well I guess rather than speculate, we have numbers that we can go by

although this certainly won't prevent people from pontificating :)

0f the 150 moose collared by the DNR since 2002, 119 have died
11 killed by wolves
10 by cars
96 b parasites and disease

perhaps cars should be banned to save the moose population?

Moose are also in decline in Ontario & Manitoba

They only know how 21 of them died. Of those, 11 (over 50%) were wolf kills. The only thing that can be concluded from these numbers is wolf predation was somewhere between 9% and 91%. The study was done over a long period of time so I'm sure a lot of them got old and became easy prey, starved, etc.

In my opinion a big part of the moose decline has more to do with loss of good habitat than anything else. Over the past 4 decades there has been no logging and until the last couple of years no fires to revitalize an otherwise aging forest. When we have a mature forest with lots fo balasm fir, black spruce, and jack pine, you are not going to see a whole lot for any wildlife. I for one am confident that we will see an increase in the moose population over the next several years as long as the deer don't overrun the pagami creek burn area.

There was talk prior to the blowdown in 1999 about reintroducing the woodland caribou to the park as they would do well in the mature forest, but after the blowdown, I didn't hear any more talk of it.

quote CrookedPaddler1: "In my opinion a big part of the moose decline has more to do with loss of good habitat than anything else. Over the past 4 decades there has been no logging and until the last couple of years no fires to revitalize an otherwise aging forest. When we have a mature forest with lots fo balasm fir, black spruce, and jack pine, you are not going to see a whole lot for any wildlife. I for one am confident that we will see an increase in the moose population over the next several years as long as the deer don't overrun the pagami creek burn area.


There was talk prior to the blowdown in 1999 about reintroducing the woodland caribou to the park as they would do well in the mature forest, but after the blowdown, I didn't hear any more talk of it. "

I agree. Interesting comments about reintroducing caribou. I had never heard that but it makes a little sense. If logging ruined caribou habitat and created moose habitat, maybe the maturing forests in the BW would make good caribou habitat again someday.

I think that was the idea, that in the late 90's the forest was very mature and had the food sources that the caribou relied on versus the woody vegetation that deer and moose thrive on. But the blowdown destroyed the caribou habitat and did very little to fully rejuvinate an otherwise pretty sterile forest. Now that we have had a couple of pretty good fires over the past half a dozen years, I think that we will see a spike in numbers. My fear though, is that it might be int he deer herd versus the moose herd.

I will pontificate a little more since I think the original intent of this post was to 'prove' that wolves are not effecting the moose population. This study, along with every other study proves that wolves do eat moose. I conclude, that the current and growing wolf population of 3,000 to 4,000 animals are eating more moose per year than a decade ago when there were less wolves.

it is apparent that the data clearly has aroused you

wolves prey on moose
the wolf population is growing
the moose population is falling
ergo: the wolves are responsible for the declining moose population

clearly the data does not support this

wolves have only a small affect on the moose population, no more than being hit by automobiles, both account for less than 10% of moose deaths

you can muse all you want, and believe whatever you choose, but that doesn't change the facts

your comments on habitat could have some validity, but you have to remember that the same thing is happening in Northern Ontario and Northeastern Manitoba, and as for woodland caribou go to Wabakimi or Woodland Caribou provincial parks and try to find one, they aren't doing very well there either, you need LOTS of room for them to flourish

quote ZaraSp00k: "it is apparent that the data clearly has aroused you


wolves prey on moose
the wolf population is growing
the moose population is falling
ergo: the wolves are responsible for the declining moose population


clearly the data does not support this


wolves have only a small affect on the moose population, no more than being hit by automobiles, both account for less than 10% of moose deaths


you can muse all you want, and believe whatever you choose, but that doesn't change the facts


your comments on habitat could have some validity, but you have to remember that the same thing is happening in Northern Ontario and Northeastern Manitoba, and as for woodland caribou go to Wabakimi or Woodland Caribou provincial parks and try to find one, they aren't doing very well there either, you need LOTS of room for them to flourish"

Not sure how you are reading the numbers but the data shows that wolf predation on the adult moose in this study was at least 10%. It was somewhere between 10% and 90% as they do not know how most of the moose died. To say that wolf predation was only 10% is almost as ridiculous as saying it was 90%. It was somewhere in between. I think it was lower than 50% but it should be noted that they know how 21 of them died and 50% of the known deaths were from wolves.

