When MN closed their moose hunt, they decided to spend $2 million and five years to prove the obvious. If our medical doctors were like many game and fish biologists, they would have to go to 4 years of medical school and 3 years of specialty training before each surgery! Most patients would be dead by the time they did all the studies, and each doctor would do just three surgeries in a career. Within 7 days, 50 percent MN moose calves dead. After this first week, I am sure wolves and bears will now have called a a truce and switch to granola. Kill the predators, stop all the studies


From this morning�s St. Paul (Minnesota) Pioneer Press:

Minnesota: Moose study confirms high calf mortality

�The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources captured 49 moose calves and fitted them with GPS transmitter collars. Within days of finishing their work, 22 of the newborns already had died�

�Most were killed by bears and wolves.�

"We knew that we would lose a lot of calves quickly," DNR lead moose researcher Glenn DelGiudice said. "But to see it happening in real time like this is all new for us."

Do they really need to conduct a study to realize how bad wolves are? There is a reason man beat them down at the turn of the century.

Does that include hunters? If so, screw you!

I wonder how many would have died if they weren't wearing GPS transmitter collars. Sometimes adding a collar or tag to an animal can make it more of a target or slow it down.

Yes, stop all the studies, because you may not like the answers they provide. Very dangerous - data is.

BTW, there are certainly studies of the effect of collars on mortality in almost any species. You can probably google them up very easily.

And pronghorn have twins and most are eaten by coyotes. Some times our crew could deploy and recover a radio twice in one day.

And in the local paper this morning, Colorado CPW is saying the moose population might be above carrying capacity.

Go figure

Wolves/bears get their share but the problem is much bigger than that. Liver flukes, brain worm and ticks need to be added to the list. It's amazing how fast we're loosing our moose. A sad story for those of us in canoe country.

indeed, Randy. sad stuff, indeed. two years ago the ticks, specifically winter ticks were pretty newsy up there with the mooses werent' they? considering we sit at the same latitude I watch your stories with great interest as our moose are thriving.

Jeff

it will be interesting to see what the wolf census comes back at later this summer.

now the question is going to be, given that high of mortality to 2 predators, is the DNR going to take steps to save one species from going extinct in Minnesota or take steps to curb a species that is expanding its territory.

Brent, curious to see your thoughts on this. We know MN moose are swirling around the drain. We also know that wolves and bears are impacting a lot of them and may in fact be easier to control than anything else. Should we ramp up our wolf/bear control to save the moose or let them disappear from MN?

Well, the moose tag population is way below carrying capacity, at least in my wallet.

I can't say specifically and it may differ in different parts of Minnesota. But keep in mind, back in my day, the biggest moose populations were over in the Arrowhead - with ALL the wolves at the time. Isabella, MN was the center of moose and wolves for a good long time. Both expanded for a couple of decades at least - before plunging. So, wolves as a sole cause of moose decline is not likely.

With respect to calf predation, every study I have seen shows bears, specifically black bears, to be hell on young ungulates. From Alaska to Montana, and for moose in particular. Where comparable data exists for wolves, they don't hold a candle to bears.

Last, most young animals die. If not from one predator, then from another, or from some other malady. Compensatory mortality as it is known. Saving a calf from a predator won't help if it is highly likely to die anyway. Hence, population regulation via juvenile mortality/survival management is often not very successful, esp. among mammals. Of course some young have to survive, but perhaps not very many are needed to create the largest sustainable adult population. In ungulates this scenario is pretty common.

So, I doubt you gain much if anything from wiping out wolves and bears. It might even be counter productive.

For some of the moose parasites, and I think (without doing some checking), that the major parasite is one that has whitetail deer as an intermediate host. If that is the case and if hammering wolf populations leads to more deer, you may be faced with inevitably smaller moose populations. But the devils are in the details that I don't know about. So, this is a good story but not necessarily the correct story.

One thing is certain. Minnesota is really the edge of the normal species range of moose. Always has been. That is not going to change - at least not for the better. And populations on the fringes of a species' range always are subject to greater variation over time and space. So big swings up and down are to be expected for a variety of direct and indirect reasons and a large, healthy, stable population of moose is probably not reasonably possible. Take the good when you can and live with the bad when you have too. Game management can only do so much. This may be out of their range.

I will defer to any wolf/moose biologists with access to the data and a better grasp of the relevant literature, but those are my thoughts.

BTW, you may not know that wolves on Isle Royale in Lake Superior live on almost nothing BUT moose on that small island. They have for more than 50 yrs since wolves first arrived there back in the 60s or so. The point being that on that small little island moose did not go extinct from wolves, although wolves, from time to time, regulated their numbers (but often didn't). The wolves, howeve,r are headed for extinction there, probably due to inbreeding depression.

http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2012/march/story64889.html
and http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6135/919.summary

That's the stupidest statement I can imagine anyone could say given the researchers themselves noted that MOST of the calves were killed by wolves and bears. Typical liberal tree-hugging BS.

Re-read the text in the OP quoted from the article!

When you grow up enough to comprehend that as you move just a little further north there's as many wolves and bears, and a lot more moose, it might just occur to you there are even more stupid statements that become imaginable.

