BigHornRam
Well-known member
You are starting to come around, Ben. Wasn't too long ago you were worried that the wolf haters were going to get wolves re-listed. Now it's like digging a hole in the ocean!
Climate warming and declining moose populations
- Thread starter AlaskaHunter
- Start date
You are starting to come around, Ben. Wasn't too long ago you were worried that the wolf haters were going to get wolves re-listed. Now it's like digging a hole in the ocean!
Make no mistake, the unbridled hatred for wolves that some possess would lead us down that path. That wolves are prolific breeders, especially if you put more pressure on them, should be a part of our management schemes, but we seem to only go for volume and social tolerance because of the fecundity of the species. It's not scientific or biological management, it's primarily social.
Which is part of the bargain. I've never had a problem with liberal take of wolves, and was part of the effort that helped make sure the first bill to pass the 2013 session was one that provided for the increased number of OTC tags, reduction in NR price, etc.
The difference here is that we have a pronounced body of evidence that shows many moose populations are hurting due to increased disease - be they ticks, worms, etc - and it's largely climate driven. AS 1-pointer said, we need to diagnose that we can fix the problem, before we offer solutions like "kill all them woofs."
Humans are simple creatures, woofs & meese- not so much.
Last edited:
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
Yes production of calves is a key population parameter.
Down to ~2 calves per 10 cows...is this mainly due to increased wolf predation in the time series?
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Probably due more with low cow fecundity (very few twins and lower than average pregnancy rates); which is affected most by range conditions. Predation certainly impacts calf recruitment, but wolves are only one the suite of predators that think moose calf is tasty.
el unit
Well-known member
No opinion. Just noting. I sure enjoy seeing them
BigHornRam
Well-known member
This is the summary of the 20 biologists surveyed
Lastly, when
asked about factors that potentially limit local
moose populations, biologist listed predation
(70%), habitat succession (45%), MFWP-
permitted hunter harvest (45%), parasites
and/or disease (40%), Native American hun-
ter harvest (30%), and habitat loss or frag-
mentation (15%).
Draw your conclusions from that.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
I am confused what that means, so the biologists can't even agree?
Pretty much. I read it as "yep, that could be part of it."
A biologist, after spending 25 years studying a local population of deer, presented his findings to a room full of colleagues. After detailed explanations about population growth, antler size, hunting statistics, land & habitat conditions and predation concerns, the biologist concluded with "Without further study, we just don't have enough data to come to a conclusion."
T
tjones
Guest
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The biologists could pick multiple factors that they felt were impacting the moose population in their area. 70% marked predators, by far the highest ranked factor.
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
But that doesn't indicate to what level they impacted it, and possibly like the bitterroot predator study indicated that bear were the actual problem with elk. There are way more bears in the Big Hole than wolves.
In MN wolves have been eating moose the entire time, we never didn't have wolves, but since 2000 we have gone from around 12k moose to 4k, at one point losing 4000 moose in 3 years, with no change in the wolf population.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
SWAG is what you specialize Ben.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Yes, bears are predators, but not sure where you learned there are "way more bears in the Bighole than wolves". Sounds to me you need to worry more about what's going on with moose in your home state, and less about moose in the Bighole.
How's delisting coming along in Minnesota? Might want to give that option a try.
AlaskaHunter
Well-known member
1988 and 2000 were big fire years in Montana, so what would cause declining range conditions where Moose are?
(I assume Shiras populations in Montana are mostly on Forest Service lands at higher elevations)
MinnesotaHunter
Well-known member
Your FWP website.
I am sorry I forgot that only those with a statistical chance at drawing a tag are allowed to care about moose in the Bighole. I for one would love it if more people cared about moose in MN......
I've always wanted to do a north woods moose hunt. I care about your moose, squirrel. I care.
Seeing a lot more down on lower elevation river bottoms, even odd ducks out on the plains. I think it's quality of forage as much as anything else that leads to those movements. We've seen it with elk, why not moose?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Lots of information out there on why moose aren't doing real well...and from what I've read, and seen personally, there is no doubt changing climate is causing some of it. Any reliable and educated biologist you talk with will tell you the same thing. Climate change impacts plant communities, length of winter, snow melt, green up, etc. etc. etc.
There have been on-going studies in Wyoming for the last 10 years or so in areas with high predator numbers and other areas with very few predators...pretty much the same story across the board.
I recently was talking to a biologist involved in this study:
http://wyocoopunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Jan16Report.pdf
He was telling me how the moose in the Snowy Range are not having calves every year...skipping years to recoup as their body condition isn't good enough to have calves every year. That is tied to habitat, no question of that, and some of that is tied to how the habitat is changing due to climate.
Pile on the huge increase in parasite related deaths, and IMO, you'd have to be a supervisor of the flat earth society to believe that climate change is NOT impacting moose. Its being observed across large geographic areas related to latitude. Again, a strong case that along latitudinal lines the same thing is happening with moose in vast areas...and not just limited to North America either.
I trust the science over lobowatch...all day long.
There have been on-going studies in Wyoming for the last 10 years or so in areas with high predator numbers and other areas with very few predators...pretty much the same story across the board.
I recently was talking to a biologist involved in this study:
http://wyocoopunit.org/wp-content/uploads/Jan16Report.pdf
He was telling me how the moose in the Snowy Range are not having calves every year...skipping years to recoup as their body condition isn't good enough to have calves every year. That is tied to habitat, no question of that, and some of that is tied to how the habitat is changing due to climate.
Pile on the huge increase in parasite related deaths, and IMO, you'd have to be a supervisor of the flat earth society to believe that climate change is NOT impacting moose. Its being observed across large geographic areas related to latitude. Again, a strong case that along latitudinal lines the same thing is happening with moose in vast areas...and not just limited to North America either.
I trust the science over lobowatch...all day long.
Similar threads
