Yes, and a friend of mine sent me pictures 3-4 years ago of a single wolf track in Savage Run...no question a wolf track. Not a viable population for sure...at least not yet.
Moose on the Endangered Species List
- Thread starter WY ME
- Start date
I would agree that there are numerous factors associated with the changing populations of moose. That can be said for about every population of about every species, it's never just one thing.
However, dealing with predators can be effective in manipulating a population quickly. The results can be measurable in a relatively short period of time. We've done active wolf control in certain areas and didn't see a large increase in the moose. We stopped and then switched to removing bears and saw immediate positive results for the moose. Positive results quickly. The same isn't true with fixing global warming or parasitic issues or diseases. They take time to even figure out.
I will strongly argue that not all scientists are the same and many carry their agendas and biases, whatever they may be, into their conclusions. Politics are a part of it and decisions makers have to sort out "dueling scientists" at times. Go watch a criminal trial and see if 2 scientists always agree. If you have 2 scientists, you'll have 5 opinions on the same issue. Many biologists are strongly against hunting/trapping etc. Many just use science to further an agency agenda, even if it's not scientifically accurate.
Management is complicated, science is complicated. Sometimes you just have to do what can be done in the short term and then continue to try finding fixes for the long term issues.
However, dealing with predators can be effective in manipulating a population quickly. The results can be measurable in a relatively short period of time. We've done active wolf control in certain areas and didn't see a large increase in the moose. We stopped and then switched to removing bears and saw immediate positive results for the moose. Positive results quickly. The same isn't true with fixing global warming or parasitic issues or diseases. They take time to even figure out.
I will strongly argue that not all scientists are the same and many carry their agendas and biases, whatever they may be, into their conclusions. Politics are a part of it and decisions makers have to sort out "dueling scientists" at times. Go watch a criminal trial and see if 2 scientists always agree. If you have 2 scientists, you'll have 5 opinions on the same issue. Many biologists are strongly against hunting/trapping etc. Many just use science to further an agency agenda, even if it's not scientifically accurate.
Management is complicated, science is complicated. Sometimes you just have to do what can be done in the short term and then continue to try finding fixes for the long term issues.
I disagree Buzz, wolves can be mitigated in WY, if courts allow. Right now anti's have made it virtually impossible to do much, but courts can also decide to allow management, which can take the from of mitigation. Never said I wanted them eliminated, I like having some around, but I do want them managed like other large mammals are, and that often can take the form of mitigation when necessary, much like we see in AK at times, where more sanity seems to prevale in wolf management. So yes it can be done, the only question is does the political will exist to do so in WY?
So we'll just have to disagree on whether mitigation is possible.
Good point! In their own biased arguments the liberals point to wolves as being selective and culling out the sick and weak. In the MN moose study they point out that although 1/3 of the confirmed mortalities were by wolves, 25% of those wolf killed moose were inflicted with worms, disease etc. I guess I would point out that 75% of those wolf kills were found to be disease free healthy moose. This would certainly back your argument of wolves creating additional stress on an ailing herd.
Efforts made to improve habitat, reduce conflict with humans , vehicles collisions, disease prevention, etc. that are intended to help improve big game populations are applauded by folks from all walks of life. But managing our overpopulated predators is frowned upon by too many even though the benefits to our prey populations are immediate.
Disagree all you want, but again the facts are on my side. There is no State management control of wolves in Wyoming, thus, no way to mitigate or make wolf management happen.
You are correct, that even with state control, wolves will not be eliminated. They may not even be controlled enough to have any significant impact on improving the declining moose situation. Wyoming has far fewer wolves than both MT and ID and will have smaller quotas in the recovery area, when, and if, they can come up with an accepted plan.
BTW, you can thank the Farm Bureau, stock growers, and legislature for jacking up the wolf issue in Wyoming. They not only provided all the ammo the anti's needed, they held the door open for them on the way to court. That's some fine work there, and exactly how the Marlboro man and emotional "facts" landed Wyoming in the mess we're in now. There's a reason why MT and ID have State control and Wyoming doesn't...
Idaho and Montana are aggressively hunting/trapping wolves and moose numbers are not responding. Plus, wolves may not even be the main moose predator in Wyoming, in particular calves...pretty good chance of that actually. The elk calf study conducted in the Bitterroots, in wolf central Montana, found that lions were killing more elk calves than all other predators combined, and by a large margin. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if predators, other than wolves, were having a larger impact on moose...only one way to find that out.
It has always made perfect sense to me to put the horse squarely in front of the cart...not the other way around.
I read that study as well, I guess I would point out that 65% of the moose died from things other than wolf predation.
I still have no disagreement with wolf management, just that there are clearly other issues that are, figuratively, as well as literally, the "dead moose in the room" nobody seems to want to talk about.
Good discussion on a difficult issue. However, again, as a scientist who has published in peer reviewed journals, to say that lifelong biologist and researchers work is not without bias or agenda is faulty thinking. My scientific experience is in medicine, a realm where we are monitored by IRBs, government, FDA, you name it. We have to prove over and over again sound methods and safety. Despite all that, it is not hard to find instances where bias, manipulation or "massaging of data" takes place to paint a certain picture. To some extent it is done in all scientific publication. You want to tell a story. Let me tell you something, much of this is to remain "funded" and justify your next grant or stay in your current job. Look no further than the vaccine and autism study in Europe.
Like many have noted, the game and fish is no longer made up of hunters and fisherman (consumptive users). It is more and more becoming a department that employs college grads with wildlife or biology degrees that have never hunted or fished, or even seen a wolf. In the past these departments were led/staffed by hunters and trappers.
In MN, our previous furbearer specialist was a trapper. Huge insight for management, biased, maybe. Now we have someone who has never trapped or sold a fur managing our furbearer resource, biased maybe, lack of insight, almost assuredly. By these mechanisms you get regulations that don't make sense. We now have a 6 day fisher season (a notoriously nomadic animal) rather than a longer season with lower limits. You know what trappers do when you have 6 days to catch your fisher? They set a ton of traps and now you have overshooting and incidentals. Silly management.
One cannot deny that legislators are not qualified to make these decisions, so they listen to the folks that are paraded in front of them. Many of whom now days are biased and out of touch. We spend money in MN researching salamanders and turtles while our DNR has destroyed the worlds greatest walleye fishery. Mille Lacs lake, dubbed the "Great American Walleye Factory" by Al Linder, is now a catch and release fishery. These people and departments are horrible in some places. Wolves are a darling for reasons I cannot understand.
A problem is, the only people with the time and money to generate "facts" by way of research are those entrenched in these departments. The ranchers, guide association, and hunters don't have the resources or organization to bring their "facts" to the table. Sometimes, they aren't even given the chance. I won't disagree that when they do, it doesn't help and even hurts.
Like many have noted, the game and fish is no longer made up of hunters and fisherman (consumptive users). It is more and more becoming a department that employs college grads with wildlife or biology degrees that have never hunted or fished, or even seen a wolf. In the past these departments were led/staffed by hunters and trappers.
In MN, our previous furbearer specialist was a trapper. Huge insight for management, biased, maybe. Now we have someone who has never trapped or sold a fur managing our furbearer resource, biased maybe, lack of insight, almost assuredly. By these mechanisms you get regulations that don't make sense. We now have a 6 day fisher season (a notoriously nomadic animal) rather than a longer season with lower limits. You know what trappers do when you have 6 days to catch your fisher? They set a ton of traps and now you have overshooting and incidentals. Silly management.
One cannot deny that legislators are not qualified to make these decisions, so they listen to the folks that are paraded in front of them. Many of whom now days are biased and out of touch. We spend money in MN researching salamanders and turtles while our DNR has destroyed the worlds greatest walleye fishery. Mille Lacs lake, dubbed the "Great American Walleye Factory" by Al Linder, is now a catch and release fishery. These people and departments are horrible in some places. Wolves are a darling for reasons I cannot understand.
