Fall In MN Moose Populations Continues - From 4,000 In NW In Mid-1980s To 100 Today

The bad news continues for Minnesota's moose. The population of the iconic animal in northeastern Minnesota has declined again, based on the latest aerial survey this winter by the Department of Natural Resources. Wildlife researchers estimate that there are 5,500 moose in that region of the state. With a 23 percent margin of error, the estimate is not statistically different from last year's estimate of 7,600, but it supports other evidence that the moose population is declining.

"We don't believe the population dropped 2,000 in the past year, but it's indicative that the population is declining and parallels everything else we've been seeing," said Mark Lenarz, DNR wildlife researcher. "Our concern continues."

Reasons for the decline are uncertain, but researchers continue to believe a warming climate is responsible. Minnesota, already at the southern fringe of the moose range, apparently is becoming inhospitable for the large animals. Moose are extremely heat-sensitive, and temperature readings in Ely show over the past 48 years, average summer and winter temperatures have increased substantially.

EDIT

Already in the northwest part of the state the number of moose has fallen from around 4,000 in the mid-1980s to around 100 today. "There's more and more evidence suggesting it's related to climate," Lenarz said. Higher temperatures can stress moose, making them susceptible to diseases and parasites.

EDIT/END

http://www.startribune.com/sports/outdoors/83827702.html?elr=KArks:DCiUMEaPc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

With the slightly warmer winters we've been having, tick related mortality of calves and even adults is steadily increasing. This is a good example of how just a couple of degrees is enough to seriously impact a population.

Moose populations in other states (including many warmer ones) have been expanding.

I'd like to see something to back up that claim, if you don't mind.

I got an email from a guy at work with links to almost a dozen states.

NY

Moose numbers are growing exponentially in New York, with roughly 500 moose in the northern part of the state, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) projects this fall. That’s up from the estimated 50-100 moose a decade earlier and a handful of sporadic sightings in the 1980s.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/09/28/nys-moose-population-growing/


MA

Researchers from state and federal agencies are looking closely at the burgeoning Massachusetts moose population, which has the potential of dwarfing the white-tailed deer in its impact on the stability and diversity of 284 square miles of Quabbin and Ware River watershed.

http://www.telegram.com/article/20080107/NEWS/801070623

VT

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- State wildlife biologists are hoping an aggressive moose hunt this season will help cut in half the number of animals in the Northeast Kingdom where the population has far exceeded the ability of the land to provide for them and moose conflicts with people are increasing, officials say.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/705125/vermont_moose_population_high_in_some_areas/index.html

Until you analyze the climate data in those regions, you cannot draw comparisons. Now, if those areas were changing as rapidly as NW MN, your point might be valid.

Until you analyze the climate data in those regions, you cannot draw comparisons. Now, if those areas were changing as rapidly as NW MN, your point might be valid.

"Those regions" involve states all around MN. Is it your contention that only MN is undergoing climate change?

More importantly, it doesn't matter how rapid the change is if the net effect of the change still leaves MN cooler than the states in question. Utah and Colorado, for instance, are on the list. Has MN warmed so much that they're warmer than these two?

The climate is definitely changing, but it is THEIR point that can only be valid if they lift their head up out of their work and look around. You can't blame something on a global change if the areas around you are also experiencing that change (or are ahead of you in line) and are not observing the event that you want to tie to this global change.

It could, for example (and this is just a guess), be that deer are more prevelent in MN than in prior years. Deer carry a brain worm which isn't usually a problem for them but it deadly to moose. Maybe deer hunting has been curtailed and this is an unintended result?

What map are you looking at? The regions that surround Mn and share sub-clime are southern Manitoba and southern Ontario which are witnessing similar drops in moose populations. Moreover, you fail to understand MN topography and climate -- the NW plains are very, very different from the NE temperate forests.

read the fucking report from the FWS linked above:


And yes, the rate of change in a specific area is far more important than a simple comparison of average temperature between 2 locations. Specific ecosystems have evolved to specific conditions. The populations in MN, WY, NY, etc. have adapted to the sub-climates in those regions. In short, it doesn't matter much if MN warmed so much that they're warmer than these two.

I said I gave you three examples out of almost a dozen and you're treating it like those were the only examples and now they disprove what I said. Had you read the other reply instead of leaping to a response, you would see that I gave you information from MI and ND. Have you looked at them on a map?

The moose population in Manitoba has increased from an estimated 28,000 in 1992 to about 32,000 currently.

...snip...

Moose are found throughout the province of Manitoba ranging south from the U.S border, north to the Nunavut Territory. Until recently, there has been only occasional reports of moose in the prairie region of southern Manitoba, but populations have now become established in the Pembina and Souris River Valleys.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wildlife/mbsp/fs/moose.html

Declines in accessible parts of Manitoba are associated with excess hunting (at levels considered double that which would support a sustainable population). Is that the case in MN as well? Is that impacted by climate changes? More importantly, does that citation of an increasing population in southern Manitoba match what you claimed or refute it?

Southern Ontario says that "too many deer" is impacting the moose population. But you've already dismissed that.

reduced the Midwest's already dwindling moose population

Yet the population is growing in MI and ND. Do they not count as midwest any longer?

