|
02/09/2017 09:16AM |
quote Grizzlyman: "quote LindenTree3: "quote dele:
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!"
dele that was great,
but I'm locking my doors and windows in St. Cloud, I hear that the Big Bad Wolf is silently searching for grandmas house.
This wolf has beautiful Teeth, Eyes and Ears."
I wouldn't get too excited. That story is a direct quotation from Wikipedia under "spurious relationship. " -Which is two unrelated variables having a direct correlation by chance or by a missing 3rd variable- which i suppose is inferred to be climate change in our circumstance. The difference is wolves are a primary moose predator. "
Yeah, it's a commonly used example. My statistics professor used it on the first day of class. I didn't mean to pass it off as original, my apologies if that's how it came across.
And, yes, wolves are a moose predator - I don't think anybody denies that high wolf numbers are part of the reason for the moose decline. The question is, how much of the decline is due to wolves, and how much is due other factors? If our climate were not changing, and if deer populations in the arrowhead were at pre-1900 levels, then yes, we could attribute the moose decline entirely to wolves. But that's not the situation we're in.
This means that the correlation between wolf population and moose population is probably partly spurious, partly not. We need the researchers to figure out how strong the correlation is and what the intervening variables are. When they figure that out, they can determine whether the wolf population has a CAUSAL effect on the moose population decline and take measures accordingly. They're working on that now. Clearly, if it were as simple as "more wolves means fewer moose," they'd have said that definitively by this point. But in a climate changing as quickly as ours, there's a lot more that needs to be considered. Until we know more about what's going on, culling the wolf population would be a premature step. As the article from the Star Tribune states, one possible outcome of that action would be an immediate, massive spike in the deer population. This might well hurt the moose more than the wolf decline would help them.
The reason I used the example of a spurious correlation is that many posters in this thread seem to think that they know more about this than the people who have dedicated their lives to studying issues of wildlife populations. Sure, the ice cream / drowning example is extreme, but it's basically the same scenario. There's a relationship between two variables, we know that much. But jumping to conclusions is not the right way to assess what that relationship actually is. By doing so, and suggesting that the biologists on the case are not worth their salt, posters in this thread are being just as silly as someone who wants to shut down the ice cream business.
These are highly trained scientists who could be making MUCH more money working in private industry. They work for the DNR or for universitites because they love the outdoors and they value finding the right balance between human and animal land use. They don't have an agenda to push for a higher wolf population, and they want the moose population to rebound as much as any of us do. To say that they are "a waste of money" is really offensive to anybody whose profession is related to scientific inquiry or research of any kind.
|
02/06/2017 05:57PM |
|
02/06/2017 06:22PM |
|
02/06/2017 05:22PM |
MOOSE
|
02/09/2017 08:54PM |
quote dele: "The article states that while there is clearly a relationship between wolf predation and moose population size, this relationship is conditioned by another variable that very few people talk about: deer population. Isle Royale doesn't have deer. NE MN does, and their high numbers not only contribute to brainworm and other parasites that infect moose, but also keep the wolf population high, since they are easily preyed upon (unlike healthy adult moose). It's not as simple as saying that lots of wolves = few moose. You also have to think about the effects of the high deer population (on both the wolf and moose numbers).
My interpretation of the biologists' statements in the article is that the best way to support a healthy moose population in northern MN is to cull the deer herd north and east of Duluth.. This would ease the parasite problems and would, over time, probably cause the wolf population to decline some, too. Both would help the moose. Deer numbers in NE MN are much higher than they should be; better to start there, by cutting that population back to natural levels, than by killing wolves."
This is correct.
|
02/09/2017 09:19PM |
Do we sit back and watch nature take its course? Will this allow the wolf population to slowly start declining while the moose population slowly starts to grow? Or do we intervene and try to help? As of 2015, there was an estimated 3500 moose in minnesota and an estimated 2500 wolves. Wolves continue to boom while moose are quickly declining. Whatever the answer is, I sure hope to see more moose in my lifetime like I did when I was young. Nothing gets your heart pumping like scaring up a moose while grouse hunting.
|
02/10/2017 09:44AM |
quote Savage Voyageur: "Let's see if I understand this. An island with a couple of wolf and the moose are thriving. The mainland with a good population of wolf and the moose numbers are cut in half in a couple of years. I'm not a expert on this but it looks cut and dry to me. "
IR also lacks Whitetail deer, which are the primary brainworm vector, which has been indicated as a significant cause of moose mortality where the WT/Moose populations overlap.