I have a friend who's collared a number of these calves, and he saying the pilots are telling them they are seeing different cow behavior than they have in the past.

Certainly, when white settlers moved into Minnesota we had a lot less deer and a hell of a lot more moose, bear and wolves and of course Indians. If you look at the long term evidence you can make a case for reducing predator numbers reduced moose numbers on as simplistic an assumption as you are making.

At the peak of our recent Moose population, about thirty years ago, I noted evidence of moose down as far south as Knife Lake in the middle of the state. I couldn't tell you if that was a moose in the end stages of the fluke or just a wanderer. I have as recently as 3-4 years ago seen evidence of a moose as far south as Cloverton. I have personally seen a moose in White Bear Lake. But... draw a line from Duluth to Thief River Falls and that line is what for the last hundred years has been more or less the southern boundary of moose range. Also the southern boundary of wolf range. The dynamics of this are not simple. This study will not provide an answer. If we get lucky, it might provide some better questions than we have now.

Brent, this ain't about moose because I obviously don't know doodly squat about moose just from where I live. It is about this statement of yours: "So, I doubt you gain much if anything from wiping out wolves and bears. It might even be counter productive."

I have seen you make similar statements many times. I know that preditation of any species is a multi faceted thing but what I don't understand is how removing one facet makes it worse? Lets say wolves kill x% and bears kill x% and ticks kill x% and the galloping pip kills x% and so on and so on. How does removing one of those kill percentages make the others worse so they take up all the slack?

I know back when we had screw worms here they killed a hell of a lot of whitetail deer. Got rid of the screw worms and deer numbers took off and never really looked back. Still had coyotes, bob cats, hogs, ticks etc etc.

I know we don't agree a lot on preditor control and I am all infavor of bringing back 1080. I am not trying to rattle your cage or beat you in some argument just trying to understand why removing one source of preditation makes the others worse in your opinion.

Back in the 90s, Andy Sih, and a host of others, published the best, widest survey of the effects of predators on their prey. I can get you a full citation if you wish but I'm on the road today.

Anyway, they found, among many other things, that sometimes the presence of a certain predator can actually cause increases prey abundance. In fact, this seems to happen roughly 25% of the time. There are a number of ways this can work, and the math all checks out etc. But basically, such instances always involve additional species.

One of my favorites that seems to occur in many places across the country involves coyotes and ground nesting birds. Coyotes will hunt and kill things like pheasants and even songbirds that nest on, or close to the ground. Birds aren't their favorite prey - they are mostly rabbit and mouse killers, but birds will eat. However, coyotes also put the hurt to coons, skunks, opossums, feral cats, and most especially, foxes (which are very very efficient bird killers). So, these birds lose a few of their members to coyotes but they also experience less predation from these other predators as a result of coyotes being in the area. Net result is a positive one for the bird populations.

The same can be true of if a prey species is a poor competitor with another species with which it shares a predator. If the predator prefers the dominant competitor and selectively kills more of them, the prey that is the lesser competitor gets a release from competition that might be much much greater than the negative effect it gets directly by being killed by the predator.

There are many other ways in which similar results can come about resulting in a predator benefiting a prey. But you have to look, and often look hard, because these sorts of numbers are not easy to measure in the field.

In the case of moose that are declining due to parasites, if (and I emphasize IF) the parasite uses and alternative host, like whitetailed deer, and if the deer are not dramatically hurt by the parasite themselves, a large deer population will lead to a swift increase in the parasite and a decline in moose. So, add the wolf to reduce deer and maybe the moose get a bigger boost from that the losses (particularly calf losses) they suffer directly to wolves. There are a lot of "ifs" in this argument that I cannot personally vouch for, but they are not especially unlikely "ifs" either. And keep in mind that wolves and moose persist in great abundances throughout just about all of the moose's range. So, wolves and moose can coexist in good numbers. Of that there is no doubt. But whether this current decline in moose can be thwarted by wolf reductions we really cannot say for certain without a whole lot more data than we have available to us right here. But I'd bet against it in this instance.

Well, it is time for me to get back on highway.

BCR,

Moose here suffer from a brain fluke carried by deer that doesn't kill the deer. It disorients moose making sometimes impossible to find/stay "home". Imagine a cow moose who's just dropped a calf and she is infected. Momma goes out to feed and parks baby until she returns (Just like deer). Momma can't orient where she is when it's time to return to where she parked baby. after a day or so baby gets pretty hungry, gets up and starts squalering for momma, but maybe by now, momma is 100 miles away and lost. All the noise baby makes is the dinner bell for bears and wolves. If momma doesn't get the brain fluke, baby stays put, stays quiet and stays alive because they are very difficult to find if they stay put and quiet where momma parked them. You can eliminate 90% or more of the bears and wolves and it's still going to look like the bears and wolves are eating half or more of the moose calves because they are. The problem is that maybe 100% of the moose calves that were eaten would die anyway because momma is lost.

