Read the comments section in the paper, especially the bottom post!
http://trib.com/news/state-and...ee-737927cedc42.html


Decline in Jackson Hole numbers raises questions, theories


..JACKSON -- Researchers and wildlife managers trying to suss out the cause of moose declines in the Jackson Hole area say there's no simple explanation for the species' diminishing numbers in the past two decades.

Further, moose experts disagree about the degree to which predators could be responsible for the population drop.

What they do know is that the population is currently about 930 animals, or about 26 percent of the 3,600 population objective set by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Hunting opportunities in the region have shrunk to 25 licenses, or roughly 5 percent of 480 moose licenses offered in 1990.

The species' solitary nature and ability to inhabit remote locations make gathering data on Moose difficult, said Joel Berger, a professor of wildlife conservation for the University of Montana.

"Without knowing something about individual survival rates and reproduction, it's hard to get a handle on what's going on," he said.

Berger, who studied moose north of Jackson from 1995 to 2005, said initial perceptions were that bears were having an impact on the population. Wolves, he said, didn't get to Jackson Hole until late 1997.

In his study, Berger used radio collars to track about 20 female moose per year. He also looked at scat samples to evaluate whether the female moose were pregnant.

Berger compared his results to a study in the late 1960s that showed twinning rates, the rate at which cows produce twins, of about 10 percent and pregnancy rates of about 90 percent. What he found was that twinning rates dropped to less than 5 percent and pregnancy rates declined to 75 percent.

"This suggested that it wasn't predation but that it had to have some basis in nutrition," he said.

Further, while wolves heavily impacted calf survival during one particular year, overall calf survival tended to be relatively high.

As for mortality of adult female moose, malnutrition accounted for 60 percent of known deaths, while predation, roads and human hunting accounted for 10 percent each. The final 10 percent of mortalities were caused by unknown factors. Those trends, Berger said, stayed relatively constant throughout the study.

Berger's best guess is that 50 years ago, as moose populations came into the ecosystem, willows were far more abundant than they are now and the moose populations increased. However, he said, moose began to deplete those willows, and the population subsequently dropped.

Scott Becker, a bear and wolf management specialist for the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, studied moose in the region from 2005 to 2008 to determine the leading cause of the population declines in the northern part of the Jackson Herd.

Becker and his colleagues put collared adult male and female moose with GPS and radio units. While adult males had good survival rates, female survival was variable, often depending on the severity of the winter.

In addition to looking at survival rates, Becker measured the condition of animals during trapping and collaring, which took place from mid-February to late March.

"It appeared that moose were deficient in four different nutrients based on the hair and blood analysis -- copper, manganese, phosphorus and zinc," he said.

Wildlife researchers don't have a good idea of what normal levels of those nutrients are in moose, he said, but "they all play important roles in reproduction."

As for measures of reproductive success, pregnancy rates were relatively high, while parturition rates -- pregnant cows observed with calves the following spring -- were slightly below average. For the first eight weeks of life, calf survival was 63 percent, relatively high, while annual calf survival was 46 percent, also somewhat high.

"There's no question that some calves that hit the ground are being lost due to bear predation, but at this time it's not a big problem," Becker said. "It is more similar to populations that are more limited by habitat rather than heavy predation."

Becker said his study showed reproduction rates to be a bigger problem than calf survival.

Like Berger, Becker has some guesses about what habitat problems could be limiting the moose population. One is that the 1988 fires or perhaps mountain pine beetles have limited conifer cover, which the moose depend on in the summer to keep cool. If moose have to spend more time seeking shade, that could mean they spend less time eating, he said.

Now, more predators in the area could be accounting for more moose mortality.

"We didn't have that many wolves running around Buffalo Valley or down in Pacific Creek," Becker said. "In recent years, the dynamics of wolves in that area has changed."

Doug Brimeyer, Wyoming Game and Fish north Jackson wildlife biologist, agreed that habitat likely has some role to play in the decline of the moose population but cautioned against discounting the effect of predators.

"Your habitat can cause some reproductive declines in the population, but when the moose population is at a lower level, the predator numbers can suppress the population growth," he said. "Predator levels are not declining at all, so they'll start showing impacts on the overall population. ... the potential for population growth."

