, so take it for what it's worth, but I've communicated with them back and forth many times, and gone to their moose information sessions they hold in Ely.

They have mostly ruled out wolves as the cause, because very few of the times they retrieve a collar that gives off the death signal, there is no evidence of a wolf kill. They just drop dead. They also aren't producing calves at a normal rate, so it's something less obvious than wolf kills.

I did read recently that they are considering ending the moose hunt until the population stabilizes and that they are also considering putting a ban on recreational deer feeding. That will go over like a turd in punchbowl up here in Ely, but the degrees to which people feed the deer is getting ridiculous. There is a lady just around the corner who shakes coffee cans and the deer run by the dozens to her yard to eat. They all congregate in close quarters when fed by people and they suspect this is spreading disease to the moose. But from what I have seen, there is no evidence of this, just speculation. As someone else mentioned I don't think they have a large enough sample size to make determinations.

I have also read there may be some speculation about the increased use of chemicals in the winter that may be contributing. Back in the day it was mostly just road salt and gravel but now many areas are using a mix of chemicals, and in the late winter and early spring, the moose consume large amounts of the crud left behind, because of the saltiness.

Likes I said, most of that comes from conversations with DNR people, but the part about the road salt is just theories by lay people that were brought to the DNR, and no one knows if they are looking into the possibility.

I would hate to see them disappear. But once populations start declining like that I'm not sure people can do much to stop it, unfortunately.

[TylerS]

What strikes me as odd is how they haven't found anything out of the ordinary from autopsies of dead moose (or have they, I guess I haven't heard)? You'd think if something was causing them to die, it would show up in blood work or whatnot...

[B. Amish]

Not much for bear or wolves in NW MN?

ok. take a stretch of former moose habitat from barnesville to crookston. used to be quite a few moose in this area. wolves = zero. bears = spotty in the northern strech and zero in the southern stretch.

moose are now gone from this stretch of thier former range. why? can't blame the wolf or bear.

[jerkbait]

I think NW MN is a bigger area then that. Like from LOTW to Bemidji then west to the ND border is what I consider NW MN and there are plenty of wolves and bear. Not saying that is what caused the moose decline there though. Just saying the are plently of the other 2.

[B. Amish]

ok forget the nw mn thing.

there are no moose in wilkin, clay, norman, and west polk county anymore. very very few wolves and bear in this stretch. the point is that the moose disappeared here without the presence of wolves and bear.

[Matt Breuer]

I would agree with that stretch... but don't include Crookston and Barnesville into my home area...

Used to see at a minimum 1-3 moose every trip from Thief River Falls to Grand Forks, and I've only seen one in that stretch the last few years. Around TRF we see maybe 3-5 a year at most now, whereas while growing up we'd see 30 or better. There was a definite decline, but I've seen more the last 2 years than I did for that stretch after they all but disappeared. I have almost felt like the moose are coming back in NW MN...

[superbee]

Moose numbers in the area just North of International Falls in Ontario the moose numbers are way down from years past. It is a combination of change in habitat, deer population exploding along with wolves. We have lots of clear cuts generating good habitat, but it also creates more access and easy hunting. With that, I would assume the MN moose population has to be really struggling.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Why does everyone need ONE specific thing to point their fingers at and blame when it come to this? Is it not clear enough that it could very well be 'All of the Above'?

Tons of deer in the moose range...

Tons of wolves (I believe they are doing considerable damage to fawns, but that's just my opinion)....

Tons of bears....

Climate is warmer overall (whether man made or not)....

Much more environmental pollutants overall in the recent years....

Loss of thermal cover over the years......

As someone who loves to deer hunt and lives in the northland, I say open up intensive harvest zones all over moose range and see what happens. However, with that, all the other potential factors need to be addressed as well. I would think that by greatly reducing deer populations, knocking down wolf numbers and promoting habitat (especially thermal cover) we should be able to notice something, whether it be an increase in moose number or no change at all. Either way, at least SOMETHING real was attempted.

[HunterLee]

Well, you are right about not any moose left in those counties, but you must not be out and about that much- first off there are a fair amount of bears in Norman, even more in Polk and even more wolves. When I see and or hear packs at a time, there are plenty. I counted a group of 8, 4 springs ago, had at least 5 different howling last year as I bowhunted, and see tracks on a regular basis and between me and my cousin we see a few every winter, not coyotes, but wolves, we even have called them in.

They have impacted the deer quite a bit in our area, and I am sure they were a part of the reason for the moose, as that is suppose to be the wolfs #1 food.