Now, add wolves to the situation instead of reducing them. There's a small window after birth that moose calves are vulnerable. The rest of the year the wolves still have to eat. So, where do they turn? If they turn to the deer which are much, much easier than moose and more plentiful, and which also are infecting the moose with the brain fluke, more wolves might very well reduce the deer population enough to significantly reduce moose calf mortality because they simultaneously are reducing the brain fluke vector responsible for the moose calf mortality. Killing off wolves could in that case result in even greater calf losses.

I am not saying that this is what is happening, but it or something very like it could be (think bacteria). If we get lucky in this study we will get the right question(s) to ask out of it.

I think you also have to acknowledge that there may just be too many wolves and they are eating too many moose and further reduction of wolves would be a boost to moose (and deer) numbers. It is also noteworthy that deer and moose have co-existed forever in good numbers. Although a complex chain of events could be taking place, the first solution that should be explored is the simple solution. Most often, not always, but most often, the simple solution is the correct one. I learned this from watching Crime Scene Investigators by the way!

Great CSI TV for game management.

I do not doubt for a second that the MN DNR is exploring every possible solution. I am also certain that any answer they provide will be shhit-kicked into the ditch by whichever side feels most offended - regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

so, if they decide that woofs and bars are the one factor that could be controlled the easiest that would result in a rebound in moose population, would you support greatly expanding woof reduction? There is only 1 "if" in that statement. So we reduce wolves to save the moose....you would be on board that plan?

Without a lot more information, no. I would want to know if predator reduction would actually be sufficient to prevent moose extirpation, rather than just something that would delay the inevitable. I would want to know that it would or would not put the wolf population in jeopardy, and I would want to know a lot about the long-term prognosis for moose, wolves, and the condition of the habitat in northern MN. And right now, I don't have the details on any of those things.

And then I would want to know the same for bears.

so would it be fair to say then, that your preference is to let the moose go down the drain rather than making an effort to save them that may have limited effects on wolves? The wolf area is much bigger than the moose area. wolves are expanding all over, which has been extremely well documented. There is no concern at all about bears.

No, that would not be fair to say. Nor is it what I DID say.

Why no concern about bears by the way? Are they not moose calf predators for some reason? Why is it that bears always get the pass? Interesting

Nice to hear a debate on 24 hr. This is my limited experience since I'm from Green and gold country. Northen Wis. has been getting more moose sightings the last 5 years or so. There are tons of bears and wolves. The deer numbers are most likely down 30 % across the northern range and down 50% in some areas of northern Wis. This has been discussed on Wisconsin threads like Lake-link. We all agrred the only thing that made sense was lack of deer. Less brain worm, and more food for moose. Just a thought. We still have very few moose though. Just a thought, isn't the deer numbers up in northern Minn. over the last 10 or 20 years or so??? I was in Byck Minn. 10 years ago and was impresed with the number of deer I saw over Labor day weekend.

It might be that there are too many wolves and bears eating too many moose calves.

Are you seriously suggesting the go in an wholesale off the wolves and bears just to see what happens?

Miles and Brent, thank you gentlemen. Don't know if I agree with all of it but I do understand better what you are saying and you make lucid arguements.

BCR,

I don't know what to make of all of it either. There are however a number of possibilities and a number of possible questions that need to be explored.

Things like why just Minnesota, or is it really just Minnesota or is Minnesota just the leading edge?

The thing that I find very troublesome to consider is it's coincidence with the Lyme disease epidemic we are going through. The bacteria that cause Lyme disease are known to pass the blood-brain barrier and cause brain injury. Perhaps injury similar to or in the case of moose, producing symptoms similar to the brain fluke.

We are very late to investigating the problem. There are a lot of hypotheses floating around that have merit worth exploring further. The extraordinary results of this study may not be all good. It certainly looks like we can say that the moose decline is due to lack of reproductive success. If we can't grow enough moose to reproductive age to support population expansion that'll do it for sure. The problem is that we are seeing such precipitous decline that exploring the reason for the calf mortality may well become very much more difficult in short order. The reason behind the calf mortality is likely to be more important than the immediate cause. If the example I gave of the brain fluke were true, we could expect to see momma dieing weeks to months after the calves. If a similar disorientation is occurring resultant from borrelia infection, maternal mortality might follow by months to years.

Science is hard and often slow. I hope we have enough time left to do it right.

My guess is that you are not hearing the whole story. Predidation does not stop after 7 weeks.

Local GD traped 60 cow elk and their calves for a study. They collared all the calves. By August everyone of those calves were dead. All cougar kills.

Holy crap, where' the link on the WDFW page I can't find it on that labyrinth.

These Pro-Predator Jokers will tell you that any animal that falls to predation would have died anyway from a worm, lack of food, or because cattle are bad.

Just ask 'em

Some folks hear hoof beats and think unicorns instead of horses

How about we ask you to explain why we didn't have enough moose to hunt until we protected the wolves for a number of years, and how the two coexisted for a good number of years before we began the decline? Maybe why Ontario has a lot of wolves and moose and no precipitous decline.

If you have answers, I can get you a direct line into the people doing the study and I am sure they'd be very happy to have a solution dumped in their ignorant laps.

LOL!

Go polish the bust...

BrentD, sorry to see a wolf ain't ate your ass yet.