Movements into western North Dakota are unusual in one respect: moose are generally thought to be sensitive to high temperatures, and one of the conclusions arising from the northwestern Minnesota moose project was that warming temperatures were correlated with increasing moose mortality. Yet moose in North Dakota are experiencing even warmer temperatures than are seen in Minnesota. The bottom 4 lines are within typical moose range in MN or ND, while the top lines (hotter temperatures) are where moose have expanded into over the past 2 decades.

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/moose/information/NDmoose.html

Rather than dying off... is it not possible that they're just moving? A multi-year migratory event perhaps?

They aren't watching every moose all the time. They couldn't possibly KNOW that's the case.

What we DO know is that there's a large dropoff in the NW part of the state, but an increase just west of there. There MAY be a dropoff in the NE part of the state (they aren't sure yet), but an increase just to the east of there in MI's UP. I haven't looked at Canada just north of the line.

The UP of Michigan is not "just east" of NE MN. There's this big lake in between the 2.

They aren't even sure whether the decline in the NE popultion (measured in the thousands) is a sampling problem or an actual decline. They obviously aren't tracking a significant enough proportion to make that claim.

The UP of Michigan is not "just east" of NE MN. There's this big lake in between the 2.


A "big lake" or WI (where Moose have returned after decades of absence). But it's still just east.

In any event UP MI moose recovery is not 'natural' but he product of a very purposeful re-introduction effort.:

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_12185-30966--,00.html

There are a few individual animals in WI but there is no 'population' to speak of. The few that are here (I live in WI) are found in the northern most counties bordering the areas of reintroduction in the UP MI.

There may be someone falling for it, but let's not pretend that it's me.

In any event UP MI moose recovery is not 'natural' but he product of a very purposeful re-introduction effort.:

A reintroduction that happened several decades ago (how long do you think moose live?). Either the habitat is suitable for population growth or it isn't.


Utah and Colorado populations are ALSO largely from reintroduction by man. Does that mean that we provided air conditioning for them as well and that's why the climate isn't getting to them?

There are a few individual animals in WI but there is no 'population' to speak of. The few that are here (I live in WI) are found in the northern most counties bordering the areas of reintroduction in the UP MI.

Right. Showing that they move around (in this case westward) and are not respectful of state lines (neither is climate change). If the population of NW MN is declining but it's increasing just to the west of there... it could be that they knew how to walk. Stunning... I know. You can use sleight-of-hand to try to distract from this by wondering if they can swim across a great lake... but the facts still call the climate change conclusions in to question.

You're the one that is attempting to obscure the difference between a few dozen miles and many hundreds of miles. You're the one that doesn't recognize the difference between an isolated populations of re-introduced moose and much larger populations of historically natural populations. You're the one that completely ignores the peer-reviewed analysis of contributing factors which indicate a very strong correlation between climate change and declining moose populations. You're the one that ignores the landscape modifications in ND. You're the one that ignores the similarly declining population in SW Ontario (just across the border from NW MN).

In short you're an obfuscating idiot. I'm done here.

You're the one that is attempting to obscure the difference between a few dozen miles and many hundreds of miles

Nope. I've given examples that were right next door and examples that were across the country... you have chosen to only reply to the ones that were convenient. Which, btw, "fail(s) basic inquiry"

You're the one that completely ignores the peer-reviewed analysis of contributing factors which indicate a very strong correlation between climate change and declining moose populations.

Not ignoring... debunking. For instance, you said (vulgarity excluded) "There were no correlations between deer population and the decline in moose population" yet I see "The study concluded that climatic changes combined with increases in deer numbers and parasite transmission rates may have rendered Northwest Minnesota inhospitable to moose." (also from FWS).

It's quite likely that you don't understand how relevant that extra "s" was. lol. Maybe if YOU had "read the f-ing report" you wouldn't take such a strident tone (and look so foolish while doing so).

They have a theory. I'm telling you why that theory doesn't make sense.

You said "You're the one that ignores the similarly declining population in SW Ontario"

Yet I pointed out to you that your similar claim for Manitoba (ALSO right across the border from NW MN) was incorrect and that Ontario had concluded that it was due to too many deer.

I'm done here

Hint. You were "done" before you started posting. Taking one theory as established fact when the theory didn't fit the circumstances.


Here's an extra credit question that may help you pull up your "F" to date. What mechanism would you posit for climate change that would kill adult moose, but actually increase the survival rate of those just born? Because liver flukes and brain worms take a bit of time before they kill you, but I don't see how a warmer temperature would give the kids a pass.

Alternatively, moose eat ticks: Now free from their natural predator, the ticks are taking over...

:hide:

"As many as 70,000 ticks may feast on a single moose during one season. "When they are really abundant, they weaken the moose. This is a good deal for the wolves," Vucetich said. Weakened moose are easy prey."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0606_050606_wolves.html

> "As many as 70,000 ticks may feast on a single moose during one season."

"Crunchy Moose! - the same meaty flavour but now with a piquant coating!"

:hide: