E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Researchers tag a moose in Minnesota, part of a $1.2 million effort to track down why moose are disappearing in the state.
Published at 5:22 p.m. ET: Moose are missing — and the state of Minnesota doesn't want hunters to find them.
Minnesota officials banned moose hunting indefinitely on Wednesday because of a dramatic drop in the animal's numbers.
The number of moose in the Gopher State has fallen by 52 percent since 2010, for reasons no one can figure out, although the Department of Natural Resources said hunting had nothing to do with it.
It cited a variety of possible explanations, including a tick-borne disease and Minnesota's recent unusually hot summers, which moose don't handle well.
"The state's moose population has been in decline for years, but never at the precipitous rate documented this winter," said Tom Landwehr, Minnesota's natural resources commissioner.
The 2013 hunting season was canceled, and Landwehr said in a statement that his department wouldn't consider opening any future seasons until the moose population recovers.
"It's now prudent to control every source of mortality we can as we seek to understand causes of population decline," he said.
In an aerial survey in January, state officials calculated that only 2,760 moose were left in Minnesota, down by 35 percent from last year and 52 percent from 2010.
In response, the state last month launched what it's calling the largest and most high-tech moose research effort ever, fitting 92 moose in northeastern parts of the state with satellite tracking and data-collection collars designed to help root out the causes of rising moose mortality.
The idea is to be able to get to a moose within 24 hours of its death, said Ron Moen, a research associate at the University of Minnesota who is working with the program.
"The thing about determining cause of death is that moose bodies are very well insulated with hair, and they are very large," Moen told NBC station KBJR of Duluth. "If you don't get there quick enough, then you have tissue degradation."
The state is putting $1.2 million toward the program, but everyday Minnesotans are getting in on the rescue effort, as well.
In Edina, a baker named Robin Johnson pledged to donate $1 from every cupcake she sold to the state Wildlife Health Program's Gift Account for Moose.
"This beautiful symbol of Minnesota wilderness is being direly threatened," Johnson told NBC station KRII of Chisholm, Minn.
Watch US News videos on NBCNews.com
Related:
Leave a Comment:
The loss of such large herbivores will affect the entire ecosystem in a few years. Minnesota has done the right thing by canceling the hunting and throwing themselves into the research.
thankfully there is no shortage of moose in this part of n. colorado in fact there was a cow munching on the old corn stalks in our back field this morning. it wasn't all that long ago that there were none and then they started a transplant program a couple of decades back and they have thrived with no hunting and severe penalties to anyone caught poaching. deer and elk we have by the thousands literally but moose and lynx need our protection at least until they reach sustainable numbers here. i am glad that minn. took this step before it was too late.
One of the Major reasons for the decline of the moose population, is that hunters prefer to let the smaller moose go, even when they have a moose in their telescopic gunsights...as they are willing to wait for the heartiest old moose with the largest antlers.....by killing off the healthiest Bull Moose which they can find, the hunters cull the herds of the finest stocks of moose, the moose with the best genes.
The hunters leave behind the runts and the weak moose, which are left alone to procreate and produce only moose which don't do very well in frigid climates.
liam-1161783
Source please. Me thinks you just made that up.
in 2011 there were only 53 moose harvested in Minnesota.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/moose/2011harvest.pdf
And from the article:
Meanwhile, the wolf population in Minnesota just happens to be the largest in the lower 48"
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/mammals/wolves/mgmt.html
I wonder what the real cause of the decline is?
Wolf hunting opened in 2012, they should require all wolf hunters to report stomach contents, the data would be useful. The aerial survey did not list any estimated age or gender data, and young moose survive in climates North of Minnesota,.
Moose meat......the hunters I knew,used to cook up moose at our rod and gun club,and they would swear it was THE best meat they gad EVER eaten...but,they couldn't take it home,because their wives and kids hated the gamey taste...
DingleB
Well, that explains a little more, no wonder they are having a hard time finding carcasses(moose are missing). Even if the wolves don't kill 'em, they'll certainly "clean" 'em up.
But I bet your right, moose is awfully tasty, and I would guess wolves love young tender mooselings.
Ditto to UpstateNY2.
Also, since we have open boarders, I wonder how many decided to stay in Canada? or some other cooler wetter climate? I guess they can travel up to 80 miles a month, couple of years of moving north?
Must be the global warming. ;-)
Ditto on the moose meat, had moose stew at a recent hunting camp dinner, provided by a hunter from another camp it was excellent, he bought it to an annual Texas Hold'em Tournament. Caribou and elk taste different but are just as good or better. Liam you might want to be careful getting close to that moose the next time.
"The loss of such large herbivores will affect the entire ecosystem in a few years"
Nonsense. There are so few moose that they have little to no impact on ecosystem.
This is a sign of the Apocalypse, and I'm not talking about God here, I'm talking about Mother Earth! She has cancer right now, it's a malignant tumor called Humanity and she will cure herself........one way or another! I think we will see a major increase in events such as this in the next few years/decades and then a "Tipping Point" will be reached and a cataclysmic chain of events will follow that will disrupt Earths Biosphere so severely that civilization as we know it will vanish!
Sweden, the size of California, has a stable moose population of 300,000 , of which approximately 1/3 are harvested annually. Alaska, 3 1/2 Californias, has a declining population of 175,000 moose.
Scandanavia, Sweden and Norway, has a wolf population of 200 animals. Alaska has 11,000 wolves.
I can hear the wolf pack howling every winter night from my home. I don't see many moose any longer.
Wolf cutlet anyone?
WTF? If the populations were this low to begin with why would they even consider a hunting season? This means that in 2010 there were a whopping 4100 (approx) moose in the state.......and the state let people hunt moose for 2 more seasons!!?? WHY?
First of all Kevin, it's down by approximately half, which means the 2010 number is more like 5400. Second of all, if they're only harvesting 50 or so per year, then I don't see what the problem is with keeping the hunt on. You can't make a knee-jerk reaction to the decline after one year because it takes longer to establish a pattern. Once it became apparent that there was a serious problem with the moose population they took the necessary steps to try to find a solution.
UpstateNY2
Haven't had Caribou (reindeer) yet, looking forward to a little Comet or Blitzen. ;-)
And I concur, Elk is tasty.
My question to all the "Environmentalist" who think we need to have wolves (natural Predators) every where, is, "When did humans become Un-Natural predators?" Just because we use more sophisticated projectile launching instruments than the American Indian did?
Having no idea why you put "Environmentalist" in quotation marks... Humans became unnatural predators when sport hunting became the norm. Few hunters (with no number so support me) are killing as the sole means of putting meat on the table. Most are supplementing grocery store meats supplies, or the worse-case scenario... a lot today's hunters are killing for trophies or just the thrill of killing--neither of these activities are the acts of natural predators.
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to try to blame wolves. Amazing they didn't wipe out deer, elk, moose, and caribou in the hundreds of years before commercialized hunting.
