DNR Considering stopping moose hunts

[Moving2thecountry]

According to the Strib, Minnesota without moose? It could happen:  "One possible recommendation of the advisory committee is to discontinue the [moose] hunt."

[stevejedlenski]

it may not be a bad idea. i know the moose herd is having some problems and 1 of the herds is almost gone. they are having problems with diseases and reproduction. im sure we have all heard that the populations are dwindling in mn, so this may be necessary for the betterment of the herd.
if the population rebounds im sure they would reinstate hunting privliges.

maybe they will open a wolf season also to ease pressure on the herd as well. i know that would make some people happy 

[HUNTER2]

When I used to hunt up by thief river, we would see more moose then deer some years. That was a while ago. We had our chance to harvest a moose and we brought a bull home. Used 2 come alongs to get him in the truck. Very heavy. I hope they rebound.

[Auggie]

   Many feel that the low reproduction rates and disease are a result of stress due to warmer and dryer weather. Although a few degrees doesn't seem like much, moose apparently can't take as many days with the warmer temps on average. Sad to say but their range may just be shifting to the north as the climate changes.

[JohnWester]

i'd say the heat more then dry weather.  I goose hunt up in Saskatchewan and there are moose all over the place... and it is the driest, most trundra place you ever saw... but the moose are there, all over. they hang out in little oasis of trees around fields.  there might be some water in there, but hardly a swamp.

[stevejedlenski]

from what i have heard from my professor who has a phd in moose...( why or how you get that is beyond me but he studied moose in switzerland for like 10 years) anyways he said that the warmer climate (the mild winters we've had) allow for pests like ticks and other parasites to feed off of the moose longer. he said that some of the moose he would research would have millions of ticks on them. he said that with all of the parasites they have a weakened immune system and are more suseptible to disease and this is why they have reproduction problems. he said usually the cold winters will give the moose a break from pests but the last few winters have made it hard on them.
also the winters make it easier for predation. moose are built for deep snow unlike most predators. i the winter moose's long legs help it escape from predators but with no snow its no longer an advantage.
one final thing is the brain worm that has been previlent in the moose population. this apparently has no effect on deer as they are found with it but they show no effects.

[Moving2thecountry]

Well, the global warming theory in the absence of data isn't as believable as wolves.  I'd like to see a plot of moose population versus wolf population versus mean temperature versus yearly snow coverage. 

Regarding pests--more plausible.  Sounds like we need volunteers to apply frontline to the moose. 

[22lex]

Steve-you're prof. is probably the authority on moose and it sounds like it. A combination of temperature increases/higher humidity days causes their immune systems to weaken in the summer, and in the winter days above 23 degrees causes them undue stress. Throw in some ticks, parasites, and brainworm and you have a combination for disaster. Over the years those days of high humidity and warmer summer days has increased, and like Auggie said as small as the change has been, it has had a detrimental impact on them. I have heard a few people place the blame on deer densities in the areas, but in other states deer/moose coexist just fine so I'm not a believer in that. However, if the brainworm is somehow transferred to the moose from the deer we could deduce that feeding deer in the winter spreads that disease like wildfire and creates deer densities in areas where they could not originally exist through the harsh winters.

I truthfully don't know if we can stop this decline as it seems like it is out of our hands. We can provide the habitat, create areas where moose can thrive, and get rid of the hunting season but we cannot stop temperature stress and diseases which seems to be the cause of our high estimated 20-21% mortality rate. Nature is shifting the southern most moose territory a little further north.

[Moving2thecountry]

I think you need to be careful when scientists and beuracrats with an agenda and without data attempt to weave a story.

Note that one commenter to the story wrote:

"I just looked at the paper version of this article. Here are their moose aerial survey numbers from 1998 through 2008 for the NE herd: 3464, 3915, 3733, 3879, 5214, 4161, 13093, 7923, 8501, 6659, and 7637. obviously something changed in their survey practice after 2003; the moose poulation didn't suddenly double. Also they ste the number could be 23% to 40% off UP OR DOWN from the real number, meaning they don't have a clue how many there really are. Also, where is the downward trend? Throwing out the 2003 anamoly, the ist six years show an increasing trend from 3464 to 4161 (a 20% increase from the 3464), and the last four show a slight decrease (3.5%) from 7925 to 7637. Both ranges are well within the 23% number. I think it is extremely obvious this is nothing but a fishing expedition for more government pork! Bill G."

[Moving2thecountry]

Furthermore, according to DNR ariel moose survey, moose populations seem to be dramatically up since 1998. 

The Star and Tribune seems to be lying.

1998:   3,464+/-36%
1999:   3,915+/-35%
2000:   3,733+/-25%
2001:   3,879+/-29%
2002:   5,214+/-23%
2003:   4,161+/-37%
2004:  13,093+/-40%
2005:   7,923+/-30%
2006:   8,501+/-28%
2007:   6,659+/-27%
2008:   7,637+/-28%

So, the moose population is up roughly 4,200 since 1998, in North Eastern Minnesota alone.

[HUNTER2]

I heard they rub the hair off triing to get the ticks off. Then they freeze.

[22lex]

Furthermore, according to DNR ariel moose survey, moose populations seem to be dramatically up since 1998. 

The Star and Tribune seems to be lying.

1998:   3,464+/-36%
1999:   3,915+/-35%
2000:   3,733+/-25%
2001:   3,879+/-29%
2002:   5,214+/-23%
2003:   4,161+/-37%
2004:  13,093+/-40%
2005:   7,923+/-30%
2006:   8,501+/-28%
2007:   6,659+/-27%
2008:   7,637+/-28%

So, the moose population is up roughly 4,200 since 1998, in North Eastern Minnesota alone.

Prior to 2004 they were using a different method to calculate population densities.

I think the reason for the concern now is that the unexpected, and undetermined deaths of a large percentage of the radio collared animals that they were studying. That and the low cow to calf ratios that have been declining the last few years.

I don't think the DNR will dispute that they cannot give an accurate estimate of an animal when the model is +/- 20-40% I don't think there is any way of calculating the pop. densities more accurate unless they do a bunch more surveys/flights.

[Moving2thecountry]

Well, the data shows a rising population trend since 1998, and yet the star and tribune is attempting to spin it with climate change fear mongering. 

[22lex]

Well, the data shows a rising population trend since 1998, and yet the star and tribune is attempting to spin it with climate change fear mongering. 

I hear ya, it has green written all over it.

The numbers sure do make them sound stupid without referencing the material.

[Auggie]

from what i have heard from my professor who has a phd in moose...( why or how you get that is beyond me but he studied moose in switzerland for like 10 years) anyways he said that the warmer climate (the mild winters we've had) allow for pests like ticks and other parasites to feed off of the moose longer. he said that some of the moose he would research would have millions of ticks on them. he said that with all of the parasites they have a weakened immune system and are more suseptible to disease and this is why they have reproduction problems. he said usually the cold winters will give the moose a break from pests but the last few winters have made it hard on them.
also the winters make it easier for predation. moose are built for deep snow unlike most predators. i the winter moose's long legs help it escape from predators but with no snow its no longer an advantage.
one final thing is the brain worm that has been previlent in the moose population. this apparently has no effect on deer as they are found with it but they show no effects.

Isn't this exactly what I said Steve? Warmer and drier weather. Just a more condensed version. I believe the source for my information was the MN Volenteer a while back. I will look and see if I still have it.

[The General]

Joe had one of these guys call into Garage lodgic today.  He got him to admit that climate had more or less not much to do with the moose population.  That a lot more research was needed.  Yet the paper has "CLIMATE CHANGE" in the headline. The guy also said something about how predation had really nothing to do with it either.  B as in B S as in S.  Shoot a wolf save a Moose.

[letgofishing]

in Squaw Lake, Mn. AREA I have saw 5 and 2 and 1 Timberwolves around there I think time to shooting Timberwolves cuz too Many Timberwolves there.  Timberwolves happy plenty to Eating meats deer and bear and moose and anything wildgames.

[Auggie]

This is from the horses mouth. Our all knowing DNR. It comes from the July-Aug issue of the MN Conservation Volunteer magazine. The article is called "SINK OR SWIM" on page 10.
    Moose evolved with bodies built for snowy winters and temps consistently below 23 F. They have long legs for stepping through deep snow. A bulbous nose with an elongated nasal passage lined with blood vessels warms freezing air before it reaches the lungs. And a thick winter coat  blocks out cold.
    At temps above 23 in winter, moose experience heat stress because their metabolic rate increases as they expend energy to stay cool. Warm winter days have become more frequent in northern MN over the last decade according to weather records. When 3 or more of these heat stress days occurred in Jan., the study found spring survival rates of radio-collared moose dropped from above 98% to the low 90's. The winter of '06 had 12 heat stress days, and the spring survival rate dropped to 87%.
     Summer heat stress days, when temps climb above 67 F, also elevate the metabolic rates of moose. In '02 and '03 there were 111 heat stress days from Mar. to Oct. Moose survival in subsequent winters was was below 80%. During the same period in '06 there were 125 heat stress days, and moose winter survival dropped to nearly 70%.
      The article also states that MN humidity may also have an effect on the moose as well explaining why western and eastern populations are not seeing the same trend.They also stated that hunting is not going to hurt the moose population at all. "It's less than 5% of the population, and it is only bulls," says DNR area wildlife manager Tom Rusch. "there are still plenty of bulls to breed all cows."
        Mike Schrage, Fond du Lac Band wildlife biologist, agrees: "We could Completely halt hunting, and it would have no affect the outcome for moose at all."
     