A problem is, the only people with the time and money to generate "facts" by way of research are those entrenched in these departments. The ranchers, guide association, and hunters don't have the resources or organization to bring their "facts" to the table. Sometimes, they aren't even given the chance. I won't disagree that when they do, it doesn't help and even hurts.
johnsd16,
I agree about the bias in research, and why I don't cherry pick for a preconceived outcome or decision. I also don't cherry pick to make a point either. However, when a vast majority of the peer-reviewed science is pointing in similar directions, to deny that, is to deny reality.
In the case of the moose declines, it is being seen over a wide geographic area, essentially all across the Southern United States Ranges (including parts of Southern Canada)...both in areas with high predator numbers and many without.
It doesn't take a genius, just someone that has basic deductive reasoning skills, via basic research, to recognize that things are wrong for moose in a large geographic area. There are many similarities in the research, and ongoing research...undeniable.
Much of the available, and best research, is pointing the same 3-4 things...again, and again, and again. The research also recognizes that a "one size fits all" approach is probably not going to fix the problem range wide. All of that makes total sense to me.
As to the GF in Wyoming, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't personally know any WYGF employees here that don't hunt and fish. It may be different in MN, but the guys/gals here hunt and fish. I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush, and in the case of Wyoming, unfairly so.
Hunters and Fishermen do NOT have to be uninformed fools when they address the Legislature, Commission, GF Departments, etc. Also, not being engaged, or "too busy", to study up and get your voice heard in a constructive way is also a choice. Funny that hunters have all the time in the world to hunt, scout, research the best rifle to buy, apply for permits, and post on bulletin boards...but just cant seem to find the time to educate themselves and get involved.
I don't have time either, but I make the time because its a priority to me and I've had a lot of success in getting things done. Do I always get my way? Absolutely not. But, what I don't do, is throw my sucker in the dirt when I don't. Another thing I don't do is give up...this wildlife/hunting related stuff is a marathon, not a sprint. I worked on one regulation in Wyoming for 3 years before it changed...but its changed.
Sitting on the sidelines and whining accomplishes nothing.
I agree about the bias in research, and why I don't cherry pick for a preconceived outcome or decision. I also don't cherry pick to make a point either. However, when a vast majority of the peer-reviewed science is pointing in similar directions, to deny that, is to deny reality.
In the case of the moose declines, it is being seen over a wide geographic area, essentially all across the Southern United States Ranges (including parts of Southern Canada)...both in areas with high predator numbers and many without.
It doesn't take a genius, just someone that has basic deductive reasoning skills, via basic research, to recognize that things are wrong for moose in a large geographic area. There are many similarities in the research, and ongoing research...undeniable.
Much of the available, and best research, is pointing the same 3-4 things...again, and again, and again. The research also recognizes that a "one size fits all" approach is probably not going to fix the problem range wide. All of that makes total sense to me.
As to the GF in Wyoming, you couldn't be more wrong. I don't personally know any WYGF employees here that don't hunt and fish. It may be different in MN, but the guys/gals here hunt and fish. I think you're painting with a pretty broad brush, and in the case of Wyoming, unfairly so.
Hunters and Fishermen do NOT have to be uninformed fools when they address the Legislature, Commission, GF Departments, etc. Also, not being engaged, or "too busy", to study up and get your voice heard in a constructive way is also a choice. Funny that hunters have all the time in the world to hunt, scout, research the best rifle to buy, apply for permits, and post on bulletin boards...but just cant seem to find the time to educate themselves and get involved.
I don't have time either, but I make the time because its a priority to me and I've had a lot of success in getting things done. Do I always get my way? Absolutely not. But, what I don't do, is throw my sucker in the dirt when I don't. Another thing I don't do is give up...this wildlife/hunting related stuff is a marathon, not a sprint. I worked on one regulation in Wyoming for 3 years before it changed...but its changed.
Sitting on the sidelines and whining accomplishes nothing.