The wolves got just as much right to the moose as people do. Did people create the moose? Did people create the earth and all the creatures on it?
Amazing how man thinks he is the only one entitled to torture and kill everything. Eventually there will be no moose, no wolves, no elephants, no dolphins or anything else that is on the brink of extinction.
1000 wolves were just killed mostly with inhumane traps while the so called hunters took pictures and videos of their so called TROPHY kill. I would not call anything a trophy kill if it has its leg in a metal trap crying in pain while some coward walks up and shoots it point blank.
I say take the guns and traps away from these so called hunters and let them go play with the wolves and the moose and hopefully none of them will come back.
And my guess is most of you have never set foot out side a city. And all of you have some idealistic view of the world that has no grounding in reality.
I would also venture a guess, that none of you are aware of the unintended consequences of your holier than thou and ignorant approach to environmentalism.
As an Example: in the 70's it was a pretty common as well as lucrative (enough to supplement an income anyway) for folks to go coyote hunting and they kept the population pretty much in check. However, the anti-fur people got involved, and the price of a coyote skin dropped accordingly. The unintended consequence was, not as many people hunted coyotes, the population increased, and we had outbreak mange. Mange is a class of skin diseases caused by parasitic mites. Ever seen a coyote with mange? Ever see a coyote suffer a cold winter with it, it is slow painful death. Since then, folks have started hunting them to control the population, as a pelt is only worth about $10. Sure the there is an entertainment value to it, a comradery if you will, but we haven't seen any more mange either. Now does that sound like the act of someone, "killing for trophies or just the thrill of killing"?
Also, here in Kansas, we don't have wolves, but we do have deer. lots of them. And they do incredible amounts of damage to cars, they have even caused a few fatalities in those incidents with cars. They also do a great deal of damage to crops. And guess what, humans are their only natural predator here. Ever heard of Chronic Wasting disease? Ever see a deer with Chronic Wasting disease? I have have only seen videos myself. And as an avid deer hunter, I do not wish to see our population come down with an epidemic of it. One thing I know, mother nature has a brutal way of controlling a population. I personally would rather deal with it in a more humane way, than letting Gaea have her way.
And yes we have a few yahoos out here who have no manners or respect for nature, but I am guessing we have as many of those, as they think there are dimwitted, city slickers. And we also get more than a few City Slickers who spend more on hunting clothes and accessories than most people make in a year, and their whole goal in their once a year hunting expedition is to bag a trophy. Then you have the rest of us, who belong to responsible organization like Pheasants Forever, or Duck Unlimited, who's goal is to preserve the wildlife for following generations.
So you all, just go on with your preconceived notions and your prejudices. And speak of prejudices, do I get to blame the Hispanics for the invasion of wild hogs in the southern regions of our country? (just kidding) But yeah, invasive species, now there is another problem. Kind of like the wild horses out west.
Any good ideas on how to handle those issues? Other than to spend more Government money on it I mean. Like I said I live in Kansas, and am not completely up to date on those issues, other than what I see on TV. Maybe we should turn some wolves loose in the south east? Or repopulate the area with Panthers?
Anyone who thinks that wolves are responsible for the decline in the moose population in a place where deer are over abundant really needs to get out more often. Are you seriously arguing that wolves are going to take the risk of going after an 800 to 1200 pound moose when there's a 200 pound (or smaller) deer lurking behind every other tree?
Although the moose knuckle may be on the decrease in Minnesota, my observation states it is not in short supply in Indiana. I will continue on with my observation and fill you in on my findings.
Liam! Great post, hit exactly what I complain about the DNR in my region. Some jack ass in MPLS. must have come up with this plan. Too many deer they say so they come up with a "bucks only" policy for the last few years. The results? About the same numbers only poorer quality and a less healthy herd. Some of the finest deer in the county were taken from my timber and now the best are maybe 8 pt. the size of a salad bowl. I do not hunt or even like deer by the way, I'm just saying if you want something fkd up, turn it over to a government agency.
It's more than a little frustrating that Minnesota's Department of Natural Resources still refuses to make the direct link between climate change and moose decline. They seem to be still under the thumb of their Republican administrations, and 'couch' their language accordingly.
They need to stop doing that.
Moose habitat range is determined by temperature, and Minnesota moose experts generally agree that global warming is forcing the southern edge of the distribution of the moose northward into Canada.
So you all, just go on with your preconceived notions and your prejudices.
====================================================
Just keep in mind, prejudice can be a two-sided coin, I've run into people who live in rural areas who automatically dislike those from more urban areas, basically subjecting them to the dimwitted "city slicker" stereotype that you had no problem using, so it goes both ways. I was born and raised in the city, but got tired of the crowds and hectic lifestyle. I now live 50 miles west of the city, but my wife and I plan to retire up north to a rural area in Wisconsin, pine trees and lakes, fishing, etc. We don't plan on looking down on the people up there, and we hope they will treat us the same. Have a very good day.
...meanwhile 8 million unborn children are slaughtered reach year in this country...
Moose are more valuable than humans in the new Socialist Society.
How's that hope and change working ouy for ya.
I'll keep my guns, Obummer.
You people who are condeming the hunters in all this need to take a good long look at the original stories printed around this. It wasn't the DNR or some environmental group that started all this...it was a group of outfitters that petitioned the legislature to take action.
I hate to tell you people, but in most cases where state legislation is spurred to take action on behalf of wildlife and habitat, it is not conservation groups, state biologists or state DNR agencies that spear head these initiatives...but coallitions of outdoorsmen, hunters and fishermen who work round the clock and tirelessly to see the right thing done! But, of course good old MSN once again decided to leave this "vital" little piece of information out of it!
California doesn't have a moose population as we don't have the proper habitat for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alces_alces_NA.svg - Map of North America and Canada that shows the range of moose population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose
As far as the decline in moose population, it has to be disease. I have a hard time believing that wolves can take down a moose population by 54% in such a short period of time. Especially when wolves also eat deer and elk. Wolves don't have the mental capacity to target just one animal for food. So it comes down to disease or parasite contamination. Glad to see Minnesota are taking positive steps to look into it.
Wil Royson
That was the point is was trying to make, guess I didn't word it very well. The point was, there are fewer "hayseeds, or Rednecks" out here than city people tend to think, just as there are fewer "dimwit city slickers" than the rednecks here tend to think. But there are certainly jerks on both sides, just as there are decent responsible people. Stereotypes, huh? what you gonna do?
stonepipe2
sounds about typical, some college educated (over educated) type deems this or that necessary, because a book told him so.
We have a 10 day Any deer season, followed later on with a Doe only season, to help control Populations.
And I don't know why any one shoots a buck, unless it is "Godzilla with Horns" (Bananas at Large, "da Tirty Point Buck) Doe meat is more tender, and has a less gamy flavor.