[Moving2thecountry]

Contraray to some in the DNR who are using Models instead of actual surveys (remember, the actual surveys have shown a 120% increase in the moose population over the period 1998 to 2008), the real problem seems to be localized to North Western Minnesota and seems to be related to parasites (brain worm that doesn't affect deer but does affect Moose, and a liver parasite called the Liver Fluke.

"Warren Ballard, a professor at Texas Tech University, has been studying that data ever since. Ballard discovered two primary causes of death. Serious infestation by a parasite called the liver fluke, and deficiency in some important trace minerals."

Source:  The dying moose herd in northwestern Minnesota

Note that only moose near the Minnesota border in North Dakota seem to be affected, and the NorthEastern Minnesota population is fairing much better.

[Auggie]

    People are seeing less moose in the NE as well. They are hunting harder for sheds and finding less of them. They are finding more dead moose. They are seeing less moose and more deer, when just a few years ago it was the opposite. Aerial surveys are in reality not all that accurate. Especially over heavy cover.
    Two things are for sure. First the numbers on climate change over the last decade are fact, like it or not. The moose numbers in this study over the last six years are also black and white. Second, The moose is not only important because of the hunting tradition but because of tourism and the general beauty it provides us in the MN landscape. And I don't think any of us want to see it disappear no matter what the reason is.
     If hunting is the only concern then you should be looking elsewhere as your chances of killing a moose in MN are slim at best, Especially when your odds are trimmed by 50-75% just by your own hunting party if you manage to draw the once in a lifetime tag.

[Auggie]

By the way, if any of you get a chance to read that article in the Volunteer it is a good read and there is quite a bit more than what I mentioned.

[dabahrden]

Some of my family and I were lucky enough to be drawn for a moose hunt in the 90's.  We got a big bull up by Thief River.  Even back in those days the locals were talking about how the cows could only raise 1 calf instead of 2 like they had in the past.  The general consensus back then was that wolves were the problem, but maybe there was more to it than that.

[stevejedlenski]

well i tend to agree with the dnr yes they may be off but they are the people that study the moose pop in mn. i didnt do it, i dont know anyone else that does. and if they think that this is what needs to happen then it must happen. funny how people always bash the dnr saying they are all about money, that thats all they care about, thats why they have stamps, and keep giving bonus deer tags...etc... well if thats the case then dont you think the moose population must be heading downhill really fast in order for them to cancel a hunting season.

sorry for the vent, but im sure the dnr knows what they are talking about, more than any outdoor writer for a paper or outdoor website.

i would like to hear from some people in the NW and NE about what they think the population is doing. i live in duluth which is "NE" but will probably never see a moose here

and yes auggie that is what you said

[Moving2thecountry]

I don't think those in the DNR are unanimous.  Some of the biologists are arguing that global warming is causing a decline in the moose population, but some scientist seem to be disputing it.  Furthermore, biologists are not climatoligists.  Sounds more like the polar bear hype to me.

The DNR survey is certainly disputing it.   And while some of you are claiming that the surveys are flawed, the person writing the report doesn't seem to think so.  He is using methods based on those found in peer reviewed journals.

I'd like to see the data for Minnesota, as opposed to repeating what the press spews. 

Here is the data:  Minnesota. 

Declining moose populations are due to other factors, and the population in North Eastern Minnesota seems to be doing fine since there is a 120% increase since 1998.

[jkcmj]

I spoke with the DNR people up by Tower, MN when I went up looking for moose sheds for the 1st time last year.  They to, said the moose population in the NE was stable and was not showing any noticeable decline, but they were concerned after watching what has happened on the other side of the state.  The bull only harvest is a great way to keep people interested in the preservation of the moose and certainly does not affect the population stability. 

As stated, wolf reduction could help, as they are less discriminate in what sex they kill.  Disease and parasites are the issues that really need to be looked at if we hope to maintain a population in the Western zone. 

[Moving2thecountry]

That sounds more reasonable. 

[Auggie]

    While the DNR's annual moose count from its aerial survey has fluctuated, the NE moose population ESTIMATE hasn't changed much from around 8000 since 2005. For a better analysis of moose population dynamics, Lenarz dug deeper into the study DATA being generated by collared moose. There he found a pregnancy rate that averaged 84%, about the same as The North American Average of 88% and much better than the NW herd's of 55%.
     Then Lenarz and the research team compared the number of radio collared cows with calves in late April with the cow calf count from the preceding June. They calculated a calf survival rate of 38% The North American calf survival rate is 40%.
      Plugging all these numbers-average annual mortality, pregnancy rate, and calf survival rate into a population model (based on the aerial surveys), Lenarz calculated a 7% average annual decline in the NE moose population since 2002. That's a rate small enough to be subtle over a few years, but decimating if it continues during the next decade.
Source: MN Conservation Volunteer.

[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).

[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.

[Model12]

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...