By the way, Ontario is experiencing a record high wolf population. It is elementary biology. High wolf populations reduce the moose population. Maybe that is a good thing to prevent disease and starvation so I'm not saying wolf predation is bad, but why are people so afraid to admit the real numbers? Never mind, I know the answer to that question.

I just read the original post more carefully. You are assuming that 96 of the moose died from parasites or disease. Maybe that is why you are saying less than 10 percent was from predation. Actually, they do not know how most of the moose died. No doubt x number of those missing moose were wolf food.

The DNR's Moose Research and Management Plan is available online and has an earlier (c.2010) summary of non-hunting mortality stats.

It's interesting because in this document they break out "unknown-health related" from "unknown". Truly "unknown" was 36%. I don't know if the newly reported stats are yet available at this level of detail, but I'd imagine not a lot has changed since 2010.

see Fig 6, pg 25

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/wildlife/moose/management/mooseplan-final.pdf

The researchers state that "predators are likely not influencing adult survival" but calf mortality due to predation is a big unknown because they don't radio-collar calves.

In any case, between all the factors involved, the future for moose in MN does not look good.

whether you are a hunter or just want to look at them, you should be concerned about the situation, and argueing about the statistics,or spinning them to your own emd will not change the situation, only understanding the problem, and then finding a solution will.

nice link thistlekicker

the Isle Royal study also sheds some light on the situation, but the problem there is if it is generalizable to areas elsewhere, as it is a small area unique and different from other areas

an interesting read

I've done a lot of reading on this subject myself. Walleye Hunter is spot on. The only thing that we are not hearing is how many calfs are being killed by the wolves. I read that the moose are big and strong and bla bla bla and can protect themselves from the wolves. That's all fine and dandy if you are a big pissed off bull moose. Not entirely so if you are a young baby moose that has become seperated from it's mother.
The population is obviously dropping due to several reasons including parasites and wacky moose brain disease. Where are the young to take the place of these old, sick moose that are falling prey to the wolves though? Oh, they were eaten while they were young. Of all the photos and reports I can find, there are fewer and fewer that include calfs.
For some reason, this doesn't seem to come up too often. Wonder why? Probably because it is true. Maybe not but maybe it is.

I heard a story on a Duluth area radio station two weeks ago saying research is now being done on the mortality rate of moose with equine encephalitis in Minnesota. The story said something like 25% of collared moose had equine encephalitis antibodies in their blood. I just found this news report originally from the DNT that says some of the same things I heard.

quote walleye_hunter: "

quote CrookedPaddler1: "In my opinion a big part of the moose decline has more to do with loss of good habitat than anything else. Over the past 4 decades there has been no logging and until the last couple of years no fires to revitalize an otherwise aging forest. When we have a mature forest with lots fo balasm fir, black spruce, and jack pine, you are not going to see a whole lot for any wildlife. I for one am confident that we will see an increase in the moose population over the next several years as long as the deer don't overrun the pagami creek burn area.



There was talk prior to the blowdown in 1999 about reintroducing the woodland caribou to the park as they would do well in the mature forest, but after the blowdown, I didn't hear any more talk of it. "

I agree. Interesting comments about reintroducing caribou. I had never heard that but it makes a little sense. If logging ruined caribou habitat and created moose habitat, maybe the maturing forests in the BW would make good caribou habitat again someday."

The best area they thought for the introduction would be in the little saganaga-gabi area,because of low deer population present in that area. Worried about brain worm effecting the caribou.

anybody know the rational the DNR is using to only allow 3000 hunters during the first hunt? It seems to me they are drastically overestimating the success rate. If MN hunters have the same success rate as Montana, only 30 hunters will go home happy.

I believe MN hunters will have a better success rate than Montana, but 7 times?? 2 or 3 times would be more realistic, with the present number of hunters, I am guessing only 60-90 wolves will be taken during the first hunt. I believe the second hunt will be far more successful, they may even hit the quota, but I won't be surprised if even the second hunt falls a little short. IMO, they should have allowed twice as many hunters during the first hunt.