No serious decline in wildlife populations can be defined by a single defining event or cause unless it is some globally or regionally catostraphic occurance. It is most often a culmination of things that all merge into one undoing. Habitat loss is the single most predominant foundation for nearly all widespread species decline in this country, seeing as how with a lack of habitat the species in question is sequestered in smaller and smaller regions and have no way to by-pass or evade the problems that plaque them at the time.
To blame natural predation on a near genocidal drop in numbers is quite frankly a narrow minded vision! Seeing as how these same animals existed side by side for eons and were able to sustain viable numbers before widespread human population increases began to crowd them together, while all the while they were either being hunted for market or eradicated to make room for human interests.
I have been in the business of managing wildlife for near to 40 years now and I have never seen predation destroy a species, without a myriad of other events taking place at the same time. And even then natural predation is on the low end of the spectrum of causes. What I have seen over and over again is both animal and avian species,game and none game suffer greatly at the hands of habitat destruction and sometimes the drop is so significant they are unable to rebuild. Habitat is a general term for the needs of animals.but each different species demands a very particular habitat and balance in habitat to sustain them and some species demand the same habitat as others. Once habitat loss becomes epidemic in a region you begin to lose throngs of different species while at the same time witnessing an increse in numbers of others who prefer the environment that is produced with those changes. It is a delicate balancing act out there, much like the butterfly effect and at times a change that seems completely insignificant in the long run can be devistating to certain wildlife!
State of Awareness
I think wuzzaflyboy, was using California as reference, to give people an idea how big Sweden is comparatively to other states. I don't think he was implying that Ca. has moose. And to make a comparison to different environmental approaches.
Good afternoon, FarmBoy. Thanks for your comment. What I am saying is absolutely true. Deer will be the next endangered species if the DNR keeps it up. BTW-what region do you farm in?
I believe the cause of the decreasing Moose polution is MAN MADE, nothing more but by human murders.
One day when the wildlife is gone, the trees are all dead, burned out or dying due to man's greed and when our land is saturated with oil and chemicals maybe then Humans will awaken to our greed and the destruction caused by greed.
Now please hunters, please enoy your Bullwinkle Soup while you still can and do not forget to hang your Antlers of Murder in front of your house so we all know where ya live!
PS Hunt I understand your words but the primary predator IS MAN. Wonder how you feel about eating meat contamined with chemicals caused by fracking?
State of Awareness - wuzzaflyboy was not saying that California had a moose population. He was saying that Sweden is roughly the size of California and Alaska is 3 1/2 times the size of Californina. Just thought you should be Aware of that.
stonepipe2
Grew up in north central Kansas, now live in south central Kansas, Brothers and nephew still farm the home place. You should try doe meat, get a roast from someone you know, slow cook it (200°F with some Au Jus (packet stuff works good) for about 4 hours, also, deer burger with about 5% beef talo, in chili, spaghetti, etc. It is low fat, low or no cholesterol, and no hormones. It is all eat any more, except maybe some chicken or fish or stake occasionally.
Deer will be the next endangered species Oh I doubt that, there is a bunch of them in the country, but yeah if they let Chronic Wasting get out of hand, we may see some trouble.
And as I pointed out above, and Hunt pointed it out as well, it is usually the responsible sportsmen who do their best to manage the wildlife. After all it is all the hunting fees we pay that support a great deal of the Parks and Wildlife staff.
I think the anti hunter/hunting environmental types seem to forget that humans are actually natural too, they have simply divorced themselves of that reality, growing up in cities. You guys should really compare a city to a termite colony, ants or bees or other social animals. They modify their environments too.
David Gibson and DumbFarmBoy
Thank you for the clarification. I had to go back and re-read what was posted.
FarmBoy, I doubt it too (endangered) but I was on a roll. Nice talking with you.
you too, catch you later
Actually it isn't the wolves. Seemingly healthy moose are just dropping dead in Minnesota. We are also loosing birch trees like crazy (and that DOES have to do with warming.) Moose do eat white birch bark. I wonder if there is a connection there.
News report -
3 busloads of moose have just be spotted driving down Route 35! A sign on one of the buses was Florida or Bust! When stopped by a state trooper and asked why they were leaving Minnesota for Florida, the group's spokesmoose, Robert Antlers said the winters are too @!$%#ing cold up there besides there aren't any babes there anymore. When asked why buses, he said the TSA wouldn't let them on the planes with their antlers. ("those things are weapons buddy. Lose the antlers and you can board".)
Yeah, it's lame but hey you guys were getting way too serious!
Have a nice day!
AtomAnt
News report -
3 busloads of moose have just be spotted driving down Route 35! A sign on one of the buses was Florida or Bust! When stopped by a state trooper and asked why they were leaving Minnesota for Florida, the group's spokesmoose, Robert Antlers said the winters are too @!$%#ing cold up there besides there aren't any babes there anymore. When asked why buses, he said the TSA wouldn't let them on the planes with their antlers. ("those things are weapons buddy. Lose the antlers and you can board".)
Yeah, it's lame but hey you guys were getting way too serious!
Have a nice day!
#1.43
good one, and if you'll reference, #1.6 I hope you caught the sarcasm there, too.
DumbFarmBoy - you asked in one of your early posts when did man become an unnatural predator? Well sir that is an easy answer - when man started hunting (and fishing) for trophy's alone and not for the meat and materials recovered from the animal killed. Hunting is an improtant and very effective way to manage populations of game in our world. This city girl contends that it is animal cruelty to not allow hunting if the population of the game being hunted is exploding and there are no natural predators or not enough to keep the population under control - in many states this population explosion is a huge issue with the white tailed deer. (where i work in SE Ohio yesterday AM looking out my office window I counted 11 deer less than 100 yards away - and when I left I almost hit one - talk about getting the evil eye)
Wolves, coyotes, mountain lion all serve to help control game populations. When the predator population gets out of balance hunting predators should be allowed - this is trophy hunting I know but is better than allowing farmers and ranchers to indiscrimantly put out poison and traps.
I suspect they will find that there are overlapping reasons why the moose population is down in MN - if their wolf population is 30,000 like someone posted that may be part of it, climate is another, and maybe the other is the moose have all moved to Colorado (I couldnt resist).
Better late than never.
Good thinking Minnesota.
If this was the Pennsylvania Game Commission,right now they would be issuing more permits and proposing an extended season.
Having grown up in rural Minnesota, I had the opportunity to see moose fairly regularly wandering across the field. I remember one older gentleman talking about how strong moose were and not much stopped them. "When they walk up to a fence, they just put their head up and walk on through." Someone asked, "What if it's an electric fence?" He replied, "Well, they probably walk through that much faster!"
Too bad that moose aren't very good as pets; I always wanted one as such.
High powered bullets sure stopped those Moose though......and that thinned out the genetic stock,because hunters only go for those moose with the healthiest look and largest rack of horns...leaving behind weak runts which don't make it through the winters.
