Minnesota’s moose population remains at low levels (DNR press release)

[BuckSutherland]

(Released February 17, 2015)

Data from the aerial moose survey just completed indicate that the downward trend in the statewide moose population continues, even though there has been no statistical change in the population during the past few years.

Results of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ annual aerial moose survey place the 2015 statewide moose population estimate at 3,450. This compares with estimates of 4,350 in 2014 and 2,760 in 2013.

“All wildlife population surveys have inherent degrees of uncertainty,” said Lou Cornicelli, DNR wildlife research manager. “Long-term trend and population estimates are more informative and significant than annual point estimates.”

Overall, the number of moose is down approximately 60 percent from the 2006 estimate of 8,840.

The DNR has conducted aerial moose population surveys in northeastern Minnesota since 1960. A spotter counts moose as a pilot flies a helicopter across 52 randomly selected plots of 13 square miles.

“Survey conditions this year were generally good across moose range, although there was much less snow compared to last year,” said Cornicelli.

The DNR’s ongoing moose mortality research project also is providing important information on population status.

“This year, 11 percent of collared adult moose died, as compared to 21 percent last year. Although adult mortality was slightly lower, which is good, the number of calves that survive to their first year has also been low,” Cornicelli said. “This indicates the population will likely continue to decline in the foreseeable future.”

The adult and calf moose mortality studies are in their third year. As part of several studies, researchers will radio collar an additional 36 adult moose in the next couple of weeks. Another 50 newborn calves will be collared this spring. Researchers hope information and insights gathered during the studies will help identify potential population and habitat management options that may stop or slow the long-term population decline.

Final decisions about moose hunting are made after the DNR consults with the affected Chippewa bands in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory of northeastern Minnesota. The DNR discontinued moose hunting in 2013 until the population could support a hunt.

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the 1854 Treaty Authority contribute funding and provide personnel for the annual aerial survey. Most of the funding for the ongoing moose research project is provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).

A copy of the 2015 aerial survey is available online. The Web page also provides information on the DNR’s ongoing moose mortality research project.




An entire press release and the dumb mother truckers cant even mention the f*****g piece of s**t wolves one time. Gee, give me a couple million dollars and I will have an answer to your stupid ass research project tomorrow. I know what's happening to the moose. Doesnt take a genius to see the fall of the moose perfectly matches the rise of the wolf.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

DON'T YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO THINK !!! JUST LISTEN TO YOUR DNR AND BUY IN LIKE A GOOD LEMMING !!! THINKING CAUSES PROBLEMS - AND YOU'RE A PROBLEM, MISTER !!!:D;)

 

[foggy]

That DNR presentation on moose......and not naming wolves as a big part of the problem........is akin to our president saying Muslims are not part of the terrorism problem. Yeah......riiiiiight. Its PAST time to call a spade a spade boys.

I am SO tired of this political correctness BS.....its gonna be the curse of our existence. enough is enough.

 

[Alaskan]

(Released February 17, 2015)

Data from the aerial moose survey just completed indicate that the downward trend in the statewide moose population continues, even though there has been no statistical change in the population during the past few years.

Results of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ annual aerial moose survey place the 2015 statewide moose population estimate at 3,450. This compares with estimates of 4,350 in 2014 and 2,760 in 2013.

“All wildlife population surveys have inherent degrees of uncertainty,” said Lou Cornicelli, DNR wildlife research manager. “Long-term trend and population estimates are more informative and significant than annual point estimates.”

Overall, the number of moose is down approximately 60 percent from the 2006 estimate of 8,840.

The DNR has conducted aerial moose population surveys in northeastern Minnesota since 1960. A spotter counts moose as a pilot flies a helicopter across 52 randomly selected plots of 13 square miles.

“Survey conditions this year were generally good across moose range, although there was much less snow compared to last year,” said Cornicelli.

The DNR’s ongoing moose mortality research project also is providing important information on population status.

“This year, 11 percent of collared adult moose died, as compared to 21 percent last year. Although adult mortality was slightly lower, which is good, the number of calves that survive to their first year has also been low,” Cornicelli said. “This indicates the population will likely continue to decline in the foreseeable future.”

The adult and calf moose mortality studies are in their third year. As part of several studies, researchers will radio collar an additional 36 adult moose in the next couple of weeks. Another 50 newborn calves will be collared this spring. Researchers hope information and insights gathered during the studies will help identify potential population and habitat management options that may stop or slow the long-term population decline.

Final decisions about moose hunting are made after the DNR consults with the affected Chippewa bands in the 1854 Treaty ceded territory of northeastern Minnesota. The DNR discontinued moose hunting in 2013 until the population could support a hunt.