The DNR's job is to manage the resources, that also means maximize the value to the public. It is nice that they took in about $100,000 for the application, it may even cover the cost of the application/lottery process. But at most there will be 270 out of state licenses, which will bring in at most $67,500. The instate licenses will bring in $171,000. The DNR is always complaining how they don't have adequate funding, well when you shoot yourself in the foot like this, you only have yourself to blame.

Why limit out of state hunters to 5% of licenses? They will bring a lot of money into the state. And if 23,000 hunters want a crack at a wolf, why deny them?

It is a all new type of season and they want to start out on the conservative side. I think they are doing it right.

I stole this from another forum -- so not sure if all the data is accurate but definitely something to think about.

Alaska's Fish & Game estimates AK's wolf population at 8,000 - 11,000. And they have had a wolf trapping season there forever.

MN Fish & Game estimates MN wolf population at 3,500.

Alaska's land mass is 570,374 sq mi and MN land mass is 79,617 sq mi. This means MN has twice as many wolves per sq mi than AK. And when you consider most of the wolves are in the northern 40% of the state, they are even more concentrated.

Alaska's wolf population has never been in danger, or even close to it, according to their Fish & Game Dept.

My thought was why are they giving out so many permits? I asked my question and maybe can answer your question with this thought. They are allowing only so many to be taken. Less wolfs can be shot than there are permits being given. It's a long shot but what would happen if by chance a whole lot of wolves were shot the first day or two before they had the chance to close the season? There would be a lot of ticked-off wolf lovers out there, that's what.
400 permits for the early season right? 200 the late. It's just possible that 1500 people could go out that first weekend and and all shoot a wolf. Whoa! That's going to be 900 over the quota. Like I stated, that isn't likely to happen but it could. Once all those people are out in their deer stands with a deer and wolf tag in hand, a lot of wolves could go really fast.
Just my thought on why they didn't offer more permits for sale. You are right though, it would bring in some good money.

It will be interesting to see what happens. Perhaps most of the license seekers were those living amongst the wolves, in which case my estimate is a little low because I am assuming the license seekers reflected the general deer hunter population, which likely isn't true.

I thought it was a total of 400 licenses wolves to be killed,unless they change that.If it goes over because success was so good,the kill would still be so low compared to the total population. The safety margin is so great.

I think it is 400 for the early season and then 200 for the reamaining late season and trapping and any tags not filled during the early season would roll over to the second season. I think. I will have to re-read that this evening.

I see I am incorrect. It is 400 tags total with 200 being held over for the late season. I was adding the 400 and 200 together to get my 600.
I apologize, I was wrong.

DNR wolf hunt

From my conversations that I have had with a few people that I know with the DNR, they feel that a majority of the wolves will be taken by trappers -- that once a shot or two have been fired at wolves, they will become nocturnal a avoid the areas with hunters. But we will see what happens -- the first year -- maybe a few more get shot by hunters, but after this year, the wolves will have a bit of the fear of humans back in them and will probably become more secretive.

From my conversations that I have had with a few people that I know with the DNR, they feel that a majority of the wolves will be taken by trappers -- that once a shot or two have been fired at wolves, they will become nocturnal a avoid the areas with hunters. But we will see what happens -- the first year -- maybe a few more get shot by hunters, but after this year, the wolves will have a bit of the fear of humans back in them and will probably become more secretive.

I think 95% of the gun killed wolves will happen during deer season,when all the activity is moving them.
I do know the federal trappers are extremely effective in removing wolves when needed around livestock.

I agree. I also believe most of the wolves taken with firearms will be from those sitting in a deer stand.

I predict 4 years from now the decline in moose population will be unabated

quote fitgers1: "My thought was why are they giving out so many permits? I asked my question and maybe can answer your question with this thought. They are allowing only so many to be taken. Less wolfs can be shot than there are permits being given. It's a long shot but what would happen if by chance a whole lot of wolves were shot the first day or two before they had the chance to close the season? There would be a lot of ticked-off wolf lovers out there, that's what.
400 permits for the early season right? 200 the late. It's just possible that 1500 people could go out that first weekend and and all shoot a wolf. Whoa! That's going to be 900 over the quota. Like I stated, that isn't likely to happen but it could. Once all those people are out in their deer stands with a deer and wolf tag in hand, a lot of wolves could go really fast.
Just my thought on why they didn't offer more permits for sale. You are right though, it would bring in some good money."