Liam...you don't know anything about hunting or biology. That's obvious, and your statements are classic anti-hunter rhetoric and have been proven to be false by wildlife biologists a thousand times over.
Please go spread your lies elsewhere.
You should stop before you dig yourself any deeper. You are spouting standard anti-trophy hunting dogma which in theory seems to make sense but in reality doesn't hold up unless hunters are killing a majority of the bulls every year and truly taking only the largest. That almost never is the actual case. Most hunters will take the first legal sized animal they encounter and regulations are designed to leave plenty of breeding stock after each hunt.
But don't take my word for it. Follow the research and see what they find.
What he said is consistent with Darwin's laws.
When you kill the largest and fastest animal, you are interfering with Natural Selection. Normally, those animals would be the first to mate and pass on their genes. If they are taken before successfully mating, inferior genes enter the 'pool'.
Humans interfere with this in so many ways with so many species. In the natural world the sick, unhealthy, and out-of-shape would not survive. If we ever had a major disaster (such as long-term loss of electricity) those people would be the first to die. In nature, they wouldn't even live long enough to pass on their genes. The rise in diseases, especially genetic disorders, is a direct result of our meddling with the Natural Selection of our own species.
Eat mo' chicken...Moo
Moose are rare enough that I don't know of any hunters who would pass up a shot at a reasonable bull moose in the expectation that later he/she'll get a shot at a "better" trophy animal.
AnOzOfTruth has about a ton of bullcrap in his post. The large, mature, trophy animals that SOME hunters pursue have had 3, 4, 5, or more years to breed before they are killed by hunters. But every wildlife biologists will tell you that the hunting seasons and regulations set by the state wildlife agencies are the greatest management tool we have. In reality, the large majority of animals harvested by animals are not the trophies, and the ratio of male/female harvests are usually about 50/50 unless there is a low population that results in the intentionally low limit of available antlerless/female permits.
Without hunters and the great conservation efforts they support, as well as the revenue generated by hunters, there would be precious little habitat left for animals amidst the urban sprawl, agricultural practices, and business pursuits consuming much of the United States.
Bull crap. Liam hit it on the head! Our white tail population sucks because of the DNR's policies. A nice 10 or 12 point buck is like Bigfoot. You might get a glimpse of what you think is a nice buck and you sure hear rumors of a nice one, but the pictures paint the story. Theo- maybe you should quit digging yourself in deeper. We have a bucks only and few doe permits and the newbie 16 year olds can shoot does but it has hurt our deer population worse than "blue tongue" from the drought.
Jeffersonian-I might not have a biologist degree but I do know my ass from a hole in the ground. I know what population control through hunting does, and I can see what works and what doesn't.
DEar Theo,
Yes there are some responsible Hunters and I know several of them, but there are also many non-responsible hunters who hunt for Antlers Only not meat for survival. HOw do I know---I once saw on the side of the road in NW Colorado a dead Moose, yet his antlers has been cut off and were the only thing cut on this moose!
I understand your advocating for the HUNT, yet there are many who HUNT for the pleasure of the Kill and for the money those Antlers receive.
If it was on the side of the road, I would call it roadkill. Who knows how long it was there. Some "big shot" probably took the antlers to weave a tall tale with.
Stone Pipe - I guess I spotted big foot about 6 months ago in SW Ohio - it was at least a 10 pointer. I was in my opffice and looked out the window around 830 am. Beautiful animal.
I do have a Biology degree - I support hunting as one of the methods for population control. A few years ago the state of Indiana expanded their hunting season, opened up the state parks all because the deer population in that state was exploding and deer were actually starving. It is also natural for humans to hunt, we eat meat, we are designed to eat meat (no matter what the vegans claim), we also have no cause to be cruel to animals and allowing them to starve or get hit by cars is cruel.
What I would like to see is the various states impliment hunting regulations similar to Alaskas where subsistance hunting is common. Basically you can only take a certain size and number of animals and you have to take all the meat etc. SO if you trpphy hunt a moose - you loose your hunting privelages if you fail to take and either use the meat yourself or share it.
SillySHrinks your dead CO moose could be road kill - and as pj said who knows how long it had been there and who knows who took the antlers. It is sad - but I suspect in many states more deer and moose are dispatched by cars than hunters.
My guess would be because fools shoot them. Must be like shooting a big cow. Easy for the killers to
catch. What sport is it to use modern high powered weapons to kill animals? Sportsmen.........b.......s.......
Throw corn on the grass in a clearing and sit in a deer stand and wait for a deer to walk in front of you and
shoot it. Some sport !
It's like the idiots calling slot machines 'games of skill'..........to put coins in a slot and pull down a handle !
Try reading the article. I have NEVER heard anyone call a slot a game of skill.
Ok Ines...we get it...you're an anti-hunter. Good for you, but you just sound completely ignorant when you come on here shrieking and wailing with your emotional rants.
Are you a vegetarian Ines? If not you just pay someone else to kill "a big cow" for you. Which is more honest?
It's called an analogy, Spike.
Some hunters do act like it takes a lot of skill to kill something. Ever watch "Swamp People"? They hang a chicken on a hook in the swamp, then ride by on a boat the next day to see which lines are under the water. Knowing there will be an alligator stuck to their hook, they pull it up and shoot the alligator in the head. They act like that takes skill. It's one of the laziest forms of 'hunting' I have ever seen. That might explain why they are all obese. It's more akin to trapping or fishing, really.
It was not an analogy, it was put forth as a fact.
Nothing like referencing a "reality" show to support one's opinion. LOL!
I don't hunt, but I have friends who do, and they go out every year during the elk season. They'll spend two or three days hunting, and sometimes they'll get a shot, and sometimes they won't even see a target.
It's not like you can walk up to an elk and stick the rifle barrel in it's ear.
That would be baiting and not every state allows that,personally i'm against baiting it shows a lack of pre season preparations.i have a brother in minn and he was lucky enough to get a tag for a moose and thought better of it after the old timers expalined to him how the got their hernia belts.
I've often wondered why the NRA hasn't opposed hunting permits while standing against background checks and licensing of gun owners. Poachers won't bother with such permits, just as criminals won't submit to background checks or licensing. So what's the use of any permit or license?
You answered your question.
Because law-abiding citizens are hunters. And poachers are criminals. And just like in real society, the criminals are a very small percentage of the whole and you don't punish everyone for the actions of a few.
Hunters contribution billions of dollars a year to the economy, and are the greatest conservationists in the world. If it wasn't for hunter dollars and efforts to keep game herds at sustainable levels and preserve habitat there wouldn't be many healthy populations of any type of animal in the United States anymore.
You seem to contradict yourself. Hunting permits are exactly a way to "punish everyone for the actions of a few," just like background checks and gun licenses -- yet you say the NRA supports hunting permits because "law-abiding citizens are hunters?" In a free country, you don't need background checks, gun licenses, OR government permission to hunt.
