BigHornRam
Well-known member
I looked into this a little. Yellowstone park SWAG says fires caused loss of old growth forests causing reduction in moose.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/1988fireconsequences.htm
Climate warming and declining moose populations
- Thread starter AlaskaHunter
- Start date
I looked into this a little. Yellowstone park SWAG says fires caused loss of old growth forests causing reduction in moose.
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/1988fireconsequences.htm
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
Why? Moose winter browse is primarily early successional species such as willow and aspen suckers.
On the Kenai in Alaska:
"“For the past three years we’ve had 100 moose with VHF collars north and south of the burn,” Crouse said. “We’re tracking them to learn more about their health, birth rates and survival relative to the existing habitat conditions. On the north end of the Kenai big burns in ‘47 and ‘69 really benefitted moose there.”
But the benefits are short term, lasting perhaps a few decades after the fire. Crouse said the moose population has been declining in the north end of the Kenai (Game Management Unit 15a) since the early 1990s. The forest has matured and most of food made available through past fires has grown up and out of reach."
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Because it's Yellowstone park SWAG!
one ate E grain
Active member
I just ran across this newspaper article from MN today, and it speaks specifically to this issue of climate versus other sources of decline in moose.
http://www.timberjay.com/stories/moose-wolves,13537
I too have followed the moose decline in MN with interest, and the rapid growth of moose in my own state with a lot less interest. Moose tags are $300 here, cheaper to get an elk and I'm more used to eating elk. I get nervous too with that much meat at that time of the year, I like very cold temps for hunting and packing out meat.
David Mech should not need introduction to anyone following the various wolf issues. He is unabashedly an advocate, but even more pertinent Mech is a scientist through and through. More than most other researchers on things wolf I give weight to what he says.
When I first started reading the MN DNR's web page about a moose study they posted pie charts showing horrendous calf mortality. 75% wolf and another percent bear bringing predators up to most all mortality and almost no survival, from memory 25% or so per year. Those pie charts disappeared in two weeks. Not long thereafter the governor stopped all calf collaring due to excess mortality from the handling of the calves. Recently the DNR there published updated findings of adults that are still very bad looking. Lots of predation and loss due to infection probably due to predation.
I don't want to get all big bad wolf but in MN, it looks like the decline was wolf related. I personally would be happy to see less moose out here in my state, everywhere I go in the woods there are moose tracks, often in the most unlikely places, like on top of a rocky hill without water or willow anywhere around. Moose are hard to count, they don't group up, but I know that in CO populations are on the increase.
http://www.timberjay.com/stories/moose-wolves,13537
I too have followed the moose decline in MN with interest, and the rapid growth of moose in my own state with a lot less interest. Moose tags are $300 here, cheaper to get an elk and I'm more used to eating elk. I get nervous too with that much meat at that time of the year, I like very cold temps for hunting and packing out meat.
David Mech should not need introduction to anyone following the various wolf issues. He is unabashedly an advocate, but even more pertinent Mech is a scientist through and through. More than most other researchers on things wolf I give weight to what he says.
When I first started reading the MN DNR's web page about a moose study they posted pie charts showing horrendous calf mortality. 75% wolf and another percent bear bringing predators up to most all mortality and almost no survival, from memory 25% or so per year. Those pie charts disappeared in two weeks. Not long thereafter the governor stopped all calf collaring due to excess mortality from the handling of the calves. Recently the DNR there published updated findings of adults that are still very bad looking. Lots of predation and loss due to infection probably due to predation.
I don't want to get all big bad wolf but in MN, it looks like the decline was wolf related. I personally would be happy to see less moose out here in my state, everywhere I go in the woods there are moose tracks, often in the most unlikely places, like on top of a rocky hill without water or willow anywhere around. Moose are hard to count, they don't group up, but I know that in CO populations are on the increase.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Wolves certainly kill moose here in MN, but there hasn't been the appropriate increase in wolves to account for the decrease in moose. If you look at the wolves population here; which has been pretty consistant since 1990, it would make sense that they have been killing about the same number of moose each year since then, and for 10 year the moose population stayed steady. Then something else happened, either diminished habitat which causes cow to produce few offspring, or an increase in parasites, both of which are adding additional pressure on the moose.
Wolves are political here in MN, like alot of other places, and I too have seen some suspiciuous science as it relates to their impact and prevalence on our landscape, but I think there is more to it than just wolves. They are just the easiest scapegoat. On a positive note we did get a Moose conservation liscense plate here a couple of years ago, and I am starting to see more people buying them, but we are still way outnumbered by the "howling for wolves" bumper stickers.....
If you want to read some more, here is a link to the webpage for the research being done at the University of Minnesota-Duluth (my alma matre):
http://nrri.d.umn.edu/moose/
I hear of areas in the Great Lakes region with wolves that the whitetail herds are not faring very well. The reduction of one prey species could lead to an increase in use of another prey species, even with the same number of predators. Not saying this is the cause of the moose decline in MN...
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
This is starting to get into an area that I don't clearly understand. A couple of things I can say about this dynamic in MN specifically:
- Our whitetail population, in the primary moose area, took some big hits about 5 years ago due to winterkill, but at this same time our moose population has leveled out, and wolf populations have remained stable.
