Moose on the Endangered Species List

[WY ME]

"Apparently the biologists in AK are narrow minded as well.

[/QUOTE]Not all of them! We have some great biologists too. In fact, the majority of them are. But just like activist judges or politicians, there are activist biologists also.[/QUOTE]


AKaviator
I said that tongue in cheek.

Several years ago I spoke to the head biologist for the interior of Alaska and he said that Alaska Game & Fish had predicted to the letter everything that would happen to Wyoming's moose after wolf reintroduction including population declines, the feds reneging on their contract, etc. He said the lower 48 felt that the AK Game & Fish were crazy in their views of predators despite 40+ years of scientific proof of the damage wolves cause.

 

[WY ME]

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/

Buzz

Yes, I get the point but you don't. So I spent about 10 seconds on a google search but I chose to add the number 2016 to the search. Here's an April, 2016 AP article report that is 180 degrees opposite of what your 2007 article predicted about moose. Your article predicted doom and gloom for both wolves and moose. In 2016 we find the inbred wolves have almost disappeared and the moose are now flourishing.

The moose pop. is now at 1300 up from 385 in your 2007 report. Wolf pop. is now at 2, down from about 25 in 2006.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/04/19/isle-royale-study-moose-thriving-wolves-still-dying/

HOUGHTON, Mich. — A new study finds the moose population is booming at Isle Royale National Park while wolves are on the verge of dying out.

The National Park Service and Michigan Technological University announced Monday the estimated moose population on the Lake Superior island is 1,300 — up from a low of 540 about a decade ago. There has been a decline of winter ticks, which can affect the animal.

Meanwhile, the moose population is declining in Minnesota, roughly 20 miles away. Officials say more investigations could provide insights into the diverging populations on the island and mainland.

Wolves have suffered a population free-fall: The study finds two wolves on the island — down one from last year. A loss of immigration of animals across ice bridges has contributed to the drop.



So again I ask why the moose on Isle Royale aren't experiencing a similar decline as the moose 20 miles away? What is the variable? What's different between the 2 herds? You are in denial.

 

[BuzzH]

WY ME,

Like I've stated multiple times, that you seem happy to ignore, wolves, grizzlies, black bears, lions all kill moose. So do vehicles, hunters, ticks, carotid artery worms, winter, old age, brain worm, infections, the list is endless. Ask any biologist, look at any study, and you'll find the same thing.

Nobody is in denial about how moose die.

I also stated that I don't cherry pick a single herd, in one state, on an Island, to prove a point. I can point you to moose areas in WY that are experiencing declines where wolves are either not present, or in such low numbers that there is no, or very little predation by wolves.

Yet, in spite of countless studies, research, peer-reviewed literature and common sense...you focus on wolves and what is happening on an Island. Somehow trying to use that as your argument that wolves are the only thing impacting moose everywhere else they're found. That's cherry picking a SINGLE case, to paint with a broad brush...all the while glossing over very significant information that disproves your wolf theory. I can assure you, if I made the same argument, and tried to convince you that the ONLY problem with moose, was a disease found on an Island...you would have a field day and call BS. Rightfully so.

You can choose to believe what you want, I don't have any personal vendetta against you or anyone else. But, in fairness to everyone else, the truth of these issues need to be brought up. I have nothing to gain personally, professionally, or anything else from this issue. What I want is the same as everyone else, a healthy, huntable population of moose. Right now, the moose population is suffering across a wide geographic area in their southern ranges. In areas with, and without high predator numbers.

That being factual, no question about it, its intuitively obvious, even to a casual observer, this isn't just about predators.

Further, as is the case in Wyoming, I'm not going to waste any of my time worrying about a predator that we can not legally control. I'm not going to waste energy and time on it, when in many cases, wolves are not the leading cause of mortality.

I have no problem at all killing/managing predators, been doing so for a long, long time. I would reckon that I have shot, trapped, and snared more predators than most...including one of the last legal lynx taken in the lower 48.

Again, to me this isn't personal, you're trying to make it that way...and I'm not your huckleberry.

Facts trump emotions with me, every single time.

 

[ivorytip]

This has been an interesting read. as far as I'm concerned, I believe what I see. scientists and biologists (not all) but the ones that publish the big findings for all to read, again (not all) are paid to tell what someone else wants them to tell. its an agenda, if big brother wants something to start going in a certain direction they make it happen through lies and deceit. I've lost all faith in what scientists claim, unless I know them. world is just to corrupt. I know wolves are not the only thing bringing down moose population but I bet a million bucks and 300,000 acres of prime state ran land that wolves are the number one killer outside of poachers and car deaths. sure in certain areas across the country there will be isolated illnesses, there always is and always will be that. just my opinion though. and I have met many biologist working for fish and game departments that don't hunt or fish, and some that say they do and attempt to but by no means know what the crap they are even doing. I have some great friends amongst the fish and game here In Idaho. a guy gets a degree, sees a job opening and says hey there's a job. there is a lot of that. any way, I'm rambling. I say buy a wolf tag and blast away. good luck on draws everyone!

 

[johnsd16]

This has been an interesting read. as far as I'm concerned, I believe what I see. scientists and biologists (not all) but the ones that publish the big findings for all to read, again (not all) are paid to tell what someone else wants them to tell. its an agenda, if big brother wants something to start going in a certain direction they make it happen through lies and deceit. I've lost all faith in what scientists claim, unless I know them. world is just to corrupt. I know wolves are not the only thing bringing down moose population but I bet a million bucks and 300,000 acres of prime state ran land that wolves are the number one killer outside of poachers and car deaths. sure in certain areas across the country there will be isolated illnesses, there always is and always will be that. just my opinion though. and I have met many biologist working for fish and game departments that don't hunt or fish, and some that say they do and attempt to but by no means know what the crap they are even doing. I have some great friends amongst the fish and game here In Idaho. a guy gets a degree, sees a job opening and says hey there's a job. there is a lot of that. any way, I'm rambling. I say buy a wolf tag and blast away. good luck on draws everyone!