Hunting permits have nothing to do with punishment, and you expose yourself as uninformed by trying to compare them to background checks. Hunting permits are used to control populations, so that entire species are not wiped out, same as they do for fishing.
I'm guessing you have never hunted or seen a hunting permit. In my neck of the woods, the hunting permit is a government-issued slip of paper allowing you to hunt in general; then you need to obtain different tags for various classes of game, depending on the season. It's these tags that are used to manage game populations and hunter impact on land.
No contradiction. As always, law-abiding citizens support regulations that make sense. Hunting seasons, licenses and permits, and bag limits make sense.
Gun control has proven to be ineffective, as gun bans in countries with low violent crime rates result in higher violent crime rates and gun bans in countries with high violent crime rates result in even higher violent crime rates.
Don't believe me...perhaps you should so take a do-it-yourself hunting trip through the lovely countryside of Mexico.
Sure, hunting permits make sense... in Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China. There are lots of nuisance animals, such as deer and coyotes, that require no tags or bag limits, yet you're still forced to acquire government permission to hunt them. I'm at a loss to explain the NRA's silence when law-abiding gun owners wish to cull such game without the burden of acquiring the government's permission to do what's logical and necessary.
Hunting license and tag fees help fund the enforcement and protection for the animals. Responsible hunters want to keep the animal population thriving for future generations. Gun control is a seperate issue, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China are prime example of why we shouldn't have a gun ban.
Good for you Minnesota. It is the right thing to do. Now if only poaching doesn't occur.
Poaching is indeed always a concern. Always had a soft spot for moose; they are beautiful animals, & I hope they are able to rebound in number.
If, in the near future, the moose population in Manitoba or Ontario starts to increase, we'll know what's up. Species migration to maintain residence in preferred environments. As our temperatures have increased, the different comfort levels for different species have morphed, smeared, increased in size or the reverse, but they have changed. Some humans scoff at the difference that 1-2 C will bring. These are the same people that slept through math class in jr. high. A yearly average increase of 1-2 Celsius ( 3-5 Fahrenheit) means that some days will have temps 5-7 degrees warmer, and other days will be cooler by a little less than that (however, the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb sunlight/longer-wave freqs and re-radiate at shorter more interactive freqs which long story short means that there is more ENERGY in the environment. That could cause the mother of all BLIZZARDS. So yeah, Anthropogenic-based Climate Change (Global Warming) could actually cause local or regional freeze snaps.
All of the information is available, however, you have to feel the need to make sure what you know and believe is true and correct, or at least is the consensus of the people in the know. Not what you've gleaned from biased sources pushing an agenda of status quo. If you do not, it will be all of our future generations wondering WTF was our problem, since we knew about it since the frigging '70s.
According to the article the drop in moose numbers have only been noticed for two years.
Stop trying to inject Global Climate Disruptions (the new White House buzzword, Sept 2010) into everything.
An increase in Moose populations in Manitoba or Ontario is unlikely, both provinces are primarily farmland. Moose tend to stay near the edge of forested areas where they can feed on saplings.
Global warming, while a definite issue, may not be the primary factor in this case. Though, external parasite activity (which increases as the temperature increases) is very possible.
I would be curious to know about the state of Minnesota's logging industry. Moose need a lot of feed and their diet is highly specialized (feeding them corn won't cut it.) Increased logging activity also increases the available saplings. This, in turn, means more moose than the land would normally hold. Let the forests go back to their 'virgin' state and populations will go down.
You mentioned the 1970s when an impending ice-age was determined by the science community. So, which is it, ice-age or global warming that we must be alarmed about?
The continents have experienced a lot of tectonic activity lately, which is the major effect of climate vacillations that have been occurring for millions of years.
I see moose alongside highways in Maine,New Hampshire and Vermont...and, yes, it's like looking at docile, slow footed cows. If you approach them,sometimes they squint at you,then go back to munching leaves.
What kind of pleasure can a man get from shouldering an $800. gun,with a telescopic sight to shoot these moose which suffer from nearsightedness,...and are nearly as dumb as a hunter ?
I don't get it....I used to belong to a rod and gun club for the fishing and skeet shooting. Skeet clays are brighter than moose and hunters.
Having eaten moose I totally get it.
"What kind of pleasure can a man get from shouldering an $800. gun"
You can probably answer you own question the next time you eat when really hungry.
freedom1st-1226470
You mentioned the 1970s when an impending ice-age was determined by the science community. So, which is it, ice-age or global warming that we must be alarmed about?
HMMMM, and I quote from my 1st post:
"(however, the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will absorb sunlight/longer-wave freqs and re-radiate at shorter more interactive freqs which long story short means that there is more ENERGY in the environment. That could cause the mother of all BLIZZARDS. So yeah, Anthropogenic-based Climate Change (Global Warming) could actually cause local or regional freeze snaps." Science is a self-correcting discipline, the scientific community will notice a deviation from expected (known to be plausible, or is according to presently accepted theories) behavior. Now you have a symptom, go determine the cause. The more complex the system, the harder it is to determine how the various synergies interact and what the weighting is for the individual characteristics. And in the 70s we had an incomplete understanding of the dynamics; we did not have the tools, or the experience in guesstimating what potentials are likely and which were not. Then as now though, we had data indicating an anomaly. And now we have advanced our understanding of the many complexities that makes up weather, (and what makes the forecasting of the weather out past 3 days iffy) and in the long run builds the pattern we call climate.
The continents have experienced a lot of tectonic activity lately, which is the major effect of climate vacillations that have been occurring for millions of years.
Umm, if I read this right, you are attempting to put the cart before the boulder! The effects of climate are subtle on our geology- ice sheets can form that would then depress the land covered; or a major drought kills off ground cover, ensuring land slides in vertically-biased areas. However, it seems like you are trying to say that our natural heating and cooling patterns across the epochs was and is causing "... a lot of tectonic activity lately". And if that is the case, not so much. You are right in that there has been activity, but our planet hosts an active tectonic system so as the continents drift, stress builds and needs to be released. It is really unlikely, but not impossible that a weather or climatic event could cause a local or regional geological episode, but affecting an entire continental land mass or all of them, no. As to being "the major effect of climate vacillations that have been occurring for millions of years", no. It is true that the climate has varied in both directions in the past. We though were not 7,000,000,000 strong then, if we were even around. The reasons for those cyclical patterns are understood to a point by using proxies. Dendrochronology is useful up to mebbe 5,000yrs. Archaeodendrochronology would be utilizing fossilized remains so its accuracy would be debatable due to the changes that time and the environment would have wrought, it though, might be reasonably accurate if cross-checked against a known history sample up till around 25-35,000 yrs ago.
As these have been done, we know that the present period is setting a precedent. The main one being the CO2 levels. We are in the process of reaching 400ppm but looking at definitely getting past 475 within the next 10-15 years, even if we went instantly to zero-emission RIGHT NOW, we have momentum that will only slowly abate.