Agree. Another potential reason for the moderate number of permits may be the fact that there are a LOT of wolves killed illegally when rifle season starts, anyway. I would expect that to continue, maybe even increase if people rationalize that it's no longer a federal critter, but 'just' a state one.

quote Northland: "

quote fitgers1: "My thought was why are they giving out so many permits? I asked my question and maybe can answer your question with this thought. They are allowing only so many to be taken. Less wolfs can be shot than there are permits being given. It's a long shot but what would happen if by chance a whole lot of wolves were shot the first day or two before they had the chance to close the season? There would be a lot of ticked-off wolf lovers out there, that's what.
400 permits for the early season right? 200 the late. It's just possible that 1500 people could go out that first weekend and and all shoot a wolf. Whoa! That's going to be 900 over the quota. Like I stated, that isn't likely to happen but it could. Once all those people are out in their deer stands with a deer and wolf tag in hand, a lot of wolves could go really fast.
Just my thought on why they didn't offer more permits for sale. You are right though, it would bring in some good money."

Agree. Another potential reason for the moderate number of permits may be the fact that there are a LOT of wolves killed illegally when rifle season starts, anyway. I would expect that to continue, maybe even increase if people rationalize that it's no longer a federal critter, but 'just' a state one."

That will be interesting about the illegal kill.I could see it going either way. It actually may go down because people think the wolves are more of a game animal and will wait to get their own permit?

quote PINETREE: "

quote Northland: "

quote fitgers1: "My thought was why are they giving out so many permits? I asked my question and maybe can answer your question with this thought. They are allowing only so many to be taken. Less wolfs can be shot than there are permits being given. It's a long shot but what would happen if by chance a whole lot of wolves were shot the first day or two before they had the chance to close the season? There would be a lot of ticked-off wolf lovers out there, that's what.
400 permits for the early season right? 200 the late. It's just possible that 1500 people could go out that first weekend and and all shoot a wolf. Whoa! That's going to be 900 over the quota. Like I stated, that isn't likely to happen but it could. Once all those people are out in their deer stands with a deer and wolf tag in hand, a lot of wolves could go really fast.
Just my thought on why they didn't offer more permits for sale. You are right though, it would bring in some good money."

Agree. Another potential reason for the moderate number of permits may be the fact that there are a LOT of wolves killed illegally when rifle season starts, anyway. I would expect that to continue, maybe even increase if people rationalize that it's no longer a federal critter, but 'just' a state one."

That will be interesting about the illegal kill.I could see it going either way. It actually may go down because people think the wolves are more of a game animal and will wait to get their own permit? "

Very true. Here's hoping this will put some value on the wolf. I'm interested to see if - after we take a few hundred and thin the numbers a bit - if the same people who were always moaning about not seeing any deer and blaming wolves will have a different complaint.

I've seen little discussion - I repeat "little" - of an aspect of species reduction is that the remaining members compensate for the loss by an extra breeding 'session' to replace those abnormally lost.
In essence, removing 400 wolves will, in effect, cause the remaining wolves to replace those lost IN ADDITION to their normal production.
When it's all said and done, by next year, there will be more wolves here as a result of the hunting season.

quote KarlBAndersen1: "I've seen little discussion - I repeat "little" - of an aspect of species reduction is that the remaining members compensate for the loss by an extra breeding 'session' to replace those abnormally lost.
In essence, removing 400 wolves will, in effect, cause the remaining wolves to replace those lost IN ADDITION to their normal production.
When it's all said and done, by next year, there will be more wolves here as a result of the hunting season.
"

There won't be more wolves because of hunting season. But I believe there won't be any less. Yes, after a certain low point and more excess food reproduction would go up. Also wolves tolerate very rarely other wolves in their territory.
I will not be hunting them,but I have seen personally on more than one occasion wolves getting tamer. Maybe this limited season will get rid of the tamer ones and more vulnerable ones. Its time for a limited season.
I do know mange has hit them hard in some areas the last 5 years and some have died.