Last edited:
The longest running predator prey study in the world (since the 1950's) is the research on the moose/wolf relationship on Isle Royale in Lake Superior. Isle Royale is a mere 20 miles from the Minnesota mainland where moose are on a downward spiral. Isle Royale on the other hand, has a robust and increasing moose population. What's different? Isle Royale's inbred wolf population is almost gone...only 2 wolves left.
Last edited:
Agree to a large extent, but in some instances entire sectors of scholarly activity can ride a wave in the completely wrong direction for decades. Happens in medicine all the time.
I'm very glad to hear that is still the way in the west. I suspect if you talk to many in the east or Midwest, my assessment is an unfortunate truth. In MN we just recently got a deer manager that seems to have credentials a hunter would like.
Agree as well, and I applaud you. The reality however is, people will not change. The hunting community is made up of all cross sections of life, but in large part by blue collar salt of the earth types. I get along with people better at a trappers meeting than a scholarly meeting. With that said, when we do organize and have represented MN trappers at functions for other groups like pheasants forever, DU, etc, it pains me to see guys show up from what I can tell, having not showered in a day or days, dirty jeans, food in their beard, etc. This is the exception, but still happens. They are great guys and are passionate about the cause, but the battle of public perception and outward appearances will always be lost. PETA will always have higher profile supporters and sexier campaign models than the RMEF. Fact. The "bunny huggers'" ranks will always be filled with those that have more education and money than common sense compared to hunters, fisherman and trappers. It is a tide that will be difficult if not truly impossible to turn. The reason the wolves are not being managed through sound biological, profit generating means, is because those that want them protected have more time, money and resource than those that want the opposite.
WY ME,
So, for nearly 70 years, the research on the wolf/moose relationship, showed that both survived on an Island...that is your proof that the wolves ate all the moose across Southern Canada and all across the moose range in the United States?
Not seeing your point, other than wolves seem to be unable to kill off a moose population, even on an Island, over a 70+ year time frame.
So, for nearly 70 years, the research on the wolf/moose relationship, showed that both survived on an Island...that is your proof that the wolves ate all the moose across Southern Canada and all across the moose range in the United States?
Not seeing your point, other than wolves seem to be unable to kill off a moose population, even on an Island, over a 70+ year time frame.
Buzz,
You have an interesting perspective. Certainly different than what I see in Alaska. We have one of the most well informed and active base of hunters and fishermen that I've ever seen. Not many sideline sitters here, (a few whiners though.)
We have more than a few biologists that don't hunt or fish too. They tend to push an extremely conservative management style. Many adamantly oppose predator management even in light of over-whelming peer reviewed statistics that support it. I've met several of the Wyoming biologist's over the years but don't know them well enough to judge them or really know how active they are as sportsmen.
I will say that politics and budgets drive a lot of the management decisions, regardless of the peer reviewed science and how much hand-wringing is done.
You have an interesting perspective. Certainly different than what I see in Alaska. We have one of the most well informed and active base of hunters and fishermen that I've ever seen. Not many sideline sitters here, (a few whiners though.)
We have more than a few biologists that don't hunt or fish too. They tend to push an extremely conservative management style. Many adamantly oppose predator management even in light of over-whelming peer reviewed statistics that support it. I've met several of the Wyoming biologist's over the years but don't know them well enough to judge them or really know how active they are as sportsmen.
I will say that politics and budgets drive a lot of the management decisions, regardless of the peer reviewed science and how much hand-wringing is done.
Johnsd16,
I agree with you as well, but I will point out that as much as researchers collaborate, they're also out there trying to find the next big thing. They want to be recognized for finding and/or figuring out something new. You don't change the world by proving someone else's point/thesis/idea.
Again, in the case specific to moose, there really isn't any reason for a moose researcher in Maine, to find the same thing that a researcher in Idaho is finding. I cant find a conspiracy as to why, researchers all across the U.S., are finding the same things. I would argue, that its more beneficial for each, to come to different conclusions, than the same one. Their research lends itself to the area specific to where the research is conducted. That's their bread and butter...that's why their research is the most important, its trying to solve/identify a specific problem in their research area.
