DNR Considering stopping moose hunts

[stevejedlenski]

i agree auggie. many hunters do the same thing. they want something so they argue their point any way they can to justify why that should or should not happen. i have done this at times and then realized that you have to seperate yourself and look at it as a whole. (take the high fence hunts post for example). i dont moose hunt and i dont study moose but i tend to believe the guys that do. yes there is absolutly no way to get an accurate population number. but they are doing what they can. yes there are a TON of factors involved here and hunting is one. i say do what you can and that is stop hunting until they figure out whats really going on. one of the main reasons we are worried about losing the moose population is because we like to hunt them. if someone has given a census to the moose please share the results. but until then when the boys in green say the population is falling or showing trends that its falling i think we need to do something. and since we cant turn the heat down, make it snow, kill all the ticks, erradicate brainworm, or fertlize more eggs, lets do what we can.... and just because wolves are our only competition dosnt mean we need to kill all of them either. yes we probably do need a few packs taken out, but thats not an option at this point.
model 12, do you have a number of wolf kills on moose per year? do you have an estimate?

[beeker]

Auggie/ Steve... your right imo. I guess I don't see the big deal in holding off on hunting until they figure out what the deal is? I would say it's better to error on the safe side in this case and hold off on hunting it until all the FACTS are in, and stop with speculating the reasons for the decline.

[Moving2thecountry]

I know of an engineer who worked with the DNR on radio collars for wolves.  This is as much hearsay as the account of a conservation volunteer.  But in the case of wolves, the DNR counts a collar that stops transmitting as a wolf death, without any scientifically valid justification (and in spite of common sense).

     I have no idea what you are getting at here with this post? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Nothing is hearsay about this. The MN Conservation Volunteer is a magazine printed bi-monthly by the DNR. In the case of the documented deaths of collard moose, they break it down as far as they were able to determine in each moose on an individual basis, what the actual cause of death was. You are so hung up on wolves that you apparently can't admit that other factors (along with wolves and other predators) are causing a documented population decrease in the moose herd. Open your closed mind and read the article instead of arguing a point that doesn't matter. Yes wolves are a problem for the moose herd, but they are not the only problem that they face. And as I said before, hunting or not, NO ONE wants to see moose disappear. Lets open our minds to all the issues they face, not just limit it to one.

auggie,

I was not sufficiently clear.  The wolf/radio collar example above was not to make a point about wolves, but about radio collars and the interpretation of death.  To most engineers, a radio collar that stops transmitting is not evidence of death, unless it is powered by kenetic energy.

My contention is not that the supposed decline in moose population is the wolves' fault, but that it might be more related to wolve population than warming, if it even exists.  I have nothing against wolves either, so long as wolves don't attack me, my family, or my dog--I am glad we have wolves, and do not believe it is justified to kill wolves just because they eat among other things, deer.

My beef with the star tribune story is its claim that global warming is the most likely cause, and that the DNR report actually indicates a rising population in Minnesota.

Regarding the conservation volunteer, it was a simple misunderstanding.  In Reply #26, you mentioned it, but without issue numbers and page numbers, I did not realize you were talking about the title of an obscure magazine.  It appeared you were citing a conservation volunteer you had talked with.  I see now in a previous post you had mentioned that it was a magazine, but I missed that.

In closing, please be civil.

[Moving2thecountry]

I did just find a very interesting article on unexplained moose deaths and various hypotheses to explain these deaths.  Moose Mystery by Greg Breining.  It debunks the idea that collars that stop transmitting are counted as deaths.

[22lex]

If you're thinknig the situation in the West and Alaska is not due to wolves, you're flat out wrong and I'm not going to debate any other reasons why the moose population is way down.

You're not off on that Model12! I have spoken to numerous people around yellowstone (Montana) which included CO's and locals who have seen the drop in moose numbers drastically when a pack moves in. My uncle who has lived out there his whole life is a self-proclaimed game expert and spends countless hours in the field. He has hunted numerous areas in the past where he has seen numerous (Shiraz) moose, and within the last 4-5 years cannot find even a trace of them in some areas.

I would have to say in that region the geography of where the moose are located (small secluded valleys, river bottoms, surrounded by mountain grades) they have a worse chance of outrunning, or withstanding constant attacks from wolves.

With that said, it totally contradicts what the article Mvin2country posted on here for us to read. The article he posted really makes sense, but states that moose can withstand wolf attacks more frequently than one would think. It also points out that the "whole answer" is not known for what is really happening to the moose in Minnesota.

Seems like alot of variables, not one being the total cause. I'm punting on this one.

[stevejedlenski]

i have learned in my studies that in order for an animal or natural resource to be "wanted" it has to be given an economic value. in other words if its not worth money or if people get no gain from an animal, it will be wiped off the earth basicly. this is why the perch is now a "game fish" and the dnr put a limit on them. it used to be that you had no limit and people thought they were worthless. after the dnr put limits on them and people started selling thousands to use in resteraunts people changed their minds and now they are "worth" catching. same goes for wolves. people cant hunt them, they eat the species they can hunt, so they must go. why is it that wolves get all the credit for declining populations. populations need to be controled and predators are the only way to do it. but we are too selfish to allow others a meal now and then too. maybe the wolves need to buy their cattle like the rest of us and then we wont have any problems. i do agree that minnesotas wolf population also needs conrol. and that in some areas they are over populated. bottom line we cant at this point. are wolves the reason why moose pop is dropping, maybe. but its a drop in the hat just like the rest of the factors. if you really feel that strong about thining the wolves then talk to your politicians and see what can be done to change that. but i dont think even killing all the wolves would stop the decline in moose. they are being shifted north and until someone figures out why it wont matter.