So - not exactly cut and dried ;-)
FTR - I support hunting of both species so long as population sustainability takes precedence over all other agendas. I'd like to see looser restrictions on whitetail hunting (increased bag limits, season extension, weapon type) in areas with moose population.
|
02/10/2017 10:14AM |
Quetico moose population in recent years the moose population has been dropping,they have had fairly stable wolf populations probably for 50 years and deer numbers have fluctuated but usually in low numbers present.
Still moose numbers are dropping there,even with wolf numbers fairly constant and deer numbers low.
Like I keep saying you can pull out a few boards in a structure,but ultimately the combined total it collapses.
They have shown in deer if a June 1 population of deer gets below 15 deer per sq mile and you have a moderate wolf population and a moderate hunting pressure by humans. The deer population could decline. Remove the wolf or the deer hunter and it can increase.
|
02/10/2017 10:47AM |
2-3 degree temp change may not affect large mammals (or does it?), but it can affect ticks or other parasites OR various plant/browse species. Growth rate, mineral uptake, digestibility....... a tangled web......
|
02/10/2017 10:57AM |
Think of yourself when you go to the Doctor and many times the doctor can't figure what is wrong with you and your sitting right there.
|
02/10/2017 08:58PM |
Doesn't really take a PHD to see the pattern that's developing! :)
|
02/10/2017 09:58PM |
By Brian MacQuarrie Globe Staff January 13, 2017
An insidious pest is killing about 70 percent of moose calves across Maine and New Hampshire, and their deadly work is being aided by warming temperatures and shorter winters that allow the parasites to survive longer, scientists believe.
They are winter ticks, which attach themselves to a single moose by the tens of thousands. Adult females can expand to the size of a grape and engorge themselves with up to four milliliters of blood.
“The moose are being literally drained of blood. This is about as disgusting as it gets out there,” said Pete Pekins, chairman of the Natural Resources Department at the University of New Hampshire.
Pekins and UNH are at the center of the largest study of New England moose ever conducted, a three-state effort stretching across the woods of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont in which researchers are attaching tracking devices to the moose as part of an effort to learn how ticks are affecting them.
If the reduction continues, researchers said, the range of New England moose is likely to shrink northward. And for many moose that survive, the ravages of winter ticks could render them less healthy and less likely to reproduce.
“It’s like a sinister, evil horror movie,” said Lee Kantar, the Maine state moose biologist.
The ear of a deceased calf with engorged female adult ticks.
The ear of a deceased calf with engorged female adult ticks.
Now, the primary concern is winter ticks, which lie in wait on vegetation in the autumn — interlocked by the hundreds and thousands — until they attach themselves to a passing animal such as a moose.
Deer and other animals groom the ticks from their bodies. But for moose, which have not developed that ability, the insects become blood-sucking hitchhikers whose victims usually die in late winter and early spring.
If winter starts even two weeks late, that extra time in the forest means that more ticks — which do not fare as well in the snow — will find more moose to ride.
“They’ll be on the moose in such large amounts, that the moose will literally scratch against trees and take the skin off,” said Wayne Derby, a master guide from Bethlehem, N.H. “Sometimes you’ll see 2 to 2½ square feet on the shoulders where the moose have rubbed off the fur.”
Derby has a term for the tick-infested animals: ghost moose.
|
02/06/2017 05:41PM |
|
02/06/2017 06:36PM |
Calves are the future!
|
02/06/2017 06:52PM |
With that said I have also thought there is much more to the story. Could be any number of factors, including climate change, new illnesses and habitat change. After all, many of the moose that were studied were very sick from a variety of things.
Hopefully in the next few years we will get some answers from the research that is going on.
|
02/07/2017 08:44AM |
quote rbevars: "According to the data taken 66% of the moose fatalities were due to parasites including brain worm contracted from deer populations, which are not present on the island. 2/3 of the fatalities were not wolf related. I wouldn't say it is cut and dry-different variables. "
So if 2/3 were not wolf related, and the population dropped 4500 moose, than that means 1500 moose were killed either by wolf, disease or old age. Even if you cut that number in half that's still a lot of wolf kills. But I'm no expert here, just talking.
|
02/07/2017 01:46PM |
Also ticks have known to cause mortality from Minnesota to the Maine Moose herds. Maybe Isle Royale gets a lake effect and is cooler than much of Minnesota.