So sad to disappoint you. I must not be very tasty to wolves; they have had plenty of chances.

Why are you so opposed to a rational approach to wolves and game management instead of the emotional one that seems to grip you so?

Don't confuse me wanting a wolf to eat your ass with emotion towards wolves.

But you do get so emotional everytime wolves become a topic or I put up a post. Obviously, you have a lot of baggage there.

Has the deer numbers in Minnesota been up the last 10 years? This could be it. There was also a time 40 years ago or so when there were very few moose in Minnesota, then the numbers went way up. Noone seems to know why it happened. Now on the decline again. Is this accurate?

That's sort of a short version of it, and the years might need adjusting, but yeah.

Deer numbers have been up for a while, but the question is are they up in moose country and if so are they infecting moose. If they are infecting moose is that causing the decline, or is the decline being caused by something else.

Miles, I can't comment about NW Ontario's moose population in the present, but I can
as of 4 years ago. South of highway 17 the moose were in tough shape back then. Same reasons given.. Ticks, deer, wolves.
I don't think the wolves impacted the moose to a large degree back then as there seemed to be much less of them, than in my home state of MI. They also can shoot them in NW ON so they stay away from people as a rule giving the game some respite.
Btw our moose population in Upper MI is doing well to the point they might open a season on them in the near future. This would tend to shoot holes in global warming theory as both MI and MN are at around the same latitude.

The fact that Minnesota is alone in this decline does not bode well for an easy solution. Everywhere adjacent with moose has wolves and bears since all three species migrated out of Minnesota. If there is a single cause then is would likely be something missing there, but present here, and that might be part of what looks like an insignificant combination of small things that passed a tipping point here and may be capable of the same given a little more time in Wisconsin or Michigan.

That's why the borrelia possibility is so worrisome. If, and it's a very big if at this point, moose are similarly sensitive to brain injury and the suffer impaired orientation and that's making the calves vulnerable, then the biological support chain to deliver borrelia to moose could be much more complex and broad.

The chances of our wolves and bears learning a trick concurrently that wolves and bears elsewhere haven't learned individually looks pretty remote to me. Where I hunt deer, there are no moose except for the odd wanderer. Over the last forty years we have gone from no wolves (except for the odd wanderer) and very, very few deer to having more wolves than I grew up around in NW Minnesota and too many deer. I have had the ability to shoot 7 deer legally in the recent past.

I personally think we have a lot more wolves in Minnesota than the Feds and MDNR claim. Perhaps more than twice as many. I don't see them hurting the deer population all that much. I get to pick and choose what I want for deer to shoot. The dynamics of this look anything but simple to me.

Moose calves are much easier to hunt and kill than deer, predators of all types are masters of opportunity. Moose calves are easy opportunity. I find it funny that most who want to protect wolves at all costs are perfectly fine with deer, elk, or moose going down the drain. You would think if a guy wants to save creatures, he would want to save all creatures. It seems a creature's worth these days depends on whether it is something hunters traditionally pursue. It would be worth it in the eyes of most these mainstream wolf huggers to watch moose, deer and elk vanish if it meant hunters vanished too.

It is about condemnation of a lifestyle, not protecting wolves or bears.

It is about protecting an intact community. No one here is fine with deer, elk r most going down the drain. But some of us recognize that extirpating wolves is not change that in most instances. And we don't think of ungulates as nothing more than crops of targets being farmed for shooters.

Kawi???

I guess they'll be ordering some more woofs.

Actually, we would probably have a better earth if woofs ate pricks like Brent rather than elk, deer and moose.

By using Brent's illogical logic I can surmise that if we don't kill a bunch of woofs they will multiply and we will have less ungulates and more hunting restrictions and less hunting opportunity and thus less hunters and thus more anti-hunters and more preservationists and we know those [bleep] suck for guys like zero and that will lead to financial collapse and the end of the greatest country ever and thus the loss of freedom and the hope of same for people over the entire earth which will be run by the anti-Christ in the worst form of human misery and uncontrolled tyranny.

Oh, I guess the folks brent is a tool for have figured that out already.

I would like to know why deer ticks have become so prevalent in Northern/Central MN? In areas we had never seen a deer tick only wood ticks have completely flip flopped. I also believe bears are very difficult on newly dropped fawns/calves, no doubt not helping the situation. In my mind wolves also play a role but the aren't the sole problem. Complex situation in Arrowhead country.

In AK they have found bears are significant calf predators... but a bit differently than most had assumed. Generally, it is an old large boar that specializes in killing calves. Killing lots of bears in a area to reduce calf morality does nothing unless they get the rare specialist.

They found it applies to black and brown bears.

Lots of cow moose live in Anchorage and over the years a number of specialists have found them... in yards, driveways, and other public places.

Wolf predation is a function of winter snow giving them the advantage.

Makes sense.

Well I'll take the other stance. Until a few more huggers get eaten you aren't going to see ignorance get adjusted.

Just me but I think most of what a wolf eats was once fearly moble.grin

I had to interrupt my participation on this thread to go bear hunting in Idaho. People out there are absolutely livid about what has happened to the game populations since the wolves were reintroduced out there. Coincidence?