Anyway, you probably will not check back to see your ubiquitous and misinformed opinions debunked. Others though may appreciate the tennis match, and the information provided.
L8r on, ave
And you do not believe that climatologists would have long ago quantified the effects on climate that our active geology would inflict? They come up with
Uggh, how did I not notice my incomplete thought:-(
"The continents have experienced a lot of tectonic activity lately, which is the major effect of climate vacillations that have been occurring for millions of years.
And you do not believe that climatologists would have long ago quantified the effects on climate that our active geology would inflict? They came up with models to predict weather, and they are reasonably accurate enough to tell us what tomorrow and the next day is most likely to be like. As well as models to predict aspects of the climate- they predict which will hold sway for the late winter: El Nino, La Nina, or a neutral pattern. And that is used by farmers to determine whether they need to change the crops they are raising. And for city/urban planners, having an idea as to what may create the futures pressure/crisis events or might reshape the terrain due to unforeseen interactions.
We will believe telemarketers, politicians, used car salesman, what have you; but if an expert in the field starts to recount facts, he's shouted down by ignorant people using unfacts to dismiss any research as prostituting for grants, or will have minor mistakes magnified until his rock solid credibility is covered in feces. Afterwards, private interests will use money and human nature to maintain the status quo, essentially wrecking the planets ability to support life, as well as lowering the potential his descendants might inherit. We know the big lie works. Why? It has been demonstrated over and over. How would we as a species be affected if even against valid undeniable evidence, we just called climatologists liars and goldiggers, continued on our ways, and ignored ever increasing warnings. That sounds like a recipe for a disaster that then would race the destruction of our environment in an effort to eliminate us as a species.
And the best thing: we might not listen to actual scientists about much; we do listen to astrologers/our horoscope for advice on how to live the day. Idiocy.
L8r on, ave
In answer they banned fracking up there and do have Game wardens that actually WORK!
They probably move back to Canada for the free healthcare....
Or that Canadian beer. Moosehead anyone?
Yes, the beer ay!
They went to Canada because they can't afford Obamacare. lol
Look into ticks. I have seen them on the moose in Maine as well. I really think it is a good starting point.
For us non-hunters - Its like good news bad news - the good news is Moose Hunting season is banned - the bad news is a whole species had to practically disappear for it to happen. How sad!
Mostly hunters pay the freight for conservation programs and the like,and few species would be left if it wasn't for sportsmen.
sportsmen..... not market hunters
when sportsmen are pushed from the equation and greed takes over,most animals will be eradicated.
Look at Africa for a sterling example.
Without hunters Joyce there would be many species that would have already disappeared. You can blame the wolves for the destruction of the Minnesota moose population, just like they're ripping through moose, deer, and elk herds in every state they were introduced by dim-witted political groups.
Hunters contribute billions of dollars to the economy each year, to provide habitat, wildlife management, and sound conservation principles to preserve the populations of game animals everywhere.
"You can blame the wolves for the destruction of the Minnesota moose population"
If this were true then shouldn't the pre-wolf release herd numbers (of any species) be many times greater than before the wolfs were killed off? Nature kind of has a way of balancing these things out on its own.
The pre-wolf release herds were managed by hunters. Law-abiding hunters who contribute billions of dollars to the economy and to the conservation of wildlife and wild lands. It's the management through hunting, via a license, tag, and bag limit program that kept herd levels at optimum numbers to prevent habitat destruction, starvation, rampant auto/animal collisions, etc.
Bottom line...we don't need wolves because as hunters we can do the job better, smarter, and in a way that's beneficial to the economy.
"Bottom line...we don't need wolves because as hunters we can do the job better, smarter, and in a way that's beneficial to the economy."
Oh yeah... that's why the Passenger Pigeons are extinct, why the buffaloes were almost killed off, why the grizzlies in the North Cascades are [probably] gone, why the wolves were damned near killed off, why the waterfowl along the east coast flyway were killed off to dangerously low levels...
The animals will hunt/survive just fine until man enters the picture. Then the killing for trophies, the fun of killing, sport hunting, ... stepped in. Carcasses litter the plains and mountains as the trophies were gathered. Ducks Unlimited and all the other fake conservation groups exist solely to hope enough game survives so they can be shot at the following year.
Brilliant post Orson. Do you have any examples of a game species that was legally hunted to the brink of extinction within the last century?
Of course you don't, because legal hunting is the greatest conservation tool on the planet. You completely contradicted yourself, as the last thing that contributed to the decline of game species 100+ years ago was trophy hunting. Those animals were killed for food, for profit, and to protect a way of life.
And don't give us any lies about poaching in Africa either. Poaching is not hunting. Just like a violent criminal with multiple offenses isn't a law-abiding gun owner.
And if you're really worried about humans destroying animal populations then you better start selling birth control, because nothing threatens the future of wildlife moreso than urban sprawl, agricultural development, and business pursuits that destroy their habitat.
Within the last century? 1912? Passenger pigeon? Heath hen? Okay, they weren't to the "brink"--they were totally killed off. You are trying to play (legally hunted) with the idea of only licensed hunting. Hunting licenses did not enter into the picture when the mass killing was going on. If you move back a few more years... bison enter the picture, one of man's greatest travesties of killing. Bears? If you go on a regional basis, I think there are a few parts of the country that no longer have bears. How specific do you want to do this?
If it was not for drastic hunting curtailment in the eastern flyway, some species of waterfowl might not have survived.
I am guessing you treat trophy hunting as separate from some sort of regular hunting? If you restrict hunting to those who hunt as the sole means of putting meat on the table, there would be very little, if any, need for concern about animal populations, but, very few hunt for that reason.
Africa? What is that diversion for? It is interesting that if a species were make extinct by poaching, you would not consider it extinct? Just sort of pretend gone?
Poaching? What is that diversion for?
Birth control? What is that diversion for?
And if not for the hunters of Minnesota there probably wouldn't be any Moose. I bet you do not contribute one dime to your states conservation effort. I pretty much can guarantee it.
In the 1970's in Michigan we had Pheasants all throughout the lower penninsula. Then the bounty on Coyote was taken off, within a few years the Pheasant poulation was wiped out. Snow Shoe Hares wiped out. So just because soem goody two shoes anti hunter got the bounty stopped on coyotes, two different species of game animals pretty much ceased to exist.
You can't watch disney movies for your view of the animal world. You want to see something brutal, watch a Coyoute grab a fawn by the neck and choke it to death till it's eyes literally pop out of it's eye sockets. Or watch a wolf eat a moose calf guts out while it is still alive. And I doubt you've ever seen a deer winter yard littered with hundreds of carcasses. They died a slow horrible death of starvation. If man doesnot control the poulations of these animals that's how they die. Not float away on a cloud of pixie dust to meet the great Aslan..........
