MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minnesota's moose population appears to have dropped again, and a lead researcher for the state Department of Natural Resources says the state may eventually have none.
Minnesota is one of the few strongholds for moose in the Lower 48 states, but an annual survey of the population found a 14 percent decline, the Department of Natural Resources reported Thursday. The reasons aren't clear, but scientists have speculated that disease, parasites and a warming climate are affecting the animals.
"We've basically lost half the moose population in northeastern Minnesota and unless we see a change in the mortality rates or improvements in reproduction, this population is going to continue down that path," Mark Lenarz, leader of the DNR's forest wildlife and populations research group, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're probably not going to have moose in Minnesota that much longer."
Lenarz led the aerial survey, which estimated Minnesota has 4,230 moose, down from an estimated 4,900 a year ago. Minnesota had nearly 9,000 moose — an iconic symbol of the state's north woods — just six years ago.
The agency said the continuing decline will affect an upcoming decision on whether to allow a moose hunt this fall.
The survey showed a couple of positive trends: improved calf survival and a higher bull-to-cow ratio, indicating more bulls available for breeding. Still, the cow-to-calf ratio of 36 calves per 100 cows is well below estimates from the 1990s.
In the U.S., only Alaska and parts of New England and the Rocky Mountains have large, stable populations. They're also common in Canada.
The state agency cautioned that its aerial estimates have a high margin of error, but say the long-term trend is clearly downward. Its estimates are based on data collected by helicopters flying over 49 randomly selected plots across northeastern Minnesota.
The agency said it will evaluate the new data and consult with tribal biologists before making a decision on a hunting season in coming weeks.
Margaret Levin, state director of the Sierra Club, said the state should consider not having a hunt.
But the agency, including Lenarz, insists hunting is not driving the decline. The agency allowed a bulls-only season in the fall and cut the number of permits in half, to 105. Hunters killed only 53 bulls, some of which would have died anyway, Lenarz said.
"Even if we stopped hunting moose it would not turn the population around in any way. We would continue to see this decline," he said.
Under the state's management plan, one trigger for closing the season is if the bull-to-cow ratio drops below 67 bulls per 100 cows for three straight years. It was below that last year, but rose this year to 108 bulls per 100 calves.
The agency said it doesn't believe a growing wolf population is responsible for the moose's decline. The department plans to begin a two-year, $600,000 study next year to try to identify diseases and parasites that might be responsible.
Lenarz said Minnesota's non-hunting mortality rates have been averaging about 20 percent, compared with about 8 percent elsewhere in North America. Changing that would require lower death rates among adult moose and increased survival of calves, he said. That leaves him pessimistic for the future of the majestic animals.
"In my opinion there is nothing that can be done to turn the population around," he said.
___
Online:
DNR moose hunting page with links to annual reports: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/moose/index.html
DNR moose management page: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/moose/index.html
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.



Comments (9)
Add commentAre we talking the spotted
Are we talking the spotted moose, the snail darter moose, or the bald moose?
I could tell you why the DNR is reporting a moose decline, but first, I'll take that $600,000 as my consulting fee.
Couldn't be the wolves.
Oh, of course it's not the wolves. The wolf population is way up and moose population is down. No correlation whatsoever.
Moose and wolves
It's been reported that of 150 moose radio-collared, 119 died; that of the 119 dead, about 111 seemed to be linked to disease / parasite problems; about 9-11 were "clearly" attributed to wolves; and I think several were reportedly killed by trains, vehicles, etc. Some have questioned whether wolves continually harassing moose might be preventing them from being able to feed effectively in the winter, leaving them too weak to fend off the parasite-borne illnesses. Also, some speculate that twin calves being a lesser occurrence is due to wolf depredation -- in that regard, it does seem that a moose calf would be easy prey; and that while a cow moose would be very capable of protecting one calf from frequent wolf attacks, it would be very hard to protect two. I wonder if the DNR has any reliable proof that there are just less twins being born, versus there being a low cow-to-calf ratio due to wolf depredation. I would be interested in hearing others' thoughts on these issues. I personally think it's neat that Minnesota has a high wolf population, and the few times I have seen a wolf or a moose, it's been a thrill.
I understand it has more to do with rising temps:
Though their large bodies, thick hide, and dense hair protect them from cold, the animals overheat easily. When temperatures rise above 23 degrees Fahrenheit in winter and 57 degrees in summer, moose can suffer from heat stress.
A six-year research study of radio-collared moose has confirmed fears of a declining herd. And while the immediate causes of moose deaths are varied and debatable, the ultimate suspect is climate change -- and habitat that provides thermal cover may be the key to making a warmer Minnesota more hospitable to moose.
Bullwinkle
Having flashbacks of Bullwinkle saying, "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat...." But this time, it is the DNR. And whose hat are they pulling the $600,00 from?
Is it really true that there are fewer moose? Is it true that it is harder to count moose without significant snow cover? I would demand more proof.
Instead, we seem to have another DNR created crisis, and anyone who wants validation is put down as "anti-moose."
Yet, the DNR wants hunting license fees raised? Preposterous!
On a side note, is it true that the DNR has had an officer in Cass County counting rabbits in the forest?!?
As I mentioned, what's
As I mentioned, what's another $600 grand? If it's really that bad with the moose decline then let's spend $600 million. Afterall, those poor moose.....
Then, we may as well go for it, and raise the hunting and fishing license fees to $1,000 annually, all for the sake of the wild game. Only then, will the DNR be able to guarantee wildlife populations indefinitely.
Moose decline`
Well, what do you know? Of the collared Moose, a low percentage have been killed by Wolves. Of course that is collared Moose, not calves. Well there are no collared calves and no mention of Bear killing moose calves. However, up in Alaska where they actually have an effective DNR, Bear depredation on Moose calves was a big concern. Wolves of course eat all the Moose calves they can. awolves and Bear bothe eat as many White Tail fawns as they can. Why not? It is easier for them to kill the young ones. Why risk getting hurt with an adult.