As for the deer population in Minnesota, deer have taken a beating across the northern tier. There are pockets of good numbers, but in talking many, many deer camps in wolf country about their numbers of deer and I have gotten an earful each and every time. Is this anecdotal? Sure. For the first 50 times you hear it. But at some point, you start to realize they have a point. I know of several camps that keep detailed records. The correlation is perfect. Wolves come....deer numbers drop precipitously.

I see Miles and Brent saying there could be a number of scenarios that have resulted in the decline of wolves. I would like to see them admit that one of those is that wolves have tipped the scales and have caused this.

Miles, you said that other moose populations are doing good that have wolves....boy is that misleading. No area has anywhere near the wolves we have. Not even close. You even say we have probably twice the number the DNR says. Can moose handle a few wolves? Probably. Up that predator density and it tips moose over the edge.

My opinion is this. Our wolf population has grown to the point that it has tipped the balance and moose cannot recover. Bears take a share, ticks take a share, cars take a share, other things take a share....but you add in a ton of wolves and they just cannot handle that. The proverbial straw that broke the moose's back.

So we are left with a choice. We can stop the recruitment losses due to ticks....except we dont know how. Vehicle deaths? Aint gonna stop that. Bears? Yep, could ramp up the take on bears to relieve some pressure. Wolves, Yep could ramp up the take on wolves to relieve some pressure. That is about all we have now.

A couple of clarifying points from way back before I left before my hunt. No, I do not propose to wipe out wolves. Just get their numbers in live with carrying capacity of the land so they dont contribute to the loss of a species in MN. And Brent, bears dont get a pass. i think we should look at upping the take on bears to help reduce calf mortality like I suggest we do with wolves. Those are the 2 things left we can do easily that would have a positive effect on moose. Can you guys support that or do you want to study this to death while the moose disappear?

What part of moose population growing in the face of wolf population growing is it that you don't seem to be able to es comprehend? Moose did not rebound enough from their historic lows until after we protected wolves, for us to support a hunting season.

Wolf population may have increased across the state, but, wolf density has not changed all that much. The wolves in Pine county contribute not one iota to moose mortality elsewhere in the state, but they add a substantial number to the statewide count.

Moose in NW Minnesota are on the brink of extirpation, yet we cannot say that wolves are culpable in that decline.

Wolves are in all probability the single largest mortality factor for wolves. Even after establishing a hunting/trapping season. Wolves are extremely territorial, especially toward other canids. Given an opportunity they will kill them. They do not discriminate, they kill other wolves as readily as coyotes or foxes or dogs. This limits density. Severely.

The above facts make it very unlkely that bears or wolves are solely responsible for the decline of the moose. As I showed earlier in this thread, you could possibly eliminate 90% of the wolves and bears in a given county and see no change in moose mortality nor in the percentage of moose calves killed by bears and wolves. Reducing the number of bears and wolves by 90% in a county would be a very difficult job. It would take a long, long time. It would be very, very expensive. We tried the experiment a long time ago and failed. Wolves never disappeared from the best or their range, the main moose range, despite a respectable bounty and high fur prices. The "data" re wolves and moose from that experiment is certainly at least as valid as the data from this experiment. In the prior experiment, using your simplistic logic, eliminating wolves reduced the moose population.

If THAT data is correct, then we can assume the wolf population is supporting our current moose population. If we remove that support by eliminating the wolves we could very well see a complete collapse.

That's why we do the study and look for the right question(s) to ask instead of just following a knee-jerk reaction and taking action we do not understand.

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to keep all the pieces.

Miles
Sorry, but your fuzzy logic is not working...

In AK unit 13 there were once lots of moose and caribou. A certain despicable governor, Knowles, was responsible for shutting down predator control. As a kid the limit on black bears was 6 per year and we could sell the hides (by buying a cheap trapping license) while the brown/grizzly limit was 2. Wolves had a $50 bounty and there were damn few of them.

Unit 13 used to be a place where you could reliably find a bull moose during a very long season.

Then came the predator pit years and moose virtually disappeared in the unit except for extremely remote areas and the only guys that could find a moose were the guys with airplanes putting in lots of time.

We finally got around to addressing the predator pit problem and within the last 10 years the moose numbers have skyrocketed. They are nowhere near the numbers of the '60s through the '80s, but we saw over 100 moose on a caribou hunt in October. The previous year under ideal conditions we saw only a small handful.

I do not believe in wiping out wolves, but there is no excuse to see one without making an attempt at killing it...

Failed to add that by your logic a chicken farmer ought to stop killing skunks and just let them watch his flock...

Miles,
You talk as if your theory is fact. It is NOT. In fact, I, and many others, believe that the wolf has led to the decline in moose. Say it Miles, it is possible that wolves led to the moose decline? Or are you going to go on record to say that there is no way possible that wolves have led to moose problems we have? No more BS, yes or no, is it possible that wolves have created our moose problems, at least in part? No more we need to study this or that, just answer the question, possible or not?