[Auggie]

I know of an engineer who worked with the DNR on radio collars for wolves.  This is as much hearsay as the account of a conservation volunteer.  But in the case of wolves, the DNR counts a collar that stops transmitting as a wolf death, without any scientifically valid justification (and in spite of common sense).

     I have no idea what you are getting at here with this post? It makes absolutely no sense at all. Nothing is hearsay about this. The MN Conservation Volunteer is a magazine printed bi-monthly by the DNR. In the case of the documented deaths of collard moose, they break it down as far as they were able to determine in each moose on an individual basis, what the actual cause of death was. You are so hung up on wolves that you apparently can't admit that other factors (along with wolves and other predators) are causing a documented population decrease in the moose herd. Open your closed mind and read the article instead of arguing a point that doesn't matter. Yes wolves are a problem for the moose herd, but they are not the only problem that they face. And as I said before, hunting or not, NO ONE wants to see moose disappear. Lets open our minds to all the issues they face, not just limit it to one.

auggie,

I was not sufficiently clear.  The wolf/radio collar example above was not to make a point about wolves, but about radio collars and the interpretation of death.  To most engineers, a radio collar that stops transmitting is not evidence of death, unless it is powered by kenetic energy.

My contention is not that the supposed decline in moose population is the wolves' fault, but that it might be more related to wolve population than warming, if it even exists.  I have nothing against wolves either, so long as wolves don't attack me, my family, or my dog--I am glad we have wolves, and do not believe it is justified to kill wolves just because they eat among other things, deer.

My beef with the star tribune story is its claim that global warming is the most likely cause, and that the DNR report actually indicates a rising population in Minnesota.

Regarding the conservation volunteer, it was a simple misunderstanding.  In Reply #26, you mentioned it, but without issue numbers and page numbers, I did not realize you were talking about the title of an obscure magazine.  It appeared you were citing a conservation volunteer you had talked with.  I see now in a previous post you had mentioned that it was a magazine, but I missed that.

In closing, please be civil.

I have been nothing but civil.

[Auggie]

And while all the varuious causes are being considered, do not underestimate the level of effect the Wolves have compared to the rest. I can't imagine anyone not thinking a red flag ought to go off concerning wolves and their unbelievable ability to be the best predator on the face of the earth. It would be my first, and foremost, concern and area I would be considering. NO, I'm not saying to extirpate them (although that would eliminate that question), they need to be managed irrespective of moose populations.
If you're thinknig the situation in the West and Alaska is not due to wolves, you're flat out wrong and I'm not going to debate any other reasons why the moose population is way down. Subsistence level hunting has had an effect but nothing like the damage wolves do.
Lets take a look at what each part plays and then assign a value to which is doing the most damage. I have a guess which one will be at the top of the list...

Model12
   My feelings on the wolf population have been quite clear on this forum. Something needs to be done, but if we close our eyes to all of the other factors that can be a cause here we are just cheating ourselves and the moose.

[jkcmj]

I think the main point is that bull moose hunts, limited as they now are, do not affect the ability of all of the existing cows to get bred each season.  There is NO reason to stop the hunts, and many reasons to let them continue.  I have never applied for the MN moose hunt, but would like to some day. 

The one thing we can do for the MN moose population is to control the number of wolves that are indiscriminatly killing them.  We can also research possible disease/parasite control measures.  The one thing we cannot change is the cyclical climate changes that have effected the planet since the beginning of time.  If this is the main cause for their decline, then we can only help with what we can by continued predator control and research, and keep enjoying the hunt while we have them.   To throw away the remaining bulls when the harvest is not affecting the population sustainablility, is just bending to the anti-hunters strategy of divide and conquer, one hunting technique or animal at a time. 

[Auggie]

   Hunting is not the downfall of the species, I agree. Quite the opposite. The number of moose killed by hunters is minute.
   Legally we have no way to control the wolf population at this time. So unless you proceed with a shovel and a tightly sealed mouth, wolf populations will not be controlled by hunting in the immediate future. As for global warming, I am not completely convinced of it. I tend to lean more to the belief of cyclical climate change like you jkcmg. That doesn't mean we can't mange our forest for better thermal cover for the moose population to prolong their stay in MN if in fact warmer climates are a cause of the decline.
   Another article of interest was printed in the Outdoor News most recent publication. Check it out.

[Moving2thecountry]

From what I understand, healthy adult moose are very good at defending themselves from wolves.  They can run 20 miles per hour in two feet of soft snow for extended periods of time, for example.  A determined pack of wolves would eventually be able to catch up, but it is a lot of work if there are easier pickings around.