Right now you have many variables and yes wolves are having a effect now. Like say over the next 40 years the other variables might take over. The Moose had other parasites not connected to the deer situation. Some of the deer areas is like 2 deer/sq mile. That is non existent. Nature is not simple. They still don't know why the Moose collasped(sp) in NW Minnesota. It was not wolves there.
That said yes wolves should be delisted, we are 100% higher population than the goal was to bring them back. But also don't blame everything on the wolves.
|
02/07/2017 06:10PM |
But what do I know? I didn't graduate with a degree in wildlife management.
|
02/07/2017 12:35PM |
quote Savage Voyageur: "Let's see if I understand this. An island with a couple of wolf and the moose are thriving. The mainland with a good population of wolf and the moose numbers are cut in half in a couple of years. I'm not a expert on this but it looks cut and dry to me. "
The article states that while there is clearly a relationship between wolf predation and moose population size, this relationship is conditioned by another variable that very few people talk about: deer population. Isle Royale doesn't have deer. NE MN does, and their high numbers not only contribute to brainworm and other parasites that infect moose, but also keep the wolf population high, since they are easily preyed upon (unlike healthy adult moose). It's not as simple as saying that lots of wolves = few moose. You also have to think about the effects of the high deer population (on both the wolf and moose numbers).
My interpretation of the biologists' statements in the article is that the best way to support a healthy moose population in northern MN is to cull the deer herd north and east of Duluth.. This would ease the parasite problems and would, over time, probably cause the wolf population to decline some, too. Both would help the moose. Deer numbers in NE MN are much higher than they should be; better to start there, by cutting that population back to natural levels, than by killing wolves.
|
02/07/2017 06:27PM |
quote Grizzlyman: "The DNR very clearly blamed climate change a few years ago. Seems pretty cut and dry from our govt - wolves have no impact. :)
But what do I know? I didn't graduate with a degree in wildlife management. "
I don't have a wildlife or climate degree. But if the DNR is going to blame climate change, how do they justify that Isle Royale is at the same Latitude as the moose in the BWCA or Western Minnesota? It's only 15 miles away from the mainland.
|
02/07/2017 06:46PM |
quote Savage Voyageur
I don't have a wildlife or climate degree. But if the DNR is going to blame climate change, how do they justify that Isle Royale is at the same Latitude as the moose in the BWCA or Western Minnesota? It's only 15 miles away from the mainland. "
Isle Royale is surrounded by Lake Superior, a huge buffer in terms of temperature change (ever notice how much cooler it is at canal park than on top of the hill in Duluth?). Sometimes you can come to a better understanding of an issue if you consider the evidence instead of simply reflexively arguing for what you want to be true (It's the wolves fault).
|
02/07/2017 06:54PM |
Yes the DNR thinks climate change is part of the puzzle,not the whole. Like I said before there are many pieces to the puzzle. Dr. David Mech number 1 wolf biologist in the world and also did numerous studies in Minnesota does think wolves are part of the problem,
Just like you or I we may be sick from the flu,but that than makes us more prone to like other diseases when in a weaken condition.
Too many people want to make it simple and put the peg in one hole or have a agenda to blame soley the wolf or climate deniers trying to blow of any effect by climate.
multiple effects
|
02/07/2017 08:25PM |
quote Savage Voyageur: "quote Grizzlyman: "The DNR very clearly blamed climate change a few years ago. Seems pretty cut and dry from our govt - wolves have no impact. :)
But what do I know? I didn't graduate with a degree in wildlife management. "
I don't have a wildlife or climate degree. But if the DNR is going to blame climate change, how do they justify that Isle Royale is at the same Latitude as the moose in the BWCA or Western Minnesota? It's only 15 miles away from the mainland. "
Sorry i thought the smiley face gave away my sarcasm.
Isle royals does not have a different climate that is more conducive to Moose living or dying. Even so - to suggest that "moose can't live her because it's 2 degrees warmer on average is ludicrous.
