Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game 50% of Minnesota's Moose Calves Dead Within 7 Days

What state, what study and where is the data/report? Seriously, if this is out there why isn't it being published/discussed?

Right here.

Here is the Predator/Prey population relationship on the Kaibab. Pretty overwhelming evidence that removing a major source of mortality increases big game herds.

Explain why wolves/moose are different

In the OP it was noted that of the calves killed in 7 days, a majority were wolf predation.

How is it that you can cite the seminal piece of research demonstrating the long term necessity of predators to maintaining healthy prey population levels and claim it supports your argument that removing wolves will help moose?

It's really difficult to get your head around the logic of that one. That's not even circular logic, it's logic that goes straight down the toilet without even a hint justification of your position.

That's amazing! I admire the leap! A lot! Christ! I wish I had the capability to even get a glimpse into how you did that!

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Easy.

Look at the graph where it says "Rapid growth after removal of predators"

I'll walk you through it.

1. Deer population low

2. Predators removed

3. Rapid population growth of deer after predators are killed because they're not getting eaten.

Laffin',.... 'flave was way ahead of his time when he coined your sig line.

Travis, from what I've seen, is timeless

You must have seen his green jacket and sparkler pic.

Didn't mean to interrupt....Cary on.

Some of this thread is ridiculous.

If predation plays just a very little part in overall numbers, why bother to close the hunting season? Is getting shot by a bullet somehow different than getting chewed to death?

By closing the human hunting season for moose, the DNR openly admits that predation does play a key role in the nosediving numbers.

I'm not one to knee-jerk, but it seems to me that substantially reducing the wolf population couldnt do anything other than help the moose population...at least in the short term.

The seasons and dates for hunting legal game have as much to do with tradition as anything. However, protecting animals at vulnerable times and (theoretically, at least) enhancing pregnancy, parturition and neonatal survival rates are among other considerations. Public sentiment is also a large part of the equation in most states.

So what are you trying to say?

Go ahead, in plain English.

It's deeper than that, hard to justify a season when there are only about 2,000 left. Public perception, etc. Keep in mind only 50 moose or so were shot in the last two years. Wolves probably already killed more calves during the same time frame, hunting isn't causing a moose decline. Plus it's a bull only season therefor we are not hurting the reproduction capability.

Note the moose peak was around '06 which there were over 8,000 animals in MN.

Now I'm confused, moose population was at a critical low of 1,436 in 1996, but then rebounded at peaked to 8,840 in just 10 year all the while wolf population increased by 50% from roughly 2,000 to 3,000. Clearly this supports remove all the predators and populations will rebound theory.

I agree it's a complex problem, but maybe wolves are making it quite abit worse for the moose.

I'm a pro-wolf guy, but I'd like to see MN have a decent moose population.

I call for a 1000 wolf quota this year. Last year was just 400 , so it seems reasonable to me.

First of all, Miles, if you cannot refrain from personal attacks using profanity, please refrain from posting anymore. It is completely unprofessional. Nobody else has done that, only you. Which, incidently, tells me that you know you are losing the argument.

By admitting to bad science (not considering all alternatives), you cannot say that your preferred method is fact. Sorry, but science doesnt work that way. All of the subsequent facts you have are subject to a huge * because it is based on only your theory and nothing more. To be sure, everyone is entitled to their own theories, but to tell the rest of us that ours are wrong when yours doesnt include all possible alternatives really takes away your credibility. But so be it.

As for the graph. It clearly demonstrates that prey species will rebound without predation. Clearly. Does that mean that the prey will be able to be stable at the highest part of the graph? No, of course not. Other factors then determine population dynamics. As the graph levels out (with limited predation), you can see it is higher than at the beginning, thus proving that the numbers of predators were the limiting factor in the population at the beginning of the graph.

If you believe that there are not deer population issues in northern MN, I might suggest you not roll out that theory in any drinking establishment in the north country. Discretion may be the better part of valor with regards to that theory. It wont be long before folks will take offense at that.

Say, how about the TB zone in NW MN? Deer were largely eradicated there, yet no rebound in moose. Hmmm. A very good example of deer being the host for disease theory not being true.

To everyone else, I believe in science. I believe in most cases the MN DNR is really good at science. But every once in awhile, studies are not correct and they take a LOT of time to conduct (to be sure, I am not suggesting the DNR has any studies that are incorrect on the wolf/moose relationships). I believe they are working hard on the problem.

I also believe one must be really careful with anecdotal evidence. one guy in a deer camp who hasnt seen a deer in 5 years means nothing to me other than he probably gets drunk the night before. But as you keep hearing the same thing, over and over again, you start to realize that among the large group of people, there are some really good hunters who are seeing the wolves be a problem. there is overwhelming evidence out west of what has happened to prey species. Take a look at the Yellowstone ecosystem elk population dynamics. Over 24,000 animals pre-wolf reintroduction. Now less than 4,000. Well under the population goal of around 15,000. I wonder how Miles would explain that wolves have been good for the population of elk in Yellowstone? That study has been here on the 'fire numerous times.

Bottom line is this, I sincerly hope the DNR is able to get it figured out and save the MN moose. At this time, my opinion is we need to reduce wolves and bears to save the moose. Maybe it wont work, I dont know for sure and nobody else knows if it will or will not work. But nobody (notice that Miles has never came up with a plan other than study, study, study?) has produced any other way to save those big-nosed, dumb, ugly beasts we all love called moose!

I know this will go down a rat-hole but what the hell. More and more is being discovered about the Yellowstone decline every day and it is shaping up to be a perfect storm of predator, and environmental factors that has caused the decline and we're still not done yet pulling data.

Absolutely wolves played a role, but we now know grizzly bears diets have shifted with the loss of cutthroat, and the grizz population has grown significantly. The Bitteroot study shows that cats and black bears are hell on elk calves (I have yet to see data about cat and black bear population trends in the park).

We also know that they population at 20,000+ was too high and was stressing carrying capacity. On top of all that the Absaroka Ecology Study as well as others indicate that summer feed is not able to provide the same nutrition that it use to be cause of the ongoing drought.

Yet despite all this it is still amazing that the MT legislature was able to pass a bill that determines what the Elk Management Plan should be as opposed to the biologists.

yep, there is more to it than just wolves, but it cannot be ignored that wolves played a part as you stated. I was using this example to show that wolves can sometimes be detrimental to prey species population and not positive effects as some have suggested.

I understand that there is some momentum about grizzly bear management possibly in the future.

I just hope that at some point we can manage all wildlife at solid, sustainable levels and not protect some (typically predators) because of a low population and then we cannot rescind the protection fast enough to prevent a wild swing in the prey species numbers. That seems like what we do now.