cushetunk
New member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 50
60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying
- Thread starter RollingRock
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
marnof
New member
Unlike the white-tailed deer, the moose is a relative newcomer to North America, having only appeared on the scene some 10,000 years ago. It is not as well adapted as the white-tailed deer in coping with winter tick infestations, which can sometimes number over 100,000 on a single moose. How is that possible?
The winter tick larvae can congregate in clusters of up to 100 or more, with legs interlocked, waiting chest-high to latch onto a host. This behavior helps explain the incredible infestation rates on individual moose. The tick's life cycle depends on the weather conditions at critical junctures: when finding a host in the fall, and when dropping off in the spring. If severe wet, cold or plentiful snow conditions are present at those times, it limits their survival rate. Moose population density is also a factor, naturally, since less moose equals less chances for ticks to feed. Dense moose populations are a boon to winter tick survival. If these ticks cannot find a host before winter, they will not survive.
In typical New England fashion, the weather varies a lot from year to year. If winter 2014/15 is as severe as 2013/14, that, along with with the diminished moose population, will take a toll on the winter tick population and hopefully allow the moose to rebound.
Trying to pin moose decline on climate change looks like a no-brainer at first glance, but it's important to consider a couple things. Climate change is generally measured over a long period of time, in one direction or another--hotter/colder, wetter/drier. What we see in New England regarding snow cover in late fall/early spring varies from year to year.
As for "climate change" in general, a term which is too often used to mean global warming: This year's forecast for an El Niño might give global temperature a bump upward, so there's hope yet for global warming fanatics, but quite a few climatologists see the trend as a cooling one in the future. Not sure how El Nino's affect snowfall rates in New England--that's worth looking into.
Overall, it's a sad irony that the conditions favoring moose (mild late fall conditions and mild early spring conditions) also favor the winter tick. It's an unfortunate confluence of a once-dense moose population, the tick's ability to take advantage of favorable weather conditions and the moose's high susceptibility to the winter tick.
The winter tick larvae can congregate in clusters of up to 100 or more, with legs interlocked, waiting chest-high to latch onto a host. This behavior helps explain the incredible infestation rates on individual moose. The tick's life cycle depends on the weather conditions at critical junctures: when finding a host in the fall, and when dropping off in the spring. If severe wet, cold or plentiful snow conditions are present at those times, it limits their survival rate. Moose population density is also a factor, naturally, since less moose equals less chances for ticks to feed. Dense moose populations are a boon to winter tick survival. If these ticks cannot find a host before winter, they will not survive.
In typical New England fashion, the weather varies a lot from year to year. If winter 2014/15 is as severe as 2013/14, that, along with with the diminished moose population, will take a toll on the winter tick population and hopefully allow the moose to rebound.
Trying to pin moose decline on climate change looks like a no-brainer at first glance, but it's important to consider a couple things. Climate change is generally measured over a long period of time, in one direction or another--hotter/colder, wetter/drier. What we see in New England regarding snow cover in late fall/early spring varies from year to year.
As for "climate change" in general, a term which is too often used to mean global warming: This year's forecast for an El Niño might give global temperature a bump upward, so there's hope yet for global warming fanatics, but quite a few climatologists see the trend as a cooling one in the future. Not sure how El Nino's affect snowfall rates in New England--that's worth looking into.
Overall, it's a sad irony that the conditions favoring moose (mild late fall conditions and mild early spring conditions) also favor the winter tick. It's an unfortunate confluence of a once-dense moose population, the tick's ability to take advantage of favorable weather conditions and the moose's high susceptibility to the winter tick.
It's interesting that Discover Magazine recently had a story about declining elk populations in Yellowstone. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act (the online article is only available to subscribers).
Based on the research into that, the causes identified are completely different than for the NE moose, but at least one contributing factor is possibly an effect of current climactic conditions. Other factors were likely more important in the reduction. Wolves were ruled out as a significant cause, but surprisingly an invasive fish species, Lake Trout has been identified as a significant factor. The Lake Trout has reduced the population of Cutthroat Trout, which are easier for bears to catch. Since the bears aren't eating as many Cutthroat Trout, they are turning to elk.