It is sad to say but with politics having such a hand in everything, I in large part agree. Look at the global warming wave. A ton of "scientists" all finding the same things, and the few who aren't trying to scream at the top of their lungs, but being dampened out. Now, just a decade or two later, the entire tide has shifted to "climate change" in an effort to save face from their outrageous claims, and many if not most have dropped out of the hysteria. Science can go in the completely wrong direction within an area of study. Not saying it is or isn't that way with moose. I would tend to agree, as is the case with most species today, that quality habitat that the animals are willing to use is always going to be key.

They've proven it again and again with species like muskrat. When prices are high and harvest skyrockets, as long as there is good water levels and habitat, the rats do fine. Take away the habitat and they crash even if harvest is all but halted. Not saying moose are the same as a 2lb aquatic rodent, but with anything habitat is key.

I understand the hesitancy to draw many conclusions form the Isle Royal moose since they are a unique isolated population, but at the same time in any scientific study you try to have a control group and only have one variable changed between the cases and controls. Those moose are exposed to the same climate to the moose on the mainland, and have similar habitat. However, it is important to note, that there are no deer there, nor roads. They have tick issues, but some other factors are different from the mainland population 20 miles away. However, it is about as close as you will get to a case:control study in nature, and the wolves are the denominator. When they are up on IR, the moose are down, when the wolves go down, the moose spike. Perhaps the moose there are disproportionately influenced by wolves because of the lack of other variables, but from an intervention standpoint reducing mainland wolves is a low risk/cost (can be done with revenue generating hunting/trapping licenses) and potentially high reward (moose pop highly likely to respond quickly).

What I also don't understand is how long do we need to study liver fluke, brainworm, ticks, etc before a viable intervention is developed. If it is 30, 40, or 60 years, these should be abandoned because they are not a reasonable endpoint scientifically, or methods need to be changed. Even then, what are the potential interventions?

Vaccinating or treating the moose? This is impractical and already capturing moose for study has been shown to carry high mortality.

Changing the climate? Not practical.

Improving habitat? Takes time and should be done anyway, but also not practical (why do they do so well in ND with marginal habitat)

Kill ticks? Not practical or cost effective.

Typical politically driven scientific masturbation. Let's spend a ton of time and money studying non-viable options when a cost effective high yield option already exists.

How about this. Let MN hunters and trappers take the wolf population down by 1/3 to 1/2, which is where it belongs at a maximum. Have a pre-determined method for measuring wolf numbers, calf recruitment, and adult moose survival. Achieve the goal wolf pop and keep it there for five years. If no statistically significant change occurs in the moose pop, then I will buy it as not helpful. However, we all know what will happen. Those will be the 10 coldest years in the last 30 and everyone will say that is the cause of the increase.

 

[Slugz]

Great read.

Gents, why are the moose doing so well in Colorado the past 5 years? Good forage production and animals pushed south? Can anyone point me to any data or studies on Colorado moose population I can read/review? Thanks

On another thought......I really don't know what to think about this at times......I keep coming back to "they are an apex predator and should be managed as such"

80 days till the Colorado archery opener!!

 

[Tim McCoy]

I learned a lesson in business many years ago. When I had multiple variables eroding a business result, and could mitigate one, do so fast, then things were always better than they would have otherwise been. May or may not fully turn things around, but at a minimum it slows the decent. Often buying enough time to learn and adapt before things were too bad. Very similar to helping Moose where they are struggling and suffer from excess wolf density. Remove some wolves, it will at least slow things down, common sense. May buy enough time to learn about other actions that could be taken. May or may not solve things, but every Moose saved will buy some time...

Where the political will exists and Moose are declining with an excess of wolves, I'd remove some more wolves, very easy to do if allowed. Where the will does not exist, like WY for now, get some cool heads together and craft a plan palatable to the courts and thin em out. Based on a number of the articles I've read, I am beginning to think there are some global warming zealots who also abhor any wolf kill, trying to put enough variables on the table to stall wolves getting too much attention or blame. I am talking solely about content found in articles I read and not about any of the individual remarks shared in this thread.

Here is a small sample pulled from some of these articles, any bias here? My remarks in ( ), the rest of the text was copied from a few of the articles:

"The changes are dramatic," Vucetich said. "Humans have made temperatures increasingly hot, which exacerbates the number of ticks.". (has concluded humans are the cause)
---------------------------------------------
The wolf-moose study is supported by Isle Royale National Park, the National Science Foundation, the Earthwatch Institute, and a number of individual donors. ( Google Earthwatch Institute )
---------------------------------------------
What causes the climate to warm? An enormous amount of scientific evidence indicates that our use of petroleum causes climate warming.
...
It is reasonable to believe that humans, through our excessive use of automobiles and other fossil-fuel burning activities, are having a profound impact on the balance of wolves and moose on Isle Royale - an impact mediated by an invertebrate the size of your fingernail.

The sad part of this story... This example of climate change impact is in many respects minor compared to other problems the climate change are likely to cause - rising sea level, more severe hurricanes, disrupted systems of food production for humans, and the spread of diseases that depend on warmer weather. ( Holy global warming Batman! This must have been an Ice Planet, before those pesky Humans warmed it up.... The climate has been changing for a long time, hot and cold, before humans...some "scientific" assumptions to say the least in the first parts of this clip, but likely some solid conclusions in the last part. Would a hard freeze kill some ticks...)