It's wolves.
|
02/07/2017 08:38PM |
|
02/07/2017 09:42PM |
. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were once introduced in 1912 by the
Michigan State Conservation Commission, but were last
recorded in the 1930s (Shiras 1935).
|
02/07/2017 09:58PM |
Those same studies confirmed a 20 to 30 percent mortality rate among adult females as well, he added.
"The body condition of a moose going into winter really doesn't make a difference. If a moose has enough ticks on it, it's going to die. Essentially the ticks are sucking the life out of it," he said.
Also daytime temps above 57 degrees stresses moose.
|
02/08/2017 07:26AM |
quote Grizzlyman:
Isle royals does not have a different climate that is more conducive to Moose living or dying. Even so - to suggest that "moose can't live her because it's 2 degrees warmer on average is ludicrous.
It's wolves. "
Did you read the article linked above?
Isle Royale averages 3-5 degrees cooler than Ely in the summer. That's a substantial difference.
Isle Royale does not have deer. That matters.
You can say what you want about it being wolves. As for me, I'll listen to the biologists who have done years of scientific research on this topic. They say that wolves are one among many reasons for the decline, and that the effect of the wolves is amplified by parasites and diseases that weaken the moose, making them easier for wolves to kill. These problems, in turn, are themselves due in part to climate change, which increases tick survival over the winter and makes it easier for deer to survive in the region.
Science is science. We don't get to pick and choose which parts of it are true and which aren't. Climate change is real and it is having a gradual but damaging effect on the BWCA ecosystems we all love. Wolves and climate change together seem to be having an effect on the moose population. Why insist that it's only one of them that matters?
|
02/08/2017 10:57AM |
The only other observation I have is in regard to our individual perspectives of wolves and moose. Yes, it is clear fewer wolves would possibly mean more moose. But in a similar vein fewer animals of one sort or another would likely allow for the increase of numbers of another animal. Like deer and moose. It does not seem wise to me to just blame climate change, just blame the change in habitat, just blame the deer population or just blame the wolf population. Surely, it is likely a combination of a number of factors.
I think of it as a trade off. I love having the moose but also love having the wolves. I think we are simply looking at the balance in this issue as in all wildlife management.
|
02/08/2017 09:07AM |
Sometimes they both lose these battles:
|
02/08/2017 12:25PM |
From my reasonably informed opinion it seems more wolves, all else being equal, means a more stable moose population and perhaps, more moose on average.
Without predation, there would probably be boom/bust cycles in the moose population and the vegetation they eat.
The simple logic implies that at some point wolves would reach a critical mass, eat all moose, then die themselves in large numbers from famine. Clearly, that has not happened on a large time/geographic scale.
|
02/08/2017 07:39PM |
quote ellahallely: "quote Savage Voyageur: "The news just reported that a wolf was filmed in St Cloud. "
There was a pack living in Isanti county up until a last year. USDA trapped six of them.
city-wolves-link
Seems odd in one part off the state we won't dare kill 1 wolf to save a some moose, but in another part of the same state we kill all of the wolves. What to close to the cities? The world we live in I guess.
"
I think it was related to livestock. They done the same in Crow Wing county and Statewide if wolves start keying in on livestock. In Crow Wing county we have a very viable population of wolves and yes on occasion a Federal trapper come in. They done this in the past on a Turkey farm also in Aitkin. Other wolves in the county they leave alone.
Like I said before a limited season would be fine. We have discussed this for the last few years.
There is viable wolf populations as far south as Little falls at least. I actually think per area we Cass-Crow Wing county might have more wolves than up north due to us having a decent deer population.
|
02/08/2017 08:03PM |
quote LindenTree3: "quote dele:
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!"
dele that was great,
but I'm locking my doors and windows in St. Cloud, I hear that the Big Bad Wolf is silently searching for grandmas house.
This wolf has beautiful Teeth, Eyes and Ears."