Based on the research into that, the causes identified are completely different than for the NE moose, but at least one contributing factor is possibly an effect of current climactic conditions. Other factors were likely more important in the reduction. Wolves were ruled out as a significant cause, but surprisingly an invasive fish species, Lake Trout has been identified as a significant factor. The Lake Trout has reduced the population of Cutthroat Trout, which are easier for bears to catch. Since the bears aren't eating as many Cutthroat Trout, they are turning to elk.
Maine just cut their moose hunt number by 25% from last year due to high mortality.
Raymond
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,536
- Reaction score
- 59
Wasn’t there a brain disease, carried by deer, that was killing moose some years ago?
cushetunk
New member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2003
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 50
Since you appreciate the role of variability and the importance of long-term directional trends, you should check out this peer-reviewed scientific article about trends in climate indicators in one New England state:
http://alanbetts.com/understanding-climate-change/topic/vermont-climate-change-indicators/
Spoiler alert: winter is shorter than it was 40 years ago.
edit: here's the actual article link: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011WCAS1096.1
Scubahhh
Member
Brain worm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parelaphostrongylus_tenuis
Bummer, since moose don't seem all that smart to begin with ;-)
It is interesting to see that there is a bigger change in winter temps than summer.
marnof
New member
Last edited:
That page appears to be rhetorical, and only lists articles from news publications from the 70s. This does not appear to pass muster as a valid counterargument that the climate in the northeast is experiencing a significant warming trend. This would be a good counter argument for someone arguing that popular news media covers science well.
DougPaul
Well-known member
Agreed.
In the relevant scientific community the issue is basically decided beyond any reasonable doubt--anthropomorphically caused global warming is happening and will continue for at least tens to hundreds of years. The evidence is both varied and overwhelming. The public and various mouthpieces are out of touch with the scientific community.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-so-what-now/
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scene/science-denial-21st-century
Doug
Last edited:
marnof
New member
You're right. That was a little obtuse. I'll try to put a finer point on it. By comparing today's temps to the 1970's it does appear warmer. Why not compare it instead to warm temps in the 1930's, or even the Medieval Warm Period? Because it's convenient to the message that "we're all gonna die" because of mankind's transgressions. Similar hysteria was seen in the 70's. Malthusian guilt sells newspapers and other media quite well and we get to see very little information to the contrary presented in the media.
http://youtu.be/YtevF4B4RtQ
Last edited:
marnof
New member
I believe you're referring to anthropogenic global warming--i.e. man-made or man caused. The video I posted above outlines why the "evidence" is extremely underwhelming. This video does not feature mouthpieces (Al Gore being an exception!) but actual scientists that are very much in touch with the scientific community. Please watch, it's very well made and aired on Channel 4.
Last edited:
RollingRock
Active member
I respectfully disagree since most actual scientists that are very much in touch with the scientific community agree that climate change is man-made or man caused. The video you linked to recommends visiting Alex Jones "Info Wars". A 2011 Rolling Stone article described Jones as “a giant in America’s conspiracy subculture,” with a subsequent in-depth profile adding that he made Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, “sound like tea-sipping NPR hosts on Zoloft.” I'll take the poll of actual scientists I referred to in an earlier post regarding climate change over the conspiracy culture any day.
Last edited:
Raven
Well-known member
I'm not sure whether climate change is or is not the cause of yearling moose dying at an increased rate, but I am sure about human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change at least to this extent:
1. Carbon dioxide levels are intimately linked to temperature variation on earth.
2. Carbon dioixde levels have been increasing at an alarming rate since the burning of fossil fuels for energy began on earth(1850-ish).
The correlation between CO2 and temperature is about as undeniable as reality gets. Data for 400,000 years can be seen from the Vostok Station ice core data and for 800,000 years from the Dome C station ice core data. I like how the two graphs fit like a glove. Over the past 400,000 years, If you look closely you can see the four times the carbon dioxide levels were at their peak (all near 280 ppm), the earth was in a warm period (a glacial minimum technically). During the four times the carbon dioxide levels were at their lowest (all near 180 ppm), the earth was in an ice age (a glacial maximum technically). When CO2 goes up, so does temperature and vice versa.