You can't reason with these people Breeze, they will never understand it because they are so far removed from the natural order of things they actually think that man has no right place in participating in the pysical world anymore!
It is sad really how far removed and disenfranchized most people are these days from the workings of the natural world and thus live their lives with zero understanding of it... yet full of zealous opinions about something they have no concept of. How could they they have no involvement with it at all..other than what they see and hear on Televison or perhaps read in a magazine. But if you don't actually spend time out there...real time...years and years in direct participation in that world you can never understand or appreciate it and that is the thing that will destroy it in the end,"out of sight out of mind!" Once we become so far removed from it as a society, that we no longer care about it... then it is all over! And that is exactly what is happening!
They despise hunters, and thus cannot comprehend the fact that hunters and fishermen alike are the single biggest allies of wildlife and habitat in this nation and always have been! They are so overwrought with media induced, melladrama and emotion that they have become completely imune to any reason, logic and more importantly truth!
What is even worse is you can bet that should they ever get their way and succeed in abolishing hunting and fishing in this country... they surely won't reach into their pockets then and produce the literal billions of dollars that woodsmen and watermen willingly pour into state and federal bureas of land management and wildlife and habitat conservation funds on a yearly basis...which is the very thing that keeps these resources alive and well and it is funded indisputably and by overwhelming majority by outdoorsmen and women.
The great majority of state DNR agencies across the nation are funded solely by outdoorsmen and not by any enviromentalist groups at all! Yet they don't want to hear that..it doesn't fit into their warm and fuzzy little mold and neither does the undeniable truth that without true outdoorsmen, who's hearts and souls are created and sustained by these resources and who love them!...they are doomed!
Of course a lot of this growing trend towards anti hunting/fishing sentiment in this country is directly a result of mass outdoor media and marketing..hunting and fishing shows and those repulsively over dramatic and hysterically stereotyped front men and women that they have plastered over the airwaves are what the majority of the on the fence and vehemently anti hunting crowd see as represenitive of all hunters and fishermen in this nation and they are repulsed by it and rightly so! Hell they repulse me!
When it is all said and done outdoor media and marketing will prove itself to be the more dangerous to the future of our wild resources than any anti hunting/fishing group ever concieved and the driving force in promoting and perpetuating the growth of negative sentiments in the end. That is our fault! There are not enough true sportsmen and woodsmen in this country speaking out against that blatant misrepresentation of this nations outdoorsmen!
And now we have a dramatic decrease in yearly recruitment of future outdoorsmen, a growing trend towards militant enviromentalist views with zero understanding of the environment, habitat and resources they are so rabidly attempting to defend, while completely ignorant of it all except what is fed to them by over emotional ad campaigns and articles , dwindling habitats and resources due to unabated over population and development and no compromise between the two elements that could save these things in the end!
coallitions of outdoorsmen and enviromentalist groups are fighting the same battle, which is a love for these resources..yet they refuse to cooperate simply because of a difference of opinions. It truly! is a sad state of affairs.
Climate change, anyone? As the geography moves northward each year, the animals that live there move with it. Read something about the Buckeye Tree no longer living in the Buckeye state, Ohio.
Just a thought, how is the wolf population doing in MN?
I dont know,but thats a good question for somebody who might be there.
They just opened Wolf season in 2012, and had a good harvest.
Its not the wolves. It seems to be some kind of disease affecting their digestive system.
from 2003: An unexpected concern was the tipovers. All had full stomachs, yet all were malnourished. None was particularly old. None had obvious injuries, illness, or lethal parasites. They simply tipped over.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct03/moosemystery.html
I wish this one had a date, but looking at the source code, it seems to be from 2011:
Moose are dying throughout the year. Many are emaciated and appear to be starving, even though their intestinal tracts are full of food and fecal pellets. For an undetermined reason, they seem to be wasting away. In fact, Swedish scientists use the term Moose Wasting Disease (unrelated to Chronic Wasting Disease) to describe a similar condition among moose in that Scandinavian country. There, too, the cause remains uncertain.
http://www.northernwilds.com/pages/Explore/notes/is-the-arrowhead-moose-he.shtml
Good point regarding the information from the Swedes. They're many years ahead of us on population studies of moose.
Adding:
Montana and Wyoming are seeing issues also. In Non-wolf areas:
Recent research is also pointing to another possible culprit affecting Wyoming’s moose population — parasites. A study published this year showed that about 50 percent of 168 moose that were killed during the 2009 hunting season were infected with Elaeophora schneideri, a worm that takes up residence in the animal’s arteries.
http://missoulian.com/lifestyles/recreation/montana-wyoming-investigate-plummeting-moose-populations/article_e5eced26-00cb-11e2-8a94-0019bb2963f4.html
Rain...Those are some nasty little nematodes, considering their relationship with horse flies as the transmitting host the lack of cold weather could readily account for their proliferation. It'd be interesting to know if there is any anecdotal or empirical evidence with the MN moose herd.
Bit of a follow-up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaeophora_schneideri
I dont know the deer fly/horse fly cycles in MT/WY. For me (in MN) deerfly are more common than horsefly. Drought seems to impact their numbers more than snow/cold but with as many species of deer/horsefly, its likely several of them will thrive under any situation.
Biting Black flies are more of a problem in NE MN (not sure which species). Maybe a vector for an evolving virus/bacteria.
Anybody visit an Abercrombie and Fitch store recently? That's where the Moose went! 1045 stores currently open, each with a moose head. And everybody that thinks Abercrombie moose heads are cool, may get one him/herself for above the fireplace. So cool, except if you're a moose...
I can tell you why the moose and all other animals are leaving the planet. Its because the planet is not fit to live in. Greedy Human infestation has rendered it unfit for anything but the lowest form of life. Humans are the Dumbest form of life and the animals are just sick of it. Don't blame them cause I'm sick of it also. Science is the worst affection the human race has ever had to deal with and they have yet to realize the evil it has brought to the World. .. yeah y eah I know how you think me silly for saying it on a computer and the internet but I go to where it matters. RIP beautiful animals and damn the humans. gods only mistake.
Yep, you are silly.
"Science is the worst affection the human race has ever had to deal with..."
Aww jeezus. How a tool is used determines which side of the right/wrong equation, I.E. the wielders intent is what should be measured, not the worst case scenario looking only at the item itself.
It's kinda like guns. they are inanimate, have no feelings, no soul. They will only do as they are used. If left alone they will never do anything but rust. A sane, normal, well-adjusted person could own 25 high-powered firearms and never feel the need to shoot outside of a gun range. A sick, disturbed individual even if deprived of assault rifles will just go for something else- stacking heads on their hood ornament, combining household chemicals to create poisons or explosives, etc...