I wouldn't get too excited. That story is a direct quotation from Wikipedia under "spurious relationship. " -Which is two unrelated variables having a direct correlation by chance or by a missing 3rd variable- which i suppose is inferred to be climate change in our circumstance. The difference is wolves are a primary moose predator.
|
02/08/2017 10:09PM |
A population survey conducted sometime in the ’80s revealed a thriving population numbered more than 4,000 animals in northwest Minnesota. A more recent survey, however, uncovered less than 100 moose by 2013. Factors that appear to be contributing to the population decline include climate change (warmer winters and warmer summers), parasitic infestations, diseases, lack of certain minerals in their diet, and infertility of both cows and bulls caused by unknown reasons.
|
02/08/2017 10:26PM |
quote Hoaf: "quote rbevars: "According to the data taken 66% of the moose fatalities were due to parasites including brain worm contracted from deer populations, which are not present on the island. 2/3 of the fatalities were not wolf related. I wouldn't say it is cut and dry-different variables. "
What's the source of this data? "
The Minnesota moose study quoted in the article linked in the first post on this thread.
|
02/08/2017 05:04PM |
In finance we call this strong negative correlation which means when one increases the other decreases. If this were two different stocks then someone would be very very rich...
This is that same moose population overlaid with average July max temperatures in Two harbors. This is uncorrelated. if anything this hints at a positive correlation between moose populations and high temperatures. However I would say there is no trend here.
Point is moose can and do live in various temperatures.
Moose are eaten by wolves- this is a fact- indisputable. Therefore more wolves equals more moose eaten. I'm not sure how we can possibly deny this...
Other factors- yes- it's likely. But to suggest moose are not impacted by higher wolf numbers and blame the global warming boogeyman is 100% bad science.
|
02/08/2017 05:36PM |
How many moose where killed because of research? Mothers abandoned their own calves after being collared.
Why not thin the wolf population in Minnesota and see if it helps the moose? The wolf has proven it can repopulate with no problem.
As soon as a wolf is seen anywhere near the twin cities they are quietly killed. Yet I shoot a wolf for eating my dog, I go to jail with a felony!
Yes ticks and brain worms don't help, but you can't deny the wolf is killing them. I know how to control the wolf. You tell me how we can control the ticks and worms. Or we can do nothing.
Funny how these researches say they need to do more research. BS. If more research needs to be done get new people. These people have told me nothing I didn't know, what a joke and waste of my money.
I enjoy the wolf and moose, yet we need a balance!!
|
02/08/2017 05:49PM |
quote Grizzlyman: "This graph shows moose and wolf populations- granted this is in isle royale- but still valid.
In finance we call this strong negative correlation which means when one increases the other decreases. If this were two different stocks then someone would be very very rich...
This is that same moose population overlaid with average July max temperatures in Two harbors. This is uncorrelated. if anything this hints at a positive correlation between moose populations and high temperatures. However I would say there is no trend here.
Point is moose can and do live in various temperatures.
Moose are eaten by wolves- this is a fact- indisputable. Therefore more wolves equals more moose eaten. I'm not sure how we can possibly deny this...
Other factors- yes- it's likely. But to suggest moose are not impacted by higher wolf numbers and blame the global warming boogeyman is 100% bad science. "
Good Science looks at all the variables. From my point of view wolves do have a impact on moose,just as they do deer. I also believe climate change is having a big impact on wolves with milder winters causing very high survival of ticks thus contributing to moose being weaken or killed. It has been about 6 years ago but remember one year seeing different moose look like they were albino's. Got closer to them and you could see they had no hair because extreme rubbing to get rid of ticks. These moose were chalk white because their skin was exposed and vulnerable. This caused moose to die of pneumonia or be weaken and susceptable(sp) to other diseases or wolves.
As shown in Isle Royale moose can control moose numbers to a certain extent,but moose survived in decent numbers and fluctuated up and down.
Like I said many times you throw out one or two of the variables and Moose populations may explode for awhile,but the addition of variables that were not present in the past does effect populations.
There is a reason why areas north of Mille lacs never had many moose even when no wolves were present. Habitat is perfect. It was the southern end of the range and other variables were in place.
If wolves were eliminated or cut back,at least short term moose will increase.
A good scientist tries to figure out all the variables.
|
02/08/2017 06:08PM |
Mr. Wattles (biologist in Massachusetts) said wildlife biologists in those states have found a 75 to 80 percent mortality rate from winter tick(increased due to warmer winters) infestation for the calves being tracked with GPS collars.