So the highs were near 280 ppm (one near 300 ppm) and the lows 180 ppm, going back in time to well before modern humans existed on earth. Before even some of the oldtimers on here.
http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/vostok-ice-core.jpg
Charles Keeling et. al. took data on CO2 from about 1950 onward. His first reading was 310 ppm, 30 ppm higher than anything seen in a loooooong time. Loooooooooong time.
Ever since, it has been going up steadily about 2 ppm/year. We were at 401.33 ppm for the April 2013 daily average.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg/300px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve&h=161&w=240&tbnid=NnRtu8HozIRXoM:&zoom=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=199&usg=__taUnRMidKnVWfmkifDPIOGEktBE=&docid=5rUQzm_xY8b7TM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=_7J6U_KbA9apyASbrYKYAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CKoBEPwdMAo
DougPaul hit the NOTH on this one, "the public and various mouthpieces are out of touch with the scientific community."
Regardless, I hope the yearlings recover in the next few seasons.
1. Carbon dioxide levels are intimately linked to temperature variation on earth.
2. Carbon dioixde levels have been increasing at an alarming rate since the burning of fossil fuels for energy began on earth(1850-ish).
The correlation between CO2 and temperature is about as undeniable as reality gets. Data for 400,000 years can be seen from the Vostok Station ice core data and for 800,000 years from the Dome C station ice core data. I like how the two graphs fit like a glove. Over the past 400,000 years, If you look closely you can see the four times the carbon dioxide levels were at their peak (all near 280 ppm), the earth was in a warm period (a glacial minimum technically). During the four times the carbon dioxide levels were at their lowest (all near 180 ppm), the earth was in an ice age (a glacial maximum technically). When CO2 goes up, so does temperature and vice versa.
So the highs were near 280 ppm (one near 300 ppm) and the lows 180 ppm, going back in time to well before modern humans existed on earth. Before even some of the oldtimers on here.
http://geology.rockbandit.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/vostok-ice-core.jpg
Charles Keeling et. al. took data on CO2 from about 1950 onward. His first reading was 310 ppm, 30 ppm higher than anything seen in a loooooong time. Loooooooooong time.
Ever since, it has been going up steadily about 2 ppm/year. We were at 401.33 ppm for the April 2013 daily average.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg/300px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg.png&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve&h=161&w=240&tbnid=NnRtu8HozIRXoM:&zoom=1&tbnh=134&tbnw=199&usg=__taUnRMidKnVWfmkifDPIOGEktBE=&docid=5rUQzm_xY8b7TM&itg=1&sa=X&ei=_7J6U_KbA9apyASbrYKYAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CKoBEPwdMAo
DougPaul hit the NOTH on this one, "the public and various mouthpieces are out of touch with the scientific community."
Regardless, I hope the yearlings recover in the next few seasons.
Last edited:
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,068
- Reaction score
- 137
Actually, if you look closely at the two graphs you will see that historically, CO2 has risen slightly AFTER temperature. Cause and effect has not been established here, only correlation. Clearly, man made activity is increasing the CO2 level in recent years. It remains to be seen if that increase will cause a temperature increase, or if the temperature increase is already going on, and man made CO2 is just "more CO2 on top of what's already increasing." Remember that the same community was screaming with great certainty about a coming new ice age only 45 years ago.
And please don't re-quote the "97% factoid." It's false. And it's an "appeal to authority" fallacy on top of the fact that it's false.
Now I am all for reducing fossil fuel use, but not for any of the reasons that are cited here.
And please don't re-quote the "97% factoid." It's false. And it's an "appeal to authority" fallacy on top of the fact that it's false.
Now I am all for reducing fossil fuel use, but not for any of the reasons that are cited here.
I agree that the 97% piece is misleading, and I think delibertly so. It would much rather they give the full numbers, which is that roughly two thirds agree, and less than one percent reject, and a middle third do not give an answer. There are only fringe aspects that reject AGW, and a huge majority that accept, and a good sized minority on the sideline.
marnof
New member
Raven, your comments suggest you didn't even watch the video presentation, as all of your concerns are addressed in it. And I'm not sure what Rollingrock is talking about, but that's OK.
There's not much more I can add to this conversation, other than to point out that the catastrophic global warming forecasts are based on fatally flawed computer models. As beneficial CO2 has risen past their imagined "tipping point" of 350ppm--all the way to 400ppm--they have predicted runaway warming, while temps have remained stable for over 15 years. These flawed climate models cannot even hindcast, i.e. run backwards and accurately model what's already occurred. Just give that some thought...
