Minnesota Moose problems

[lockhaven]

http://www.aws.vcn.com/fact.html
I expressed my opinion it was not meant to be a factual statement, there are two sides to every issue. I do not have a dog in this fight because I do not live in an area where wolves have been introduced. I stand by my opinion that it is real easy to defend a policy when it has zero affect on your life. I do apologize to those offended

 

[Stick895]

If bears and wolves are too many, then open up hunting on bears and wolves.

 

[lockhaven]

If bears and wolves are too many, then open up hunting on bears and wolves.

I totally agree but in the case of wolves some consider them sacred.

 

[toppop52]

Climate change is real and ongoing, funny thing is, it always has been. It's always been wet, cold, warm and dry, just depended on when you looked. WE want to take records of 130 or so years, forget that we are only 150 or so years out of The Little Ice Age, and claim some hypothetical future disaster based on political blather. Man may well have over hunted some species into trouble, not the first time, been happening since man figured out he could hunt. Species will ebb and flow and some will disappear. If we see where we screw up, make changes, but don't blame evry problem on global warming, it makes one seem rather silly.

 

[teejk]

If bears and wolves are too many, then open up hunting on bears and wolves.

Not so easy...bears have been hunted in northern Wisconsin for decades. But for whatever reason the estimated population was "low-balled" and the harvest quota was way too low. In the meantime, bears being bears (highly territorial and not nice to each other), the excess bears had to find new territory. I saw my first bear track in central Wisconsin about 30 years ago. Now they continue to migrate south and are crossing the Illinois border. It doesn't help that the migration has moved them into corn growing areas so litters of 4 cubs are no longer a freak of nature and they are getting bigger...700 lbs was unheard of a few years ago but now is ho-hum.

As it stands now, they have become pests (birdfeeders, garbage cans, dogs and cats and other stuff). So our annual harvest quota now exceeds the total estimated population from 30 years ago. A lot of that is due to technology that permits a better means of estimating the population, a lot of that is due to people wanting to protect bears as long as they didn't feel the impact.

Wolves...for some strange reason, the decision was taken to protect them and let them re-establish a population goal of 350 animals in the north forest region where they used to exist (little impact on livestock/humans). Everybody signed off on that at the time. At the time when that number was reached, steps were taken to delist them. Lawsuits galore from some group in Washington DC. Back on the protected list and the central part of the state adopted what is known as the "3 S's"...(shoot, shovel, shut-up). Only 3 years ago did they get unlisted and our first controlled hunt started last year. The lawsuits continue of course.

So back to my original point...wildlife management practices do have "dominoes".

 

[dave1949]

Some moose info related to Minnesota, New Hampshire and Maine:
Maine Launches 5-Year Study to Monitor Moose Population | Outdoor Life

Maine is home to an estimated 70,000 moose, and biologists say they seem to be thriving. But neighboring state New Hampshire has suffered substantial declines among its own herds and recently launched a study to understand why. New Hampshire moose fell from roughly 7,000 animals in the 1990s to the current population of just 4,000.

Minnesota’s moose have also taken a huge hit. After a sharp population decline of 35 percent from 2012 to 2013, the Department of Natural Resources called off the state’s 2013 moose hunt last February. All future moose hunts are suspended until the state successfully revives the species. The DNR estimated just 2,760 moose live in Minnesota, an enormous drop from the peak population of nearly 9,000 moose in in 2006.

While Maine’s habitat lacks two of the major factors biologists say are affecting moose in New Hampshire and Minnesota — Maine moose enjoy a colder climate than New Hampshire moose and Maine does not have a wolf population; and wolves are a common predator in Minnesota — there are other things that can threaten the population. DNR officials suspect mortality rates are caused by health problems and other stress-related factors.

“Where there’s moderate temperatures, there are parasites,” Maine biologist Lee Kantar told the Press Herald, referring to New Hampshire.

Winter ticks caused major concerns when New Hampshire conducted a moose study in the early 2000s. Wildlife officials think the parasites could be to blame for recent declines, and researchers are counting ticks as part of s moose study New Hampshire launched earlier this month.


Moose tagger gets knocked on butt:
Video: Maine moose released into wild attacks man | The Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME

 

[jimmpatrick]

[
What is absolutely wrong with this is: people are judging the health or status of wildlife populations based on whether or not they can successfully harvest a handful of game animal species. It is a market-driven commercialization of wildlife. Continuing in that manner will bring us exactly to where Western European countries are today; hunting is very limited and strictly for the wealthy. We are already halfway there.[/QUOTE]

Hunting in Britain is very expensive, but that is because the limited land available for hunting is of very poor quality and money must be spent to ensure a decent amount of game to shoot. Hunting in France and Spain, on the other hand, is for everyone. In France it is limited only in that hunters are granted permission to shoot a certain number of animals.

 

[dave1949]

[
What is absolutely wrong with this is: people are judging the health or status of wildlife populations based on whether or not they can successfully harvest a handful of game animal species. It is a market-driven commercialization of wildlife. Continuing in that manner will bring us exactly to where Western European countries are today; hunting is very limited and strictly for the wealthy. We are already halfway there.

Hunting in Britain is very expensive, but that is because the limited land available for hunting is of very poor quality and money must be spent to ensure a decent amount of game to shoot. Hunting in France and Spain, on the other hand, is for everyone. In France it is limited only in that hunters are granted permission to shoot a certain number of animals.

Hunting is very limited in Germany, and expensive. The district Jaegermeister controls the hunting and tells you what to shoot and where. Hunting sections are leased by a very small number of hunters. The population density and fairly intensive land use, even in more rural areas, are limiting factors. That is my knowledge of central western Germany. The game consists of wild boar, large red deer, a very small deer variety, hare, and a few game birds.

Overall, the point is that the US is just beginning to approach the population density and intensity of land use that has existed in W. Europe for centuries. We can learn some lessons on how things will tend to develop from your history. It is not necessary to discover these things like it's the first time and place it ever happened.

 

[teejk]

Hunting is very limited in Germany, and expensive. The district Jaegermeister controls the hunting and tells you what to shoot and where. Hunting sections are leased by a very small number of hunters. The population density and fairly intensive land use, even in more rural areas, are limiting factors. That is my knowledge of central western Germany. The game consists of wild boar, large red deer, a very small deer variety, hare, and a few game birds.

Overall, the point is that the US is just beginning to approach the population density and intensity of land use that has existed in W. Europe for centuries. We can learn some lessons on how things will tend to develop from your history. It is not necessary to discover these things like it's the first time and place it ever happened.

Not a fair comparison. With the introduction of modern firearms in the mid 1800's, Europe pretty much eradicted its game populations (much like we almost lost the American bison and wild turkey and had a few other species on the teeter totter, including white-tailed deer) and they never recovered in sufficient numbers. With nothing to hunt, people quit hunting and it is no longer part of their life-style. The US is a huge landmass and was sparsely populated when the concept of wild-life manangement came into being (1930's or so). There is $$$ in keeping stuff to shoot at. Like it or not, money talks.

 

[lockhaven]

I agree with the money, if it were not for hunters big game would not exist today. Peta and the humane society contribute zero to habitat preservation or construction, it is the hunters that pay the bills.