These species got along together for eons before human domination of the landscape. What we should really be talking about is how are we going to stem the tide of humanity that is washing over North America and making us pit one endangered species against another as the most "desireable" when it's people that are in overabundance.

quote Beaverjack: "These species got along together for eons before human domination of the landscape. What we should really be talking about is how are we going to stem the tide of humanity that is washing over North America and making us pit one endangered species against another as the most "desireable" when it's people that are in overabundance."

I agree,people complain about wolves,and the long term danger is loss of habitat. The human population this last 100 years has exploded.
The wolves and the deer situation and the humans,both want the same thing,the wolf kills a deer and it is terrible. A hunter kills a deer and it is time to celebrate.
Now saying that I hunt deer and enjoy it,also I believe a moderate wolf hunt was needed,but myself I really don't want to hunt them. Even myself it is sometimes how much of the pie(deer in this case to people and wolves alike) ,taking 400 wolves and most of those young ones,will make almost no difference in the population long term. Hopefully it will get rid of the tamer ones and the very very few that have become a nuisance to people.

Also hopefully when out in the woods I can see signs of wolf tracks for years to come.

quote Beaverjack: "These species got along together for eons before human domination of the landscape. What we should really be talking about is how are we going to stem the tide of humanity that is washing over North America and making us pit one endangered species against another as the most "desireable" when it's people that are in overabundance."

Yes and no, humans have always been part of the hierarchy and before our "domination" species still died off they did not always "get along", numbers of animals change all the time. We may be in overabundance but it is reality and in that reality it is up to humans to manage species now---like it or not that is the world we live in unless you have a time machine.


T

quote PINETREE: "

quote Beaverjack: "These species got along together for eons before human domination of the landscape. What we should really be talking about is how are we going to stem the tide of humanity that is washing over North America and making us pit one endangered species against another as the most "desireable" when it's people that are in overabundance."

I agree,people complain about wolves,and the long term danger is loss of habitat. The human population this last 100 years has exploded.
The wolves and the deer situation and the humans,both want the same thing,the wolf kills a deer and it is terrible. A hunter kills a deer and it is time to celebrate.
Now saying that I hunt deer and enjoy it,also I believe a moderate wolf hunt was needed,but myself I really don't want to hunt them. Even myself it is sometimes how much of the pie(deer in this case to people and wolves alike) ,taking 400 wolves and most of those young ones,will make almost no difference in the population long term. Hopefully it will get rid of the tamer ones and the very very few that have become a nuisance to people.


Also hopefully when out in the woods I can see signs of wolf tracks for years to come.
"

The best way to ensure a species never fades is to open up a hunting season for it :)

Weird to say but true in this modern world.

T

The foremost authority on all wolves Biologist David Mech said "To save the wolf we have to kill the wolf". Sound dumb,yes it does,but it makes some sense when you put into it the human factor. Any logic to
it?

wolf

quote timatkn: "The best way to ensure a species never fades is to open up a hunting season for it :)
Weird to say but true in this modern world.
T"

this thread was originally started about moose, I understand what you are saying, however, in the case of the moose, I don't believe the MN DNR's method of managing wildlife is going to work.

the DNR really does not manage wildlife, they primarily manage by managing hunters. The moose is disappearing with extremely light hunting going on, it's kinda like the Fed, once the interest rate is zero, you cannot lower it further, the likely cause is loss of habitat, while they do have some programs that address this, they cannot reverse what agricultural has done to the landscape.

the DNR model of management works well for deer & fish, not so much for others, for example, can we really give credit to the DNR for managing the wild turkey population? I'd say the turkeys have rebounded despite the DNR, not because of them.

Nature always rules, but Minnesota DNR did the original reintroduction of turkeys in the southeast and the rest of the state. At first they had a hard time getting them to take.