I never said exterminate the bears and wolves and it would be so...so easy to ramp up the bear and wolf harvest a few notches. Longer seasons, more liberal bag limits, spring bear season to name a few. In fact, it may actually MAKE the state money. So your theory of it being expensive, I feel is way off base.

To do nothing is to lose the moose. To suffer from paralysis of analysis and require study upon study to the point we lose our window of time is to lose the moose.

I dont think your theory is right because I dont think disease is what is causing this. Moose have lived forever with disease, both here and other places. But when you have the highest wolf population, a good, stable bear population, and add in the disease and other mortality factors MN moose can't shoulder the load. Too many factors and in the case of bears and wolves, too efficient. The study we do know about says half of them were dead because of predators. There is your study. And since we cannot control some of the mortality factors, we are left with the ones we can control. Using a page from your book, since I have showed that to be the case, it must be true!

To answer your question about not understanding how moose population can grow under wolf protection status....pretty easy. Remember, there are many mortality factors for moose and each year they vary to some degree. When the wolves were first protected, we had a good moose population and this continued for awhile...disease may have been down, bear numbers down a little, or they were just not as close to the tipping point at that time. But the wolf grows in population and starts taking its toll. Since the late 80s/early 90s, the moose has been declining. And it takes them about 20 years or so until they have them on the ropes. It started long ago.

We should dispell the "why does Ontario have a stable population of moose" issue as long as we are at it. They are missing mortality factors that we have. I would love to understand the wolf density between the two areas. It could be we have a more dense population of wolves. Maybe not, dont have time to look it up. They certainly have less vehicular traffic and with less deer, less deer-born disease issues. in other words, they can handle the additional wolf mortality up there, but down here we cannot. We need to reduce a mortality factor and fast. Find a cure for the disease issue? heck yeah, sign me up. But that aint gonna happen. We are left with the predators.

Unfortunately, we do not have the time for "intelligent tinkering". That seems like another way to say, study, study, study....oh, dang it...the moose are all gone now!

Berrettaman, You seem to be determined to accept one, and only one explanation for your concern about moose declines. Unfortunately, I can't help you much with that, and even less with the limited time and quality of my internet connection here in Philadelpia at the moment, but your posts grow ever more adamant that it must be wolves that are responsible. If you have made up your mind, this becomes a religious debate and not a rational debate.




Yes - and no. Always a messy answer, but if truth is messy so be it. FWIW, no wolf biologist around would claim that moose/elk populations are not being reduced by wolves. After all, that was the point. How much of it has been due to wolves is open to debate and the final role of wolves is open to debate. But I don't really think anyone here wants debate - just pronouncement of opinion as fact.





That correlation is not perfect, nor is your data complete. You are ignoring facts that I have brought up here multiple times, including in this thread. But you want to convict wolves of any and all ills - so you have ignored this. Again.




Why admit to a falsehood? To make you happy of course, but that is hardly an honest thing to do. Why do you not admit to wolves NOT being the tipper of any scale? The data, esp. in regard to moose is hardly in your favor.


And how do you know this? Where is your carefully marshaled data for this statement. Again you ignore wolve/moose dynamics over the majority of the 20th century in Minnesota. And the last half is especially relevant and of suitable resolution, yet you pretend it doesn't exist.




Let's take your logic, flawed as it is. Why do you give all the other forms of mortality but wolves a free ride? Bears? You are obviously hot and heavy to kill wolves right and left. Why not bears? Why, in your survey of hunting camps didn't you hear the same amount of whining about bears when they are probably a bigger mortality factor than wolves so far as calves are concerned? And why are you not far more vehemently wanting to after disease issues, which actually have a chance of mattering?


You better learn how to fix the parts that are broken rather than fix the parts that don't matter. If it is true that we "don't know how" Then we better get to work on figuring that out, rather than chasing figments of your political platform. No amount of dealing with the wrong thing, because we can, will fix the problem if it isn't the problem.



You sure seem to be hot to get after wolves, and I as point out above, bears have been given a pass by you and all other hunters - and have been for decades. And that's fine. I give them a pass too, but bears serve to illustrate the prejudices that are rampant in the hunting community.

This week, and even just today, I've been learning a little bit more about wolves, about ticks about disease. Interesting stuff out there, but of course, no one is interested in fixing the problem. No one here anyway, it is just about killing wolves (and some really interesting new info suggests that it just may dramatically backfire).

Time to go back to work. Hope this will post, this connection sucks.

SHOWTIME!

Berettaman,

Produce one cogent argument to support wolf predation being the problem here when the fact of the matter is that until 1962 we absolutely persecuted wolves and it was not until ten years after we protected wolves that we increased the moose population to the point that we could support a season. We had a bounty of very respectable amount on the wolves. We had fur prices that were greater than the bounty and could be collected after the bounty. There was no restriction on shooting wolves, day or night, year round, 24/7, no limits.

Cease killing wolves and ten years later we have enough moose to hunt, and we can support that hunt for a forty year period in the face of growing wolf populations. One fact based cogent argument to support killing wolves that accounts for those facts and I will get you an appointment with the man in charge of the moose program so you can set him straight.