Also if they are not finding calves that probly because they are eaten soon after birth, just like coyotes and deer. Its doesn't take a real smart person to figure out that a increase of wolves and a decrease of moose there has to be some type of connection.

I won't put full blame on them, but look at elk out west they have severly hurt the populations out there. I can't wait for a wolf season, and know I will fill my tag.

[Bowfin]

Rise in deer population and ticks in northern MN IMO has to be the main factor. Never saw deer ticks in St. Louis and Itasca 10 years ago - now there lousy with them.

[Steve Foss]

Why does everyone need ONE specific thing to point their fingers at and blame when it come to this? Is it not clear enough that it could very well be 'All of the Above'?

Tons of deer in the moose range...

Tons of wolves (I believe they are doing considerable damage to fawns, but that's just my opinion)....

Tons of bears....

Climate is warmer overall (whether man made or not)....

Much more environmental pollutants overall in the recent years....

Loss of thermal cover over the years......

As someone who loves to deer hunt and lives in the northland, I say open up intensive harvest zones all over moose range and see what happens. However, with that, all the other potential factors need to be addressed as well. I would think that by greatly reducing deer populations, knocking down wolf numbers and promoting habitat (especially thermal cover) we should be able to notice something, whether it be an increase in moose number or no change at all. Either way, at least SOMETHING real was attempted.

Agreed. And even the bulls-only moose season needs to be closed. The report clearly indicates that not enough bulls are reaching maturity, and the ratio of bulls/cows has just dropped below an important threshold.

And not to take this in a goofy new direction, but I'd love to see in-depth research on whether the NE corner of Minnesota, particularly the vast BWCAW and Quetico areas, could support woodland caribou. Moose and caribou were the two primary ungulate species here before the deer moved in in larger numbers.

While there is a vast industry centered around deer hunting in Minnesota (something I enjoy just as much as the next deer hunter), it's plain at least to me that if we push the deer population way down up here in NE MN moose country to help moose recover, it would reflect an important priority. Not too many people come to canoe country looking for deer, after all.

I think the DNR would have a huge battle on its hands if it went intensive harvest up here on the deer. Hunters realize that would mean fewer deer in years to come, and there are plenty of hunters who would rear up on their hind legs and holler if the DNR were to go in that direction.

As the lead agency on this, when rapid action is needed the DNR is hampered by three factors: It has to get Legislative approval for much of what it does, it has its own bureaucracy to overcome, and it has to put plans like this through a lengthy public comment period. Let's hope they get moving NOW!

We don't need to know every small factor driving the drop in moose population. We easily know enough to take action.

[TylerS]

That's interesting that you mention woodland caribou. I had a conversation a few years back with my cousin about that very topic. He seems to remember that the DNR at one time had planted a small herd of caribou back into the BWCA, but it never took. More large undulates offering wolves and predators a greater degree of variety could help balance out populations.

On the other hand, if wolves really are one of the big contributors to the precipitous decline of moose (as some have suggested) than the two species' numbers would directly correlate. As moose decline and finding them becomes more difficult, the moose that pray on them also will decline (unless, of course, they switch to whitetail deer, which are more than prevalent in much of the state).

It would be much like the theory behind grouse cycles. As their numbers increase, so too do their predators. During peaks in grouse years, predators have a chance to catch up until they start taking too heavy a toll on the birds. Like shifting weights on a scale, ruff numbers begin to drop and the predator numbers soon follow until the cyclical low years, when the whole pattern shifts back to the grouses' favor and we see a population increase begin again.

But, as has been mentioned, I don't think one environmental aspect can be pointed to as the culprit behind moose population densities. When tabulating the various possible factors, it's easy to see that there quite possibly could be a "perfect storm" baring down on moose.

And while I do think the DNR ought to "get moving NOW," I almost feel as if its too little, too late. The amount of bureaucratic red tape and hoops that biologists and resource officers need to weed through seems insurmountable. Of course, that's a rather pessimistic view...but I always have been a "glass half full" kind of guy

[Bear55]

And while I do think the DNR ought to "get moving NOW," I almost feel as if its too little, too late.

I get that same feeling. I also get the feeling nothing we could have done would have prevented this, us trying to help might even cause more harm. But hey we are so smart we can fix anything right?

[rkhinrichs]

what is the success rate for killing a minnesota moose??

[Archerysniper]

what is the success rate for killing a minnesota moose??

46% for the 2009 season, didn't see the 2010 results. Still sounds like a very good quality hunt. Considering that the deer harvest for 2010 was around 30 to 37%