B.J. Hill, a local outfitter, said he thinks the claims about habitat loss are exaggerated. Of predators, he believes grizzly bears probably have a greater impact on moose than wolves.

"I think all the ungulates were holding their own with the grizzly," Hill said. "Now we've added the second predator. It seems to have outrun our moose population. We've taken the best moose hunting (in the country), and now it's ended up being the worst."

quote:

Now, more predators in the area could be accounting for more moose mortality.

Geez,ya think??????

Here in Alaska, quite common for bear to take 85% of calf production; Mid May through Early June; really hard on the moose.

I wonder how many have just moved out of the area. There is a trend of elk doing that. We now have elk hunting areas where elk haven't been since the area was settled.

Zhurh

Frankly, thst stat you gave us is astonishing. Is there some reason for this -because bears would simply wipe out moose in no time at all if your figures are correct. Please don't tink I am calling you a liar -Emphatically, I am not! You're the guy who is there on the ground. I'm just astonished that moose are fading so fast. I hope you will enlighten us on "the lower 48".

I'm not making this up, will try to find something from F&G to prove this.

Bear can run down new born calves but can't when they are a month old as they are not so defenseless with momma. Bear hit moose when they drop calves and wolves hammer them in deep snow all winter. There has been talk about Ariel bear control but with all the fuss the wolf lovers go crazy over; the idea never goes anywhere.

If you had any appreciable numbers of bear back east, you'd see the deer pops go down too.

We have many areas where the moose are all but extinct; F&G claims every wolf eats 6 moose/year. They take the largest portion of the resource, not man. In Sweden, they take 250,000 moose every year, I bet not 50,000 in Ak. Sweden almost farms their moose, and only has several small wolf packs and keeps it that way. They have small short legged grizz bears and they hunt with dogs, but bear are growing quick and starting to hit the moose in Sweden too. I had a friend take plotts to Sweden hunting bears 2 years back, told me some unreal stories.

Bear target moose calves for about a month, then start on salmon, and then berries, ect. Grizz migrate to the food sources seasonally.

They even talked about making a restriction that inorder to get a moose tag, you had to shoot a grizz in some areas. They can't get people to follow limits now, that idea fell by the wayside too.

Balance of nature really only allows the land to produce maybe 20% What it's able to support with game management. Predators work the resource down. then the predators starve too. You end up with a token number of animals on a land that once had 10X the numbers, no joke. Trouble is there's people today who all need to shoot a moose for their winter meat. We need F&G to see to it that there's alot of moose out there, not just feed the wolves & bear.

One thing that needs to be understood, is that there never has been a "Balance" in nature.

That goes well beyond the point when humans entered the picture however long back that was.

When humans became involved it added a whole new set of conditions to the scheme that magnified the whole imbalance.

Not disputing any one persons word here, but mortality rates of young of the year animals of any species, that go above a certain percent, + or - 30% or so, by natural vectors, will cause the extinction/eradication of that species in a relatively short time.

Add into that the number of animals killed by other circumstances i.e., behicle hits, hunters, drought, food shortages, severe winter, floods, range/forest fires, and then figure in the actual amount of suitable habitat and the carrying capacity of that habitat, and it is easy to see where localized popuations of various species could be wiped out quickly.

One of the problems in this whole picture, is that too many folks have the ability to sway or influence the decisions/work that the State and Federal Wildlife Management agencies are responsible for.

No one really knows for sure what the actual carrying capacity is on any one given piece of wild ground.

High fenced, controllable properties yes, but not open, unfenced areas covering thousands if not millions of acres.

The problem with the wolves, is that the few people with any real knowledge of the effect wolves have on the rest of the species sharing their range, were neither consulted or listened to.

People vast distances removed from the problem were given a voice and allowed to help make the restocking decisions, regardless of the fact that none of them were going to have to live with/deal with the problems on a first hand basis.

Conversely, and this will piss someone, maybe several people, off I am sure, but hunters are just as guilty in wanting game animal numbers at what actually are artificially high numbers, usually far above the carrying capacity of the range.

The one thing that gets mentioned in these discussions, but is not really thought about or understood, is that predators are indiscriminant killers, while humans are not.

Look at that statement and then think about this.