However, the reduced twinning rates indicate to me that moose might not be as adroit at defending two calves against wolves.  So I do think that wolves might be playing a role there.

Where I was hunting, I saw evidence of wolves in the form of tracks, though I am far from an expert track reader.  Whatever animal it was, it has large foot prints, but it was not in a pack.  So perhaps it was a cougar, or a coyotee.

A possible risk with controlling parasites is that the moose population may not evolve a natural defense to the parasites, and will come to depend on human intervention for their continued existence.  I am not saying we should not control the parasites--just that it is not without its own risks.

I wonder if the number of Moose being taken under certain treaties is being under reported.

There are many possible factors, and the star and tribune was certainly pre-mature in blaming global warming, when other explanations are just as reasonable.

[Cody Gruchow]

i can say this if they do shut down the moose hunts i dout that they will be coming back becasue the anti's will make sure of that. also its hard for the moose to defend themselves against the wolves if they dont have the deep snow to run through to get rid of the predators. timber wolf season sounds pretty cool to me.

[jkcmj]

Speaking of tracks, when I spent time moose shed hunting I found a nice bedding area with lots of beds in the fresh snow.  I found the area quite late, so decided to come back the next morning to further investigate that area.  I was surprised to find an intersting story played out in the snow upon my return. I followed 4 sets of wolf tracks as they pursued a moose through the area.  I followed the chase for just over a 1/4 mile(by GPS) as the wolves attempted to bring the moose down.  I started following the chase from the bedding area and am unsure how long it went on prior to entering that area or if it had actually begun right in the bedding area. I was amazed at how the moose went right over the top of tall blow downs, approx 4 ft high, in an attempt to shag off the wolves that were chasing it. The wolves would split up with usually just one or two staying right behind the moose while the others took easier paths to conserve energy I suppose. About half way through the chase the moose began loosing small amounts of blood with just a drop every 5-10 feet or so.  He finally made it to a swampy area that, although frozen over, was so lumpy and unstable that the wolves quite the chase one by one over about a hundred yards or so.  Within maybe 50 ft or less of the last wolf turning off the chase, the moose slowed to a walk and took two large craps.  I took this as the let down of relief at escaping it's pursuers. 

Although the moose escaped this one incident, it obviously takes a toll on their winter reserves, much the same as domestic dogs will harry and harass whitetails in my area.  I suppose the wolves know where the moose are and just keep at them occasionally untill they are wore down to the point they can kill them.  Although it was an interesting experience, it gave me the same sick feeling I get when I see the neighbors dogs chasing deer through our fields and creek bottoms. 

[Moving2thecountry]

Wow.

Have you pointed out to your neighbors that anybody can shoot dogs chasing deer during specified times of the year?  Or are the dogs doing this on their owners own property?

[Auggie]

Oh no. Here we go again. Dogs chasing deer post.  3 strikes anybody? Ring a bell........ Just to clarify Moving2 I am making reference to an old post. Nothing personal.

[22lex]

Oh no. Here we go again. Dogs chasing deer post.  3 strikes anybody? Ring a bell........ Just to clarify Moving2 I am making reference to an old post. Nothing personal.

Dirt nap I seem to remember!

[Moving2thecountry]

Oh no. Here we go again. Dogs chasing deer post.  3 strikes anybody? Ring a bell........ Just to clarify Moving2 I am making reference to an old post. Nothing personal.

Dirt nap I seem to remember!

What?

[Auggie]

  The reference was to an OLD POST. A very old post.

[Bufflehead]

 Maybe if the DNR would admit, that just maybe a uncontroled WOLF population could be a big part of blame. Moose calves are slower than the second coming of Christ and make a easy meal for a WOLF. Very low survival rate on calves. Add in the tick problem....bye, bye moose.

 Wolves only kill the sick & the weak....ya they ham string the moose or deer...then a week later it's sick, weak and SLOW and makes a easy meal.

But hey, what are we to do..? we have a DNR thats willing to take the Lic. money of 100s of 1000s of hunters. Then promotes & protects a predator that's in direct competition and comes first over all others. Just ask the people bordering Yellowstone. I think you will find they agree..after the wolves were re-established. Groups like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation worked for years with hunter donations to build a Elk heard that would offer greater opportunity for a person to harvest a Elk. Instead of the hunter having the opportunity....The Government took all the hard work of these hunters and this Org. and chose to implement WOLVES. I think the Government & states need to rethink some of their actions and think about who funds much of their budget...HUNTERS & FISHERMAN. Their actions will and are leading to less outdoor people..less outdoor people means less money for their budget. That leads to higher taxes to recover their loss...don't think so? just look at Mn. DNR. They are looking to sell state owned lands and WMA's to recover their short fall. Most people promoting wolves(anti's)..PAY NOTHING back into the system   

[Bufflehead]

http://blog.kingsoutdoorworld.com/2007/02/15/wolves-taking-down-a-moose/

[Moving2thecountry]

Those photos reminded me of a scene from training day:
"To protect the sheep, you've got to catch the wolf.  And it takes a wolf to catch a wolf.  Do you understand?"--Scene from Training Day