I also agree with you that hunting and hunting organizations need to be mindful of who represents them. But, I also think that you're maybe selling Sportsmen a bit short...there are plenty of common sense, as well as highly educated hunters out there. We just need to maybe give them a nudge in the right direction, and get them involved. I think that's happening now more than in the past. We're maybe a bit behind the curve, but we're getting there. What we have, that the huggers don't, is the most successful wildlife conservation model, and success story, in the world to prove who has, and is, doing what's best for wildlife. Sportsmen/women put their efforts, money, and time where their mouths are...nobody else can claim that.
I think we will figure out this issue with moose, its not going to be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.
I agree with you as well, but I will point out that as much as researchers collaborate, they're also out there trying to find the next big thing. They want to be recognized for finding and/or figuring out something new. You don't change the world by proving someone else's point/thesis/idea.
Again, in the case specific to moose, there really isn't any reason for a moose researcher in Maine, to find the same thing that a researcher in Idaho is finding. I cant find a conspiracy as to why, researchers all across the U.S., are finding the same things. I would argue, that its more beneficial for each, to come to different conclusions, than the same one. Their research lends itself to the area specific to where the research is conducted. That's their bread and butter...that's why their research is the most important, its trying to solve/identify a specific problem in their research area.
I also agree with you that hunting and hunting organizations need to be mindful of who represents them. But, I also think that you're maybe selling Sportsmen a bit short...there are plenty of common sense, as well as highly educated hunters out there. We just need to maybe give them a nudge in the right direction, and get them involved. I think that's happening now more than in the past. We're maybe a bit behind the curve, but we're getting there. What we have, that the huggers don't, is the most successful wildlife conservation model, and success story, in the world to prove who has, and is, doing what's best for wildlife. Sportsmen/women put their efforts, money, and time where their mouths are...nobody else can claim that.
I think we will figure out this issue with moose, its not going to be easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.
No question...politics are entrenched and it wont change. Politics can be influenced though...BTDT.
I agree, but hunters and trappers tend to shoot themselves in the foot out of frustration. It is frustrating trying to fight emotion and half-truths (or outright lies) with logic, common sense and fact in such a political environment.
Researchers in different places can tend to find them same things. Grant proposals are written with supporting evidence from your own prior research or the research of others. For decades peptic ulcer disease was treated with surgery, and that was supported by essentially all the literature, from multiple investigators/institutions. My opinion is part of this phenomenon is that we want to prove that we are doing the right thing. If a researcher has been using money for 20 years and has again and again found that the moose decline is due to X, then they are likely to find that again. When people started suggesting ulcers were due to NSAIDs they were laughed at. Now, ulcer disease is nearly non-existent and it rarely comes to surgery. I am probably biased by my profession but I am very skeptical of taking any research as gospel. There are things in medicine that were done 30-40 years ago that were research proven then, but would be considered barbaric and malpractice today.
20 years from now we may all be laughing at the idiots that thought the wolves were affecting the moose, OR we may be laughing at the tick and climate change people.
The isle royal wolves nearly did the moose in and there was an uproar about doing something to "save" the moose since they had been there longer than the wolves. The only saving grace for the moose on IR to me is that no new wolves were able to get to the island due to lack of ice and when there was ice none found their way out there.
Researchers in different places can tend to find them same things. Grant proposals are written with supporting evidence from your own prior research or the research of others. For decades peptic ulcer disease was treated with surgery, and that was supported by essentially all the literature, from multiple investigators/institutions. My opinion is part of this phenomenon is that we want to prove that we are doing the right thing. If a researcher has been using money for 20 years and has again and again found that the moose decline is due to X, then they are likely to find that again. When people started suggesting ulcers were due to NSAIDs they were laughed at. Now, ulcer disease is nearly non-existent and it rarely comes to surgery. I am probably biased by my profession but I am very skeptical of taking any research as gospel. There are things in medicine that were done 30-40 years ago that were research proven then, but would be considered barbaric and malpractice today.