Predators pick out the prey that is easiest for them to obtain, the ones that require less energy on their part, grizzlies taking moose calves, coyotes taking white tail fawns, etc. etc..

Humans on the other hand, many humans, I have not noticed Native Americans being that picky, take only the animals that they feel like taking.

That is not part of the Natural process.

Because humans that hunt are involved with hunting in any aspect are looking for particular animals to shoot, we on the whole do not really do anything to help the natural process to happen.

Using the moose problem as an example, the locals in the area wnt lots of moose for a meat source.

Trophy hunters want lots of BIG moose to bring home as trophies, with the meat being a peripheral concern, or maybe not even figured in to the equation.

Then steps in the Greenies from NYC or Boston, and they decide that they want to be able to go to Alaska and see and hear wolves in the wild.

Because our system is screwed up by there being Federal and State lands adjoining each other, and the Feds having ultimate authority, the management of the States wildlife is effectively taken out of the States hands.

In this case by the introduction/protection of a highly effective and prolific predator, that had been for the most part in some or many areas a minor player in the game.

Add to that, the protection granted grizzly bears, throw in subsistence hunting by NA's, legal hunting by the locals and the NR Trophy hunters, add poaching and throw in other natural mortality numbers, and it is easy to see that a species like the moose can easily become extinct in any given area/region/ecosystem.

The answer, would be for the Feds to back off and let the folks that have an actual stake in the health of the moose herd, or that of any other species in the state, manage the resource.

The moose can ot be managed if the predators aren't managed also.

Doing it that way is going to slide the moose into oblivion with the predators eventually following after they have exhausted all the other food sources.

That is all just my opinion.

Humans in the picture really does affect everything, but I don't think states will start limiting sales on hunting licenses anytime soon; so as to lower total hunters in the woods.

Wolf populations have grown in recent years, moose & caribou & to some extent sheep numbers suffering. It is not uncommon to see huge packs along the Yukon in some places (20-25) not 4-5 what you usually see. In those areas, moose are about gone; why the state has been using helicopters to lower wolf numbers. Our 40 mile herd was 425,000 animals in 1920's, use to stop river traffic for days during migration. It was around 70.000 15 years back and then started dropping. Went down to 35,000 with hunters taking 800 animals every season over the entire time frame, human take wasn't the problem. Soon as they started wolf control, caribou went back up to around 50,000. F&G claims wolves really are the problem, but every wolf control idea is fought by the wolf luvers. They won't be happy until both the wolf & caribou are gone.

So this winter, they wanted to take 350 wolves by helicopter but snow conditions didn't work out, didn't hit their mark. Last winter they got 88 wolves in 3 days before wolf luvers from lower 48 filed an injunction.

This past winter state shot 2 radio collared wolves that had strayed off Yukon Charlie (fed park) and feds went nuts. Greenie park ranger said he wasn't doing his job unless tourists got to hear wolves; man what a nut? Locals think maybe he should start worrying about the moose not the wolves.

We all have subsistence permits, nearest Sams is 500 miles away, we live off what the land and river provides or go hungry;;; and that ain't gonna happen. People only respect rule of law when it is fair, and there will never be enough law enforcement to make the locals do otherwise. Increasing numbers of outside hunters come in to hunt which is only right, everybody wants to go hunting with their kids. Our community is 150 people total, 200 miles from nx nearest town. We get hundreds in for moose & over a thousand for caribou. Resource can stand the strain if you let old wolf numbers keep growing.

People come first in my mind, keep wolf numbers in check. Locals will not starve, they will shoot what they need and heck with the laws. Moose & caribou; and wolves too will suffer in that scenario in the end.

True, in some parts of Alaska moose numbers are falling, but in other area the reverse is true.

In Dillingham our moose numbers have been growing along with the bear and wolf numbers. Okay, I suppose I should have said wolf and bear numbers have been increasing along with the moose numbers. Anecdotal evidence, (the rumor mill,) has it that wolf numbers have decreased the last year or two due to heavy hunting/ trapping pressure.

Our available moose habitat far outstrips the mooses utilization so starvation as mentioned in the article above hasn't been a worry. Predator hunting around Dillingham is popular with both residents and tourists so I suppose time will tell how effective sport hunting as a management tool will be here.