The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the 1854 Treaty Authority contribute funding and provide personnel for the annual aerial survey. Most of the funding for the ongoing moose research project is provided by the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund as recommended by the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCCMR).

A copy of the 2015 aerial survey is available online. The Web page also provides information on the DNR’s ongoing moose mortality research project.


An entire press release and the dumb mother truckers cant even mention the f*****g piece of s**t wolves one time. Gee, give me a couple million dollars and I will have an answer to your stupid ass research project tomorrow. I know what's happening to the moose. Doesnt take a genius to see the fall of the moose perfectly matches the rise of the wolf.

Seems obvious, but rarely is it ever that simple. Some of Alaska's game management units experienced moose population declines in spite of intensive airborne wolf control measures and trapping. Turns out black bear predation on calves was grossly underestimated and in some cases had more of an impact on juvenile mortality than wolves did. What is the black bear population doing in MN?

 

[sandbur]

Alaskan-the state seldom mentions the wolves as a factor in the moose population decline.
David Mech is a federal wolf researcher and he said that the wolf has played a major part in the decline of the moose herd in his study area of Minnesota.

I am sure there are different factors in different areas. It is hard to separate fact from fiction in what comes from much of our DNR.

 

[Greta&Gus]

The DNR knows that the wolves are a major problem and have said so in the past regarding the moose population. They just don't want to come out and stand on it only. The anti-hunting groups ran a strong campaign bashing the DNR for the last five years. They blame the DNR for allowing the 'torture' of wolves and have been very vocal about it. The DNR gets it from both sides.

Dave Mech is legit. My friend interned with him a decade ago and studied wolves in northern MN. My friend said there were two times that wolves thrived and took the most deer and moose. The first six weeks of life and the heart of winter. That is coming from a federal employee.

Alaskan, we have no shortage of bears either.

 

[sandbur]

G and G- I think hunters need to keep up the pressure on the DNR on the wolf issue. We need the counterbalance to the HOWL group.

I heard of one hunter who wanted a wolf tag so he would have a reason to go to deer camp in northern Minnesota as he doubted he would see a deer.

 

[Greta&Gus]

I completely agree. I wasn't suggesting we relent on the wolf issue. I was more pointing out that the DNR gets in from both sides and they have to do more balancing than we probably understand. We complain about no deer in the woods, which is accurate, but as we have pointed out there are other forces fighting for less deer. I can guarantee that there are anti-hunters on some pro-wolf forum right now complaining about the DNR allowing for all of the helpless wolves to be slaughtered.

I heard on the news last week that John Kline is purposing to over rule the federal judge and take them off the endangered species list again. With any luck we will have a season this year.

 

[kabic]

I completely agree. I wasn't suggesting we relent on the wolf issue. I was more pointing out that the DNR gets in from both sides and they have to do more balancing than we probably understand. We complain about no deer in the woods, which is accurate, but as we have pointed out there are other forces fighting for less deer. I can guarantee that there are anti-hunters on some pro-wolf forum right now complaining about the DNR allowing for all of the helpless wolves to be slaughtered.

I heard on the news last week that John Kline is purposing to over rule the federal judge and take them off the endangered species list again. With any luck we will have a season this year.

http://www.hibbingmn.com/news/local...cle_ab00a01e-b720-11e4-b076-73a28885afbb.html

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Coyotes are bad enough here. I can't even imagine wolves.

 

[Greta&Gus]

http://www.hibbingmn.com/news/local...cle_ab00a01e-b720-11e4-b076-73a28885afbb.html

I got the wrong representative, but it is nice to see Nolan stepping up and doing something good for once. If you read the quotes from the Humane Society you can see how they feel about the US Fish and Wildlife service and the DNR is an equal but opposite feeling that many hunters have.

 

[West Branch]

We just talked Nolan at a Holiday Inn in Virginia MN on Tuesday morning. He recognized my dad since they had met a few times before and my dad brought up the wolf issue. He was telling us they were working on it and it looks like that article is from the next day. He also mentioned the 3 S's.

 

[bwoods11]

That DNR presentation on moose......and not naming wolves as a big part of the problem........is akin to our president saying Muslims are not part of the terrorism problem. Yeah......riiiiiight. Its PAST time to call a spade a spade boys.

I am SO tired of this political correctness BS.....its gonna be the curse of our existence. enough is enough.

Exactly. I really think our DNR and our national government operate out of the same play book.

 

[wiscwhip]

I love this quote by the Humane Society idiots...note the highlighted text...