I feel science has been abused, can be abused, and has not reached a point where it will not be exploited again. We do need science, as yes, it was the vehicle that allowed us to reach this point. You seem to not appreciate the fact that as one can use science for selfish or malevolent purposes, one can also use self-same science to right those wrongs, prevent future incidents, as well as help to increase the quality of life for whatever creatures catch one's fancy. Whereas taking it away would be like saying we just banned guns so we now need to ban speech-speech is the most widely used weapon since we got comfortable with language. You take away speech and you remove the ability to avoid conflict. Science may be used egregiously, but that is the intent of the person. Not the sole purpose of the tool. You take away science and you remove the ability to reverse/mitigate the effects of the misuse. And inhibit attempts to hinder further misuse or attempts to move forward, collectively.
Remember, the methodology of science is what helped us realize our effects on the rest of the natural world. And made us realize where we stand in the natural world.
I empathize with your position in regards to the other denizens we share Terra with, but taking away science will doom all. Having more people interested in science would provide a base from which we could, well, do whatever we imagine, including increasing the quality of life experienced by our animal neighbors, or provide the means to leave our homeworld so the kin that evolved alongside us can have true nature again. All but the dolphins would probably heartily endorse our moving out the neighborhood.
L8r on, ave
:-)
The state had better hire a new set of wildlife biologists. It is times like these that talented research biologists are needed not a bunch of bureaucrats who are locked into daily humdrum routines. While moose are invading developed areas throughout the North and successfully reproducing, there must be a serious reason for the diminished population in this particular habitat? The priorities should be 1) analyze the food source, 2) test for toxins in the area, 3) where are the wintering grounds and finally, is there a parasite or other deleterious organism setting into the population.
That's right,it ain't rocket science....is there something to eat and if so,whats killing them off?
and I didnt go to college with a biology degree.
deleterious organism? could mean wolf
I think they kind of knew they were on the decline as last year there was only 87 licenses issued for Moose hunting.
.
Hey Rocky, where's Bullwinkle?
could it have anything to do with the recent election?
Its Bush's fault.
It's obvious that wolves are to blame here. Which is probably what anti-hunters had in mind all along with their idiotic wolf reintroduction programs. Get enough wolves in places to get rid of the deer, moose, elk, and other game species and you can cancel the hunting seasons...thereby getting rid of hunters.
It's ridiculous that wolf populations have gone unchecked as long as they have. It's equally that this article claims "no one knows why" the moose are disappearing and mention ticks, global warming, and any other diversion they can think of to avoid mentioning the fact that wolves are eating everything in their areas and then moving on to new areas when their food supply runs out.
Hey numnuts, there is only one speices that can wipe out another and that is man. Here in Montana people want to blame the wolf on eveything. These people are ones who moves in from out of state believing that shooting a bull elk should be a seasy as catching a brwon trout. The wolf has changed the landscape and enhanced it. I culs the heard and kils the weak and old. Trophy hunters only care about the size of the rack.
Ken, you sound like a charming fellow. Unfortunately you don't know anything about hunting, wolves, or wildlife biology. But like all other anti-hunters, you certainly don't let the facts get in the way of you opinions do you?
Spread your lies and propaganda elsewhere, anyone with any knowledge on the subject would dispute everything you put in that post of yours.
The wolves have also damaged the Elk population in Idaho.
@Jeffersonian3
As a hunter you should respect the wolf more - they are only doing the same thing (for actual survival)
I can respect them while also realizing their devastating impact at the same time. I didn't say anything about wiping them out, but the wolf numbers need to be managed rather than left unchecked to destroy ungulate populations across the nation.
The world would be just fine if the United States wolf population was 25% of the current numbers.
Wolf - moose relationship -- See Isle Royale studies. Wolves don't damage elk, moose, deer populations. Wolves are part of nature. Man intrudes, makes some silly-assed assumptions, i.e., the 25% number above, and becomes an expert. Man kills wantonly for trophies or the fun of killing, seldom for the need for food.
All this whining and moaning about man managing the animal populations is pure drivel. The animals are in danger because man has decided he is God when it comes to wildlife.
No animal populations in the U.S. have gone unchecked, many have been eradicated--now some folks think a [insert preferred animal to kill here] Unlimited will keep enough of them alive to ease their conscience as they gather around the catered fireplace each evening.
Hunting in the U.S. if primarily a sport, not a necessity.
Orson,
Wherever you live, you live in the habitat of a native species. Move! Give the critters their native land!
Orson, your Isle Royale studies are not a natural environment. Those wolves are stuck on that island, so when they kill off too many moose the wolves starve to death and their litter survival plummets. Then the moose population increases and when it does so does the wolf population, then the moose population decreases, then the wolf population decreases...it's a cycle on that island because everything is confined to that island and a limited space.
In more natural habitat, like Minnesota, Idaho, etc. The wolves can destroy a local ungulate population and then move on to a new area where food is more plentiful. Then the wolf population is able to continually expand and increase its presence via large and more numerous packs. As those packs expand their decimation of game animals the populations in large areas and even statewide are severely impacted.
Your Isle Royale study has no relevance to the habitat of North America.
Jeffersonian3 ... and you don't get do define what a natural environment is. The Isle Royale studies are ideal for seeing what happens among species with no outside influence. You are choosing to call the altered state as done by man the natural state. Man does not have enough history, not of any part of the U.S., of how many of what should be where--all that is done is some arbitrary number from a model is chosen. Modeling is done by man and man has no idea what the optimum min/max numbers are.
Stick with me on this one. It's global warming. Changing environment has forced the Michigan and Manitoba sasquatch population further south, into Minnesota, disrupting their food supply. The only replacement for yaks, musk oxen and bears that they've found is Minnesota's finest...moose. No....really.....what this article fails to mention is a booming sasquatch population in the Crookston and Detroit Lakes suburbs.
why kill these beautiful animals? I watched a show the other day were guys with super scopes shot a beautiful deer is that real hunting?
Scopes, high powered rifles, all terrain vehicles. Hunting is not the physical effort that it once was.
Yup, it is Henry.
If we love the moose we would all start eating the moose. Moose burgers at mickey ds. I have never heard that we have diminishing populations of cows or chickens. Save the moose by eating the moose.
OK, no more moose but how about squirrel?????
Boris and Natasha have retired.
ticks!!!! they will find them to be a huge factor...loss of climate due to winter yards being wiped out by logging is huge as well..warmer weather brings ticks experts say no but i disagree..
Ticks have been a problem in middle TN for the last 3 or 4 years as we haven't had the usual extended periods of cold weather. I missed work for a week due to a tick borne bacterical infection, 42 years of deer hunting and this was a first. Our family doctor told me he had treated 7 other patients for the same type of infection, all deer hunters. Our veterinarian warned us to watch our dogs, and be sure to spray a good insecticide during the dry warm spells.
I'm happy to see the DNR cancel the moose hunt. It's a shame it wasn't cancelled sooner.
They said hunting had nothing to do with the decline you idiot.