Locals starving? Theres no chance of that regardless the available moose for the table. Whens the last time you saw a skinny Alaskan? Height/ weight proportionate Alaskans are like a Blue Moon. Sams Club may be 500 miles away but I know darn well your local village store is chock full of soda pop and candy bars.

Well, I sure wish our moose numbers were on the upswing. Actually, we don't have 20% of the moose that was found here along upper Yukon 20 years back. Outside hunters play a small part, but wolves & bear affect the moose more. WE once had guide services based outta our community, not anymore.

Nobody wants to see subsistence preferences limiting outside hunters, heck I have friends that come in to hunt also. If numbers keep dropping, that's what will occur though; and the feds really try pushing this against the state. Divide & conquer with Indians, rural Whites, and outside hunters.

Milkman use to be 25 bucks/box in Anch; $95 bucks in our local store, they still have some too. We buy as little as possible from our hole in the wall pop shop, but I don't mind paying 5 bucks for a half rotten tomato in winter though.

We usually get a few caribou & a moose every fall; provides our meat; salmon in the summer. Most locals have it worse off than we do though; can't afford local store prices. If it gets harder to make it than nowadays down the road, locals will shoot even more of the game out there; regardless of limits & laws. Nearest trooper is 200 miles away and game violations are very low priority for enforcement on the locals. F&G shows up for opener when all the outsiders are here. Locals shoot game all year long, when nobody is around. Why we need increasing moose numbers for everything to work right rather than having subsistence regulations limiting people from outside hunting here; nobody wants to see that occur.

Gerry Peters, Here is article I saw today in paper concerning calf survival from bear & wolf depredation on calves. It said 65-70% but was higher in our area. You can see it living here. This time of year not uncommon to have moose with calves in the yard (knowing they are safe) and we live in an area where the Indians shoot every cow they see 24/7.

http://www.newsminer.com/view/...ws_window_left_top_3

I always enjoy ticking off the Westerners! Frankly, the moose I saw in Ontario most of my hunting life never looked bright enough to come in from the rain. You guys blame the wolves? I'm only amazed that moose have survived this long!

The article that kudu56 posted talks about adding of wolves as predators in WY. I think the ADDING part is the critical factor. Sure wolves, and bears kill plenty of moose but remember they were all playing together for a long time before we came along.

The fact of the mater is that moose as a species are struggling in lots of places. No one really has all of the answers but the facts are facts. As these populations face additional survival pressures they are declining. You can blame wolves, bears, brain worms, ticks, hunting pressure, reduced habitat, and warmer weather. I tend to think it is the combination of everything pushing them to a stress tipping point. The problem is we only have some control over the predators and the hunters and we can't agree on how to control even these. In the end I think the glory days of moose hunting are over in the lower 48 and questionable in AK and Canada.

On a sad note I found out today I did not draw a MN moose hunting permit this year. Bummer!

MN moose decline perspective... http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/vol.../julaug08/moose.html

quote:

The moose can ot be managed if the predators aren't managed also.

That pretty much sums up a great post!

When I hunted Ontario (about 100 mi north and east of Lake of the Woods) in 2008, the guides were very concerned that, with warmer summers (not necessarily winters), the moose were under greater stress.

And while I don't follow closely the data on how warm the last 10 or so summers have been - compared to historical averages - the idea makes sense to me, at least at first look.

If summer temps are warm enought to stress moose, combined with unmanaged preadator populations, coupled with habitat degredation (and don't tell me that isn't happening), then moose and elk will surely suffer!

friar

Interior Alaska gets 80-95 degree days all summer long, always has. Yet there were many more moose here years ago. After 25 years of study, F&G now realizes it's the increasing wolves & bear that are the problem. Sure glad they didn't wait till almost every last moose was gone. People here wonder why the Fed park people keep doing wolf studies? People here figure maybe it's time to study the moose because nobody eats wolves and most prefer moose over bear.

quote:

In the end I think the glory days of moose hunting are over in the lower 48 and questionable in AK and Canada.

I'm sorry sir but I don't think you have any idea what you are speaking of. I have been seeing more and more moose for the last ten years or so.

I can tell you where one of the moose went today. It was hit and killed by a Werner truck where Interstate 80 crosses the Blacks Fork River. The accident happened around 8 AM today.
Regards, Keith