20 years from now we may all be laughing at the idiots that thought the wolves were affecting the moose, OR we may be laughing at the tick and climate change people.
The isle royal wolves nearly did the moose in and there was an uproar about doing something to "save" the moose since they had been there longer than the wolves. The only saving grace for the moose on IR to me is that no new wolves were able to get to the island due to lack of ice and when there was ice none found their way out there.
The point is the moose of northern MN are the focus of this discussion and the ones named for a potential ESA listing. I'm not talking about wolves all across Canada and the US. I narrowed it down to the specific area and type of moose being looked at for a possible endangered species candidate. In one of your posts you cited ticks, carotid artery worms, global warming, etc, as causes of their decline. So could you please explain to all of us uninformed individuals why an isolated population of moose 20 miles away isn't experiencing a similar decline when it's exposed to the same global effects etc. as Minnesota's moose?
You like to say that we're all narrow minded and ignore science. Apparently the biologists in AK are narrow minded as well.
What moose population are you talking about that's 20 miles away? Isle Royale I'm assuming?
If so, they are experiencing the same things:
http://www.jsonline.com/features/29256589.html
"Scientists who for decades have studied the delicate prey-predator balance between moose and wolves on Lake Superior's Isle Royale believe global warming - by giving an assist to blood-sucking bugs - ultimately could deal a deathblow to the national park's wolf population.
Since 2002, the number of moose on the island has declined from 1,100 to 385, following a dramatic increase in winter ticks. The insects infest the moose, suck their blood and weaken them, making them easy prey for wolves
http://www.admin.mtu.edu/urel/news/media_relations/82/
Another:
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/node/44
I can go on...but I think you get the point.
I'm also not saying that EVERY herd unit, or every moose within a herd unit, are all suffering declines from exactly the same things. I never even implied that. Just that there are some very strong correlations being observed across a huge range (ticks, E. Shneideiri, habitat issues, etc. etc.). The issues seem to be strongly correlated with latitude, ask any biologist and they'll tell you the same thing.
This is not simply an issue of wolves being responsible for the decline...there is a literal mountain of research out there, right at your finger-tips, that will answer your questions. I'm more than happy to help, but I suggest we all research this issue.
Matthoek21
Veteran member
Buzz,
We get it. There is more than just wolves affecting moose. Glad you and others are researching it. Our problem is with "the" research. Just like "whirling disease" we were told there would not be any rainbow trout left in the fishery. Money drives research and jobs. Sometimes it is the sole influence. In the case of whirling disease I truly believe it was way over blown to keep the funds coming.
I'm sorry but over the years I believe less and less of what activists, scientists, and especially politicians tell us. I mean how many times have they lied to us?? They would never lie to progress and agenda. This is our problem we don't just believe everything we hear and/or read. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever you want but it's still a pig.
So we are not saying that what you are telling us is not fact. We just don't always believe every little bit. And we do believe that game populations have been hugely affected by wolves. That is our scientific belief, which govt will not agree with our research. So it is what it is. I'm done with this topic. Doubt we will ever fully agree so either way no hard feelings. Carry on.
We get it. There is more than just wolves affecting moose. Glad you and others are researching it. Our problem is with "the" research. Just like "whirling disease" we were told there would not be any rainbow trout left in the fishery. Money drives research and jobs. Sometimes it is the sole influence. In the case of whirling disease I truly believe it was way over blown to keep the funds coming.
I'm sorry but over the years I believe less and less of what activists, scientists, and especially politicians tell us. I mean how many times have they lied to us?? They would never lie to progress and agenda. This is our problem we don't just believe everything we hear and/or read. You can put lipstick on a pig and call it whatever you want but it's still a pig.
So we are not saying that what you are telling us is not fact. We just don't always believe every little bit. And we do believe that game populations have been hugely affected by wolves. That is our scientific belief, which govt will not agree with our research. So it is what it is. I'm done with this topic. Doubt we will ever fully agree so either way no hard feelings. Carry on.