I remember back in about 1969 the state of Arkansas came to Ely to trap bear,in exchange we got wild Turkeys from them. I am not sure of the exchange rate,but want to say 5 turkeys for each bear.
For some reason that number sticks in my head,but that could be way off. That's 43 years ago and now I can't remember usually where I put my car keys daily.

quote ZaraSp00k: "

quote timatkn: "The best way to ensure a species never fades is to open up a hunting season for it :)
Weird to say but true in this modern world.
T"

this thread was originally started about moose, I understand what you are saying, however, in the case of the moose, I don't believe the MN DNR's method of managing wildlife is going to work.


the DNR really does not manage wildlife, they primarily manage by managing hunters. The moose is disappearing with extremely light hunting going on, it's kinda like the Fed, once the interest rate is zero, you cannot lower it further, the likely cause is loss of habitat, while they do have some programs that address this, they cannot reverse what agricultural has done to the landscape.


the DNR model of management works well for deer & fish, not so much for others, for example, can we really give credit to the DNR for managing the wild turkey population? I'd say the turkeys have rebounded despite the DNR, not because of them."

I just heard the DNR moose researchers on the radio 2 weeks ago. They had just finished a new radio collar plan and collected data on what is killing moose. Hopefully they will find a smoking gun, something they can fix, but not looking likely.

Some of things he highlighted. The calf to cow ratio has been steadily going down--although rebounded this year. Where are the calves going? They hope to find out if it is from predation from wolves or possibly bears (apparently bears are the only predator that can smell moose newborns and the bear population is at a peak), disease/parasites, or poor nutrition in cows.

The cow/bull ratio is increasing which shows the cows are dying off. They hope to find out what is killing them off as well. Parasites like brainworm or snails, lack of food, ticks with the warmer winters, increased deer population bringing in disease/parasites and also increased deer population increasing wolf numbers--thus increasing predation etc... This is also why they still allow hunting of bulls. They get valuable research from the animals that are taken in season to compare to cow samples and can use the money from the season to supplement more study. Also hunting may help keep the cow/bull ratio in check---even with some hunting that ratio is getting out of whack.

Very interesting to hear----although in the end you may be right....if it is multi-factorial then there is really nothing the DNR can do.

T

quote PINETREE: "Nature always rules, but Minnesota DNR did the original reintroduction of turkeys in the southeast and the rest of the state. At first they had a hard time getting them to take.

I remember back in about 1969 the state of Arkansas came to Ely to trap bear,in exchange we got wild Turkeys from them. I am not sure of the exchange rate,but want to say 5 turkeys for each bear.
For some reason that number sticks in my head,but that could be way off. That's 43 years ago and now I can't remember usually where I put my car keys daily.



"

The DNR also brought turkeys in form other states as well. Then as the local population grew they transplanted to other areas of MN. With out the DNR, turkeys may not be present at all in MN.

Turkey re-introduction


T

quote timatkn: "

quote PINETREE: "Nature always rules, but Minnesota DNR did the original reintroduction of turkeys in the southeast and the rest of the state. At first they had a hard time getting them to take.

I remember back in about 1969 the state of Arkansas came to Ely to trap bear,in exchange we got wild Turkeys from them. I am not sure of the exchange rate,but want to say 5 turkeys for each bear.
For some reason that number sticks in my head,but that could be way off. That's 43 years ago and now I can't remember usually where I put my car keys daily.



"

The DNR also brought turkeys in form other states as well. Then as the local population grew they transplanted to other areas of MN. With out the DNR, turkeys may not be present at all in MN.


Turkey re-introduction



T"

Like I said they did the bear swap,but some of the first turkey introductions did not take. The Minnesota people use to joke about it up in Ely. The only thing it could of been the Missouri people instead of Arkansas DNR.

Thanks for the article,that's probably when they first took.

I know a wildlife technician later on used a modified fish net(trapnet) catch ruff grouse to trade. This went on for a while. He usually was hired back from being laid off to do this.

Even a decade+ a few years ago Minnesota DNR and other Turkey experts thought they could never survive much north of St. Cloud with the harsh winters. Well we have had a decade of warm winters and in hard times many birds have went to bird feeders and farmers yards. Now they are far north least to Longville or farther.
About 3 years ago the winter was more normal and they found the birds lost a lot of weight and many just made it thru the winter.

Pinetree I hope ya know I was agreeing with ya not trying to contradict ya. I guess the article I linked said a different state? Doesn't really matter the end result was good.

Good info.

T

quote timatkn: "Pinetree I hope ya know I was agreeing with ya not trying to contradict ya. I guess the article I linked said a different state? Doesn't really matter the end result was good.


Good info.

No problem,that also was good information. Were on the same wave length.
Them southern states after 40 some years seem all the same.


T"