When you consider that the moose crashed first in the N/W corner of the state, and area with far less wolves than the N/E corner, even my neighbor's idiot kid is rational enough to figure out that if wolves are the problem it should be showing up firstest with the mostest where we have more wolves, not where we have fewer.

The only facts re wolves and moose we really have across northern Minnesota is that low wolf numbers coincide with low moose numbers and growing wolf numbers coincide with increasing moose numbers.

Does anyone know if this example of benevolence or symbiosis occurs in other states or provinces?

It's actually quite common in predator/prey studies. It is more common when predator and prey are pretty tightly linked and alternate prey species are few. The populations of predators and prey rise and fall at about the same rate, but the predator populations lag behind the prey populations. In short-lived animals like hares and lynx, the lag time may only be a year or two. In long-lived animals like moose and wolves, cycles may be much more prolonged, appearing to the casual observer (who tends to notice only the highs and lows) to be almost synchronous. The presence of alternate prey populations can buffer the intensity of predation and the highs and lows for both predator and prey populations may be moderated.

All of this can be moderated or exacerbated by extremes of weather, climate, nutrition disease, and parasites. That's why those of us that study this find it hard to accept simple explanations in the absence of hard data.

We do not even know if that is what we are looking at. We just know they coincide. There may be no relationship whatsoever. Maybe the wolves spent forty years developing a taste for moose, then ate the N/W Minnesota moose to death and moved on to the arrowhead. That's why I suggested we'd be lucky to get the right question(s) to ask out of the study.

One might consider that the rather interesting paradox that if you ask an elk hunter where to find elk, he might tell you to go where there are no wolves, but if you ask a wolfer where go to go kill a wolf, he will probably tell you to find their prey.

As mudhen so accurately put it:

We don't do armchair biology - even on the internet.

To be clear, I have said there are many different possibilities on the decline of the moose and keep an open mind to ALL of them. Ask any scientist, ANY ONE, on any subject about this and you will get the same answer. When you close your mind, as you two have done, it is flawed science and the unfortunate result is that your credibility when presenting your ideas takes a major hit. You guys know there are a lot of people here who have "issues" with your wolf arguments and I believe that is why. If you would just come out and say it very well could be wolves causing the problems, but at this point we dont know for sure, I (and I suspect others) could accept that and go along with it. But by refusing a possible scenario, your science is incomplete, pure and simple.

Brent, you even QUOTED me when I said bears do not get a free pass with me....how could you possibly miss that? When you miss something obvious like that, I think that it becomes increasingly hard to convince people of your point. That only applies to me and no one else (including you) should really care about my opinion as it is just that...1 person.

Miles, How do you explain the good moose numbers and relatively low wolf numbers in the 80s and early 90s, then increasing wolf numbers and decreasing moose numbers? Also, deer numbers being down now should result in plenny of moosies rambling around, but in fact the opposite is happening. Lotsa wolves, fewer deer, fewer still moose. then ya got Michigan where you have few wolves and decent moose numbers (albeit rumor has it the moose over there eat leftover cheese from Wisconsin making them immune to diseases). And of course Maine no woofs, plenny moose. You do bring up a solid point of the NW MN moose and I canoodled on that for awhile. Doesnt fit my theory very well I will agree. I think though, that one possible explanation is that the disease mortality may have increased to the point that they couldnt handle it. Left alone without wolves, it may have played itself out as a minor epidemic and not turned into a major one.

I will attempt to explain my theory another way. Lets say that out of 100 calves born in the spring, you need (hypothetical numbers now to illustrate my example) say 50 to live until fall to have stable overall numbers. Cars take 10-20, bears 10-20, disease 10-20, other factors 10-20, and wolves 10-20. Before wolves, you could have a good year and 60 make it meaning an increasing population. You could also have a bad year and they decrease, but overall they usually make it work. Add in the new mortality factor and only on the very best of years do they hold there own and most years they decrease.

Guys, in my humble opinion, we dont have time for studies. it is too late for that. We need to decrease a mortality factor yesterday. The only one I see we have a shot at now are the bear/woofs cuz doing nothing will not work.

Looking forward to you answers, however, I will not have internet access tomorrow so I will not be able to read or reply.

You make to much sense and are to logical Berettaman, closed minds don't listen as they have all the answers.

I can't comment on the moose decline, several factors are no doubt in play. Want to talk about wolf impacts on deer herds in Pine and Carlton counties? Yep, huge impact and I find wolf kills all summer long. But wait, wolves only have the advantage in deep snow and impact the old, young and weak. Yeah right, found two 3.5 year old bucks killed in September last fall, well before the snow was flying and bucks weakened by rut activity. Plus many does along the way.

Thanks for your response, mudhen. I was hoping an answer to my question would be the relationship between wolves and moose exclusively, not prey and predator in general.

Wayne

Don't underestimate the fact that MN is quite different than Canada with respect to domesticated farm animals which wolves can fall back on when their natural prey hit lows. While we wouldn't see this effect in far Northern MN or Canada, but it happens in Central MN quite frequently. JB has commented on this before, keeps the predator numbers artificially high.

BS you can contol the moose with extended or shorten seasons. The wolfees are going to start to get controlled by SSS.