Here's a compilation of alarming predictions. Let's see how they panned out:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
Instead of spending billions upon billions chasing "carbon dioxide pollution" we'd be so much better off curbing real sources of pollution. There's certainly plenty of that to keep us busy. Millions of impoverished people all over the world suffer and die due to lack of clean, affordable energy. And perhaps moose could benefit from tick collars rather than tracking collars.
There are new and exciting areas of climatology that don't use CO2 as the primary driver of climate. They deserve much more attention and funding because "CO2-driven global warming" is a theoretical failure. It's time to move on and stop flogging that dead horse. Or moose.
There's not much more I can add to this conversation, other than to point out that the catastrophic global warming forecasts are based on fatally flawed computer models. As beneficial CO2 has risen past their imagined "tipping point" of 350ppm--all the way to 400ppm--they have predicted runaway warming, while temps have remained stable for over 15 years. These flawed climate models cannot even hindcast, i.e. run backwards and accurately model what's already occurred. Just give that some thought...
Here's a compilation of alarming predictions. Let's see how they panned out:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
Instead of spending billions upon billions chasing "carbon dioxide pollution" we'd be so much better off curbing real sources of pollution. There's certainly plenty of that to keep us busy. Millions of impoverished people all over the world suffer and die due to lack of clean, affordable energy. And perhaps moose could benefit from tick collars rather than tracking collars.
There are new and exciting areas of climatology that don't use CO2 as the primary driver of climate. They deserve much more attention and funding because "CO2-driven global warming" is a theoretical failure. It's time to move on and stop flogging that dead horse. Or moose.
Last edited:
Jazzbo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,197
- Reaction score
- 163
One explanation for this die-off may be fact that we just went through one of the most frigid winters in long long time. I understand moose are well adapted to cold weather and would be threatened by warmer winters and summers, but last winter was characterized by continuously frigid cold with very few thaws. It must have contributed to this die-off.
Debates about weather global warming is real or not real miss the whole point. In my opinion increased CO2 levels are symptom of a much bigger problem no one likes to mention or at least seems to realize. There are just too many damn people on this planet. There is very little talk of getting world population under control as means of reducing CO2 greenhouse gases. As scientific observer I don't see any technical magic bullets that will ever substitute for good old fashioned heat engines as means for generating base load electricity. It is inevitable that billions of have-not populations want to participate in the good life that modern age provides us. Principles of fairness demand this. There are just no existing geopolitical tools on the horizon to enable sorts of agreements to needed to foster global agreement on what the mechanism of failure is or its resolution. Putinism, warlords, political chaos is more likely scenario. Pretty grim outlook, but that is how I see it. Human kind is heading for a crash. Exceptionalism is myth and mirage. fifty years ago our economy could make a dent in regional problem of dealing with wreckage left after 2nd world war. Now rest of world population has grown so huge there is little our vaunted economy do to impact world events spinning out of control.
Debates about weather global warming is real or not real miss the whole point. In my opinion increased CO2 levels are symptom of a much bigger problem no one likes to mention or at least seems to realize. There are just too many damn people on this planet. There is very little talk of getting world population under control as means of reducing CO2 greenhouse gases. As scientific observer I don't see any technical magic bullets that will ever substitute for good old fashioned heat engines as means for generating base load electricity. It is inevitable that billions of have-not populations want to participate in the good life that modern age provides us. Principles of fairness demand this. There are just no existing geopolitical tools on the horizon to enable sorts of agreements to needed to foster global agreement on what the mechanism of failure is or its resolution. Putinism, warlords, political chaos is more likely scenario. Pretty grim outlook, but that is how I see it. Human kind is heading for a crash. Exceptionalism is myth and mirage. fifty years ago our economy could make a dent in regional problem of dealing with wreckage left after 2nd world war. Now rest of world population has grown so huge there is little our vaunted economy do to impact world events spinning out of control.
marnof
New member
I just read an interesting article about the "97 percent consensus." Evidently there's quite a kerfuffle developing over the authors' lack of data sharing and bizarre methodology.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php
Similar threads
