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

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?