OK. First, let's discuss closed minds. You have neither offered nor suggested any possibility other than killing wolves. Second, I won't speak for anyone else, but my personal position is that we could open the season on wolves 24/7/365 with no limits and we'd probably accomplish the same thing population wise as trying to manage them. But...the pressure on the wolves will do more than what we are now trying when it comes to reducing stock depredation, dog kills and wolf establishment in areas too densely populated to support them. I am old enough to have hunted and trapped wolves legally in Minnesota. Been there, done that, learned what wolves really are about. If you want to look at what the wolf population will do under that pressure just look back at where we in Minnesota have been, or look west at the wolves that have been shot at a couple years more than ours recently. We couldn't extirpate them when we were a hell of a lot more rural state with many, many more people who actually knew something about wolves. Positing that wolves alone could be responsible for this decline is so remote as to be in the same class as Jimmy Hoffa living naked in the north woods subsisting on moose meat alone being responsible.[/quote]

So, take your closed mind single solution and shove it up your ass in front of your face and have a good long look at it until you understand what's coming out of your mouth.



Your claimed facts are wrong. We protected wolves in '62. Moose and wolves both increased at that time. We had wolves with established territories down almost as far as Mora in the late '70s. Wolf survey numbers were very imprecise at that time, and they haven't gotten a whole lot better now. Wolf numbers are constrained more by available territory than reproductive capability. Deer Numbers over the last five years have not been down.



When your thinking matures to the point it can consider the possibility that there maybe weren't enough wolves as a possible explanation for the timing difference between the N/W and the N/E moose declines, you might begin to get a clue.



Juvenile theory. First there is no before wolves. Second it fails to account for the possibility that based on population evidence wolves provide some benefit to moose. Third, it fails to acknowledge that there may be no "new" mortality factor, and that in fact wolves (or something else) may have been holding an existing mortality factor in check at a much lower level.



Another dumb ass conclusion. We have no evidence that we do not have time. There are moose populations in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, Ontario and Manitoba that are in decent shape. We may be looking at a cyclic event. It may recover without our intervention. Until we know the cause, our intervention may make things worse, it wouldn't be the first time we [bleep] up.

Please explain why five years ago I could legally kill 7 deer in Pine county in an area where three pack's territories overlapped.

Please explain why zone 159 in 2011 was an intensive managed zone (5 deer limit) and last year had a 2 deer limit.

Are you just ignorant of the facts or trying to bullshit us? I don't see much else for possibilities here.

One thing is very clear to me, someone annointed you as the leading authority on wolf management, clearly your attitude reflects this. Simply amazing reading your reply to me and Berettaman on this topic, you have all the answers. Was going to respond to your question but I'll pass based on the fact that you have already made up your mind. Wow.

Just finished shooting a match and talking with a wounded warrior from one of the wolf-infested Rocky Mountain states. All he does is hunt and trap. What he has seen from wolves and predators in general is completely opposite of what the wolf-humping/predator advocates in this and every other discussion try to make us believe. He says even the game wardens advocate SSS

He related a story about a Game Department netting operation of cow elk and their calves. A device was inserted into the pregnant cow elk that would send a signal when the calf was born. They then captured and collared the cow and calves for tracking.

By August, all of the animals in the study were dead, 90% by predation.

I know a guy (about 20 miles from our camp) that stumbled upon a wolf den early last spring. He thought it would be cool to set up his trail camera at the den site. From mid-May to mid-June had pictures of over 20 fawns bright back the den.

But lets be honest with the 2 guys who know everything, this example (or others like it) has no impact deer numbers at all!

Well, you made a false claim about the deer population in Pine county just above.

Show us the picture or as far as I am concerned it's more bullshit.

I did? And that is based on what? DNR over estimating deer populations? Aren't you a peach. Grow up, you sound like a little girl.

I fnd it a little amusing that I get to be a "wolf-humping predator advocate" when I advocate unrestricted wolf hunting/trapping and have told anyone who cares to pay attention that the best thing that can happen to Minnesota wolves is hunting.

Show me the numbers.

Show me the pictures.

Show me a rational argument that supports you position.

In this world nobody has the numbers, you, I and DNR included. So in your liberal mind you have won the argument, I get the clever game you like to play.

Bullshit!

The DNR has very good numbers on deer population zone, by zone.

You're the one claiming there are not enough deer in Pine County because of the wolves.

Their numbers and the harvest numbers are calling you a liar or full of [bleep]. Put up numbers to dispute that or shows us otherwise. I have hunted Pine county since the late fiftes and through the sixties and seventies before the wolves were established there. I know what low deer populations in Pine County look like. You can go back to those years and pull up the restrictions they put in place resultant from those population levels. Short seasons and bucks only in Minnesota began there. When there were no wolves established there.

Where did I say that? I said wolves have been having a huge impact on deer. It's lumpy as some areas have been impacted greater than others. As for the DNR knowing the "inventory" I agree to disagree. While you may have me on years I still have over 30 years of chasing deer.

Amazing what an attitude you have, seems I could be insulting your family the way you go off. Glad I guessed your political stance correctly, you argue like someone on the left.

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.