- Our core moose area is not traditional whitetail habitat, and over the last hundered years their fates seem very intertwined, deer go up / moose go down, and vice versa. http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mcvmagazine/issues/2015/sep-oct/moose-in-minnesota.html
- There is probably some give (less whitetails would reduce the infection rate on parasites for moose) and take (less deer could push the wolves more towards moose predation), but I don't know how these two balance out
- Currently our DNR has a new deer management plan in place to have very liberal deer harvest in the core moose area in an effort to minimize deer/moose conflict.
- Healthy moose have the capacity to have up to three calves and reproduce starting at 1.5 years, making them much more resistant to predation, but when environmental factors lead to a less healthy herd we get 1 calf and less pregnant cows.
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Very interesting discussion. I've always been interested in the Minnesota moose decline. In Wisconsin, we have a pretty extreme group called Wisconsin Wolf Facts that are constantly coming out with press releases and postings on social media that blame the Minnesota moose decline almost solely on wolves. A favorite source of this group also appears to be LoboWatch. Last year, Wisconsin Wolf Facts had a big conference in Wisconsin, Don Peay was the keynote speaker.
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
In western Alaska it appears that predation and winter snow depth are key population paramters, not habitat decline:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.188/full
"Predator treatments resulted in increased calf survival rates during summer (primarily from reduced black bear predation) and autumn (primarily from reduced wolf predation). Predator treatments had little influence on survival of moose calves during winter; instead, calf survival was influenced by snow depth and possibly temperature. " "Moose density increased 45%, from 0.38 moose/km2 in 2001 to 0.55 moose/km2 in 2007, which resulted from annual increases in overall survival of moose, not increases in reproductive rates. Indices of nutritional status remained constant throughout our study despite increased moose density"
However, if predators are reduced, moose density may increase to the point where nutritional indices decline and calf production declines:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2193/2007-591
(Unit 20A had one of the highest moose densities in Alaska >1 moose/km2)
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The Lobo Watch kooks are no more or less out there than the disciples of Al Gore.
.
Ya and sometimes Lobowatch kooks, don't realize they are Lobowatch kooks. Same as some Al Gore kooks.
3855WIN
Well-known member
Whitetails took a big hit due to winterkill? Is this where global warming turns into climate change and gets cold in the winter?
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
Interesting report on the Snow Range population...22 of 30 cows pregnant is not that bad.
I did not understand why Mountain Pine beetle killing lodgepole would negatively impact moose...
that should increase willow browse and aspen sucker production and moose do not browse on lodgepole.
The article mentions potential thermal cover...I assume that is for cooler microhabitat during hot summer days?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Thinking you can control the global climate with solar panels and carbon cap and trade schemes is a fool's errand. How about improving the habitat with quality forest management? I cut the dead wood out of these stagnant old willows a couple months ago and they are already putting out new growth that is being consumed by deer and elk (moose are a little higher).
Want bigger scale? Get you wildlife orgs. to do more CONTROLLED burns.
Want bigger scale? Get you wildlife orgs. to do more CONTROLLED burns.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
BHR,
Manipulation of habitat is certainly a benefit, by you can't simply discount climate change as an issue with moose. They really are susceptible to thermal regulation issues. In the PNW, we've seen a continual lengthening of the fire season. This is also coincident with creating higher parasite loads (i.e. ticks) for moose, which puts them in worse body condition. This parasite load issue causes a two fold hit, it reduces reproductive rates and leads to greater mortality.
Manipulation of habitat is certainly a benefit, by you can't simply discount climate change as an issue with moose. They really are susceptible to thermal regulation issues. In the PNW, we've seen a continual lengthening of the fire season. This is also coincident with creating higher parasite loads (i.e. ticks) for moose, which puts them in worse body condition. This parasite load issue causes a two fold hit, it reduces reproductive rates and leads to greater mortality.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I agree that climate changes and we have been in a hotter drier cycle. I disagree that CO2 is the cause of this. I think our time and effort is better spent improving the habitats than trying to control the global climate. Just my opinion.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Here is some TNC property that has a few moose running around on it. Not a lot of moose however. They are talking about doing some larger scale CONTROLLED burns here. All the wildlife here could benefit from such work.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
BHR,
You will never need to try and convince me of the value of controlled burning. I'd love to see much more of it.
As for the impact of climate change? I'm not advocating what the causes of it are. I'm simply pointing out it has a profound impact on moose populations. Can we do anything to affect it? I don't really know. I do know that focusing on predators as the villain in declining moose populations is a waste of time and money, hence the reason I was pointing out the impacts of climate change on moose.
There is an ongoing moose study in NE Washington/N Idaho where there are PLENTY of carnivores. Two years into a three year study, the hands down winner for cause of mortality is tick load. Predation doesn't even really register on the radar.
You will never need to try and convince me of the value of controlled burning. I'd love to see much more of it.
As for the impact of climate change? I'm not advocating what the causes of it are. I'm simply pointing out it has a profound impact on moose populations. Can we do anything to affect it? I don't really know. I do know that focusing on predators as the villain in declining moose populations is a waste of time and money, hence the reason I was pointing out the impacts of climate change on moose.
There is an ongoing moose study in NE Washington/N Idaho where there are PLENTY of carnivores. Two years into a three year study, the hands down winner for cause of mortality is tick load. Predation doesn't even really register on the radar.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
So how about this proposal? We take 50% of what the feds spend annually on predator management, and 50% of what the feds spend annually trying to prove that CO2 causes climate change, and use that money for habitat improvement projects. Good idea?
