Moose Die-Off

Moose populations are seeing a dramatic decline. Montana has two herds. One dropped from around 4,000 to around 100, and the other around 8,000 to about 3,000.

It appears the warmer winters are leading to ticks that literally suck moose dry. A NH Fish & Game biologist says a single moose can get up to 100,000 ticks on it.

Very disturbing article!

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/15/science/earth/something-is-killing-off-the-moose.html?ref=us&_r=0


Brian

I've very concerned about the scientists who seem to fall back on global warming in explaining the decline of the population. I think it's lazy and is only decreasing the chances of them figuring out the real reasoning.

I question the theory that ticks are spreading because of global warming. I think a more likely theory is that they're spreading via animals. For instance, anecdotally there are now plenty of ticks up north in Bethel, Maine (one of the worst tick encounters I had was on Mt. Abram a few years ago), yet topographically isolated Waterville Valley, New Hampshire has largely gotten a pass so far (zero ticks in over a hundred hikes on the Waterville ski trails).

Some things that would be interesting to see research on would be the impact of the chemicals we treat our roads with (being that moose frequently go out and lick the salt on the roads), as well as ever-increasing signals (radio/cell/etc.).

There are a number of non-warming related factors that can exacerbate the problem, but bottom line is that population explosions of any sort thrive when there is an environment that lends itself to such. There is a reason why no humans permanently live in Northern Siberia.

My thoughts on the tick explosion: Over the last 50 years, New Hampshire has had TREMENDOUS reforestation. In the late 1800s, only 25% of NH was Forest - now its almost 80%. Due to reforestation, there have been numerous species reintroduced, or that went from barely-getting-by to thriving - the Whitetail Deer is one example of one animal that has massively rebounded in the area, and one animal that also carries ticks.

Also in recent years, you've had two socio-political impacts on the forest. First, there has been a migration away from farming, and many farms that remain have shifted to sustained/local/organic crops... ESPECIALLY in the PacNW and New England areas where these tick problems are increasing. The biggest impact of this shift in farming has been the reduction of insecticides in the area, which naturally, increases the insect population. The second factor could be traffic through the woods. With an explosion in the amount of people hiking and spending time in the backcountry, as well as having more animals due to reforestation... a tick has many more opportunities to score a ride.

So I totally see where Rocket21 is coming from. Sure, global warming might be an ultimate cause of some of this, but there are a number of contributing factors that can be analyzed, and that research might lead to some sort of homeostasis with the moose community and the rest of the population. Ofcourse, the easy solution would be to have long brutal winters that kill the ticks - I'm personally all for that!

Personal incredulity and anecdotes are no substitution for reason. Climate change is measurable and has a direct impact on ecosystems.

I'm curious is Moose populations are moving north to compensate.

TJsName said:

I'm curious is Moose populations are moving north to compensate.

Click to expand...

That might happen if moose knew that it were colder to the north. But I'm not certain they are necessarily aware of that. It might be the case that most don't migrate at all, and that as many move south as north. The long-term effect would be that the ones that moved north would survive, but as the article points out, in Montana, the populations are plummeting in the short run.

B the Hiker said:

That might happen if moose knew that it were colder to the north. But I'm not certain they are necessarily aware of that.

Click to expand...

The wouldn't have to be aware of a temperature shift to shift their territory in response to the accompanying change in food availability, though, would they?

rocket21 said:

I've very concerned about the scientists who seem to fall back on global warming in explaining the decline of the population. I think it's lazy and is only decreasing the chances of them figuring out the real reasoning.

I question the theory that ticks are spreading because of global warming. I think a more likely theory is that they're spreading via animals. For instance, anecdotally there are now plenty of ticks up north in Bethel, Maine (one of the worst tick encounters I had was on Mt. Abram a few years ago), yet topographically isolated Waterville Valley, New Hampshire has largely gotten a pass so far (zero ticks in over a hundred hikes on the Waterville ski trails).

Some things that would be interesting to see research on would be the impact of the chemicals we treat our roads with (being that moose frequently go out and lick the salt on the roads), as well as ever-increasing signals (radio/cell/etc.).

Click to expand...

Your questioning of whether climate change is a factor in the increase of ticks and subsequent decline in the moose population should be put into context.

Do you agree with the evidence supporting the theory that climate change is occurring and that human activity is a primary cause?

Feels silly to ask that question, like asking if you agree with the evidence supporting the theory of evolution, but there it is.

Good topic, good discussion. Please continue to keep politics from interfering with the dialogue.

Count me among the anecdotal respondents that agrees the moose population is declining though I did see 7 last summer on one two mile stretch of stream in Maine.

Climate is invariably changing and has throughout the existence of the planet. Mankind can only do so much to effect that, one way or the other, but we should, IMNSHO, minimize our impact as much as possible. I maintain that breathing clean air is not an adjustment we can so readily make as adapting to changes in temperature. A look at fairly recent climate history shows that there was a mini ice age in parts of the world at the same time that early North American explorers were documenting temperate conditions at relatively high latitudes. It is all a lot more complicated than the political and green product hucksters make it out to be.

Back to moose ... Maine counts show a recovery of moose populations in most regions of the state after a dramatic decline brought about by fatal infestations of ticks on animals weakened by harsher than normal winters. It is always amusing to hear the hucksters' spin on such contradictions.