“This bill is just the latest act of political bomb-throwing and gamesmanship and lawmakers who want balance on the wolf issue should reject it,” he said.

Obviously, the HS does not believe in true "balance". Wouldn't a balance on the wolf issue make everyone a bit happier, apparently not the HS. It must be their way or the highway I guess. Balance on the wolf issue was being achieved with the delisting and harvest of minimal amounts of wolves under supervision of State agencies with highly trained personnel that keep overharvest from occurring. To let the wolves reproduce without the ability to control them will only lead to more unregulated, illegal methods of control. Morons!

 

[West Branch]

At the deer meeting in Cambridge last week wolves were brought up quite a few times. A couple ladies were there that were defending the wolves. Overall I was impressed at how civil everyone stayed, some people did get a bit louder on the microphone at times.

Is there something in wildlife biology that talks about the expansion of animals into new areas and how the population will be higher in those areas at first? I feel like I read about it before with wild turkeys. When they moved into new areas of MN the populations were higher in those areas but after a few years the populations leveled off once the new territories and food sources were established. It seems like as the wolves move further into central and west central MN (and central WI?) this could occur as they would be finding the new food sources (livestock and puppies!) and the packs would have overlapping territories. Eventually things might level off some? Like I said I feel like I read about something like that before but don't remember where.

 

[wiscwhip]

WB, there is a point in population dynamics that becomes a point of diminishing returns. The issue there is, it is usually driven by the habitat being saturated with animals to the point that food supplies start to dwindle, the population naturally senses this and the reproductive rates will correct themselves. That was fine when all the wolves had to eat were other wildlife(deer, elk, moose, small game) and the occasional native that wandered away from the village. Now, as you mention, they have huge amounts of livestock and pets to fill where that void would have started to turn reproductive rates down. Without that point of diminishing returns, the population continues to grow and expand into areas where it doesn't belong. I feel that if they were allowed to, packs would populate some of the large forested park areas in and around major cities like MN/StPaul, Chicago, and others. Those areas have huge deer populations and could easily sustain multiple packs of a half a dozen animals. The issue lies with the fact that when the deer population starts to decline the wolves will eat Bossie, Fluffy, and Spot and continue to grow their numbers beyond what the natural capacity(i.e. natural numbers of wild prey animals) would dictate it to be. Let those wolf hugging idiots have them in their backyards for a while and they would change their tune and welcome sensible management instead of the wolf free-for-all that they love to promote now.

 

[sandbur]

At the deer meeting in Cambridge last week wolves were brought up quite a few times. A couple ladies were there that were defending the wolves. Overall I was impressed at how civil everyone stayed, some people did get a bit louder on the microphone at times.

Is there something in wildlife biology that talks about the expansion of animals into new areas and how the population will be higher in those areas at first? I feel like I read about it before with wild turkeys. When they moved into new areas of MN the populations were higher in those areas but after a few years the populations leveled off once the new territories and food sources were established. It seems like as the wolves move further into central and west central MN (and central WI?) this could occur as they would be finding the new food sources (livestock and puppies!) and the packs would have overlapping territories. Eventually things might level off some? Like I said I feel like I read about something like that before but don't remember where.

I believe that happens with many species including fish and invasive species.

 

[BuckSutherland]

WB, there is a point in population dynamics that becomes a point of diminishing returns. The issue there is, it is usually driven by the habitat being saturated with animals to the point that food supplies start to dwindle, the population naturally senses this and the reproductive rates will correct themselves. That was fine when all the wolves had to eat were other wildlife(deer, elk, moose, small game) and the occasional native that wandered away from the village. Now, as you mention, they have huge amounts of livestock and pets to fill where that void would have started to turn reproductive rates down. Without that point of diminishing returns, the population continues to grow and expand into areas where it doesn't belong. I feel that if they were allowed to, packs would populate some of the large forested park areas in and around major cities like MN/StPaul, Chicago, and others. Those areas have huge deer populations and could easily sustain multiple packs of a half a dozen animals. The issue lies with the fact that when the deer population starts to decline the wolves will eat Bossie, Fluffy, and Spot and continue to grow their numbers beyond what the natural capacity(i.e. natural numbers of wild prey animals) would dictate it to be. Let those wolf hugging idiots have them in their backyards for a while and they would change their tune and welcome sensible management instead of the wolf free-for-all that they love to promote now.

Oh you gave me a brilliant idea. I am gonna try to live trap a wolf and transplant him or her into a Minneapolis park. Wouldnt that be hilarious to watch some wolf running around with a small dog in his mouth on the 5 oclock news. Hopefully it will go over to Summit Ave and swallow Dayton.