Those same studies confirmed a 20 to 30 percent mortality rate among adult females as well,
On average moose will increase in Minnesota if wolf population was dropped. For how long I don't know and some areas without moose now in the northeast has went to the extreme and that has other factors involved.
|
02/08/2017 06:14PM |
|
02/08/2017 06:26PM |
quote ellahallely: "Funny how these researches say they need to do more research. BS. If more research needs to be done get new people. These people have told me nothing I didn't know, what a joke and waste of my money."
I know that your intentions are good, but what you are saying is crazy. These researchers have way more expertise than you or me. It is inappropriate for you to attack them simply because they see the bigger picture and try to understand it before making conclusions. Two of my close family members are wildlife biologists who work for state governments. I will make sure to let them know that you think you can do their jobs better than they can.
An analogous chain of reasoning to yours follows:
High ice cream sales correspond with large numbers of deaths by drowning at area beaches! Clearly, the ice cream is making people drown! Any so-called expert who's not willing to close half the ice cream shops in the state to reduce drowning deaths is a fraud! If they say they need to do more research, get new researchers!
What's that you say? Warm weather causes high ice cream sales AND brings more people to beaches? You mean it might not actually be the ice cream that makes more people drown?
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!
|
02/08/2017 06:12PM |
Agreed, and I wish some posting here could use that science as the basis for their posts.
Since some have offered non-science based arguments against wolves in this thread, I will offer my own non-scientific story.
The story revolves around a family of Moose called Little Red Riding Hood moose family. The Moose family walks through the woods innocently grazing on grass and twigs.
A Big Bad Wolf wants to eat the moose family and especially the twins that momma had given birth to a few weeks earlier. The ravening Big Bad Wolf secretly stalks the twins behind trees, bushes, shrubs, and patches of tall cattails. The Big Bad Wolf silently stalks the Little Red Riding Hood family, for hours, and pounces on the twins when the mother turns her back to get a drink in the lake.
And you know the rest of the story, the Little Red Riding Hood Moose family was the last remaining moose in the Arrowhead of MN,
After the demise of the Moose, the Big Bad Wolf became a vegetarian, because he did not like the taste of deer meat, and detested the ticks he got from their mangy fur.
I think my story has about as much merit as some of the anti-wolf posts I have read here, and I hope people who paddle the same waters as I do, reach a little deeper in their quest for knowledge.
PS, I do respect the right of everyone to their own opinions, this is simply mine.
|
02/08/2017 06:53PM |
|
02/08/2017 07:01PM |
But what do I know? Maybe it has to do with genetics in are Minnesota moose?
|
02/08/2017 07:01PM |
quote dele:
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!"
dele that was great,
but I'm locking my doors and windows in St. Cloud, I hear that the Big Bad Wolf is silently searching for grandmas house.
This wolf has beautiful Teeth, Eyes and Ears.
|
02/08/2017 07:05PM |
quote Savage Voyageur: "The news just reported that a wolf was filmed in St Cloud. "
There was a pack living in Isanti county up until a last year. USDA trapped six of them.
city-wolves-link
Seems odd in one part off the state we won't dare kill 1 wolf to save a some moose, but in another part of the same state we kill all of the wolves. What to close to the cities? The world we live in I guess.
|
02/08/2017 07:14PM |
quote LindenTree3: "quote dele:
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!"
dele that was great,
but I'm locking my doors and windows in St. Cloud, I hear that the Big Bad Wolf is silently searching for grandmas house.
This wolf has beautiful Teeth, Eyes and Ears."
Here is a picture of the alleged perpetrator.
The Big Bad Wolf
|
02/08/2017 07:38PM |
quote LindenTree3: "quote LindenTree3: "quote dele:
Sorry, I had my hands over my ears. The experts don't know what they're talking about! Close the damn ice cream shops!"
dele that was great,
but I'm locking my doors and windows in St. Cloud, I hear that the Big Bad Wolf is silently searching for grandmas house.
This wolf has beautiful Teeth, Eyes and Ears."
Here is a picture of the alleged perpetrator.
The Big Bad Wolf "
My favorite story
|
02/08/2017 08:12PM |
quote rbevars: "According to the data taken 66% of the moose fatalities were due to parasites including brain worm contracted from deer populations, which are not present on the island. 2/3 of the fatalities were not wolf related. I wouldn't say it is cut and dry-different variables. "
What's the source of this data?