B the Hiker said:

That might happen if moose knew that it were colder to the north. But I'm not certain they are necessarily aware of that. It might be the case that most don't migrate at all, and that as many move south as north. The long-term effect would be that the ones that moved north would survive, but as the article points out, in Montana, the populations are plummeting in the short run.

Click to expand...

I don't think moose are aware of weather conditions other than the here and now though they may be quite attuned to things around them that provide an indication of upcoming weather so they respond in anticipation, like retreating to cooler elevations in warm spells and bulking up before a storm during which they seek sheltered locations.

Nor do I think they migrate as a species as they are not herding animals. The appearance of "migration" would come about as an evolutionary event as moose seek to find food sources and establish new "territories"; those that move towards more hospitable areas will thrive and reproduce better than those that moved towards less hospitable environments.

We're at the southern fringe of moose habitat, said habitat being determined by both climate and the vegetation that is adapted to various climate regimes. Move the fringe north by raising seasonal temperatures, and you're gonna have fewer moose.

How many caribou have you seen recently in Maine and Minnesota? There were resident populations in each of those states into the twentieth century. In twenty or fifty years, your kids and grandkids will likewise question stories from old timers about seeing moose in the northern tier of states ...

Moose populations in Maine apparently have been variable for many years and were far lower for many years. I personally feel that the population boom that occurred in the 90s were linked to the spruce budworm epidemic of the 80s that killed off most of the spruce stands in the region and caused the paper companies to do massive clearcuts to salvage their wood and arguably reduce the potential for wildfires. I remember reading reports that the land managers were actively encouraging the state of maine to increase the moose hunt quota as the moose density in the regenerating stands were too high and the browsing was impacting regeneration. The time period also seemed to drive an increase in coyotes which drive the deer population down in the woods (while it expanded in the southern areas). Given a healthy moose herd I expect they expanded their range back to areas on the fringe of their prior territory and like any population over expanded until some natural control counterbalanced the population. Lacking large predators, the winter ticks appear to have become that counterbalance. Given that we are on the cusp of another budworm epidemic it will be interesting what happens to the moose population as in a few years there will be lots of stand regeneration.

OMG. Some Internet speculation that makes sense. What is the world coming to?

Your thesis deserves attention!

Barkingcat said:

"New Hampshire’s winter tick problem is a relatively recent phenomenon. But then, so are moose. The animals were hunted out of existence during Colonial times; they returned to the state only in the 1970s."

Click to expand...

I'd argue that this is more evidence that the 'research' presented in the article is lazy at best. Moose didn't return to the state in the 1970s.

NH Fish & Game superintendent Henry Laramie was on the record in the 1970s stating that the population started resurging after 1950 (when the population was only a few dozen).

In Maine the moose was nicknamed the "guvnors meat" apparently rural folks in need of meat were known to poach them as they were easy to kill and provided a lot of meat for the effort. It wouldn't take lot of illegal poaching to knock back the population and given the general lack of F&W presence in the private forest lands I expect more than a few loggers supplemented their diet with them.

I stated before on similar thread that when I was young we drove up through Jackman every couple of years and there were no signs warning of moose on the roads. About the only place with an active population that I remember hearing about was Baxter state park which had strict no hunting rules that were enforced. By 1980 the state started the moose hunt due to the expanding populations and vehicle collisions which lines up with the budworm.

I found this link to budworm article for those interested
http://www.forestsformainesfuture.o...journal/spruce-budworm-coming-again-soon.html

griffin said:

The wouldn't have to be aware of a temperature shift to shift their territory in response to the accompanying change in food availability, though, would they?

Click to expand...

Well 'moving' was too ambiguous on my part - I'm didn't mean to suggest a literal migration of individual animals but rather the illusion of movement (apparent motion) caused by a reduction in the south and an increase in the north, as conditions change. I'm not really sure how much their range can increase, since they pretty much go up to the arctic circle any way.

CT's moose population exists and is increasing. I imagine the same is true for MA, RI & NY. I wonder if anyone has dug deep enough to know why ?
Perhaps a food source changed ? They seem to be moving south INTO tick territory. Almost any cause can be attributed to almost any effect, sometimes.

I'm not going to argue with anyone, but I honestly thought I read the latest impartial science was that temperatures have decreased over the last 10 or 15 years.
It's difficult to find anything specific to the Northeast on that front.

B the Hiker said:

That might happen if moose knew that it were colder to the north. But I'm not certain they are necessarily aware of that. It might be the case that most don't migrate at all, and that as many move south as north. The long-term effect would be that the ones that moved north would survive, but as the article points out, in Montana, the populations are plummeting in the short run.

Click to expand...

griffin said:

The wouldn't have to be aware of a temperature shift to shift their territory in response to the accompanying change in food availability, though, would they?

Click to expand...

Individual animals don't have to migrate (or even travel long distances in any direction) and they don't have to be aware of the change in conditions.

One mechanism for a northward movement of the range would be for the warming temps to reduce survival rates on the southern edge and increase survival rates on the northern edge. Each individual animal need only wander a short distance in its lifetime, but the net effect over time will be a northward movement of the range. For instance, pika ranges are similarly being driven up mountains by the warming temps. (And on some mountains, they will become extinct as the entire mountain becomes too warm and they have nowhere to go.)

Doug

The Disappearing Moose

From today's NYT Editorial section.

very sad, thanks for sharing...just another blunder by us humans