Moose Die-Off

[expat]

So it is up to us to choose the environment that's better for moose over the environment that's better for pine bark beetles and ticks? And we determine that one species is better than the other?

It's a result of evolution that crows who some time ago learned to use sticks to get food survived longer than the crows who didn't, and created either more progeny, or progeny who fared better in life, so all of a certain species of crows now use a tool from the environment to better their survival, to the detriment of some insect species. Are humans any less natural in their use of the environment, with the consequential effects on other life in their environment? It seems like it's part of the evolutionary continuum. Just because we consider ourselves more sentient, I'm not sure that it's up to us to choose moose over pine beetles.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Interesting conclusion expat. Are you suggesting that humans should do whatever to the environment and all other life forms must adapt?

 

[iagreewithjamie]

EXPAT: I think the understood responsibility in being a sentient being is preserving balance and homeostasis. You don't want another DoDo bird incident to happen. Not that the DoDo was all that useful, buts its a shame that a whole species was eradicated due to human negligence.

I think the common line of thinking these days isn't ticks vs. moose vs. pine beetles, etc... but rather how to keep the balance of all in check. We have the ability to destroy this planet more effectively than any other species, so I think that knowing this sort of puts us in a position to do all we can to prevent it.

 

[TJsName]

So it is up to us to choose the environment that's better for moose over the environment that's better for pine bark beetles and ticks? And we determine that one species is better than the other?

It's a result of evolution that crows who some time ago learned to use sticks to get food survived longer than the crows who didn't, and created either more progeny, or progeny who fared better in life, so all of a certain species of crows now use a tool from the environment to better their survival, to the detriment of some insect species. Are humans any less natural in their use of the environment, with the consequential effects on other life in their environment? It seems like it's part of the evolutionary continuum. Just because we consider ourselves more sentient, I'm not sure that it's up to us to choose moose over pine beetles.

I'm 100% on board with the sentiment that humans are as natural as everything around them. That sentiment runs against a culture that wants to condemn some behaviors as 'unnatural' (e.g., homosexuality), or accuses people of 'playing god' (e.g. stem cell research). Everything we do can be described as a natural behavior. If our actions are leading to the decline in moose, then we can say that is natural. If we then decide to take action to help preserve the moose, that action is no less natural.

As a species we are what we evolved to be, that is for sure. The biggest difference is our neo-cortex is large, and has allowed us to make connections between events that other species cannot. We as a species are forced to make choices for our own survival, and those choices have affected other species one way or another. In my opinion, what's best for everyone is probably best for humans long term survival. Of course, what's best can be very difficult to discern.

 

[DougPaul]

I'm 100% on board with the sentiment that humans are as natural as everything around them.

Whether human actions are natural is a matter of philosophy. One of the biggest distinguishing features of humans from other organisms is the speed with which they can make/force widespread changes in the environment. The current speed of anthropomorphically induced changes is too fast for many organisms to successfully adapt. (And may ultimately be too fast for humans too...)

As a species we are what we evolved to be, that is for sure. The biggest difference is our neocortex is large, and has allowed us to make connections between events that other species cannot. We as a species are forced to make choices for our own survival, and those choices have affected other species one way or another. In my opinion, what's best for everyone

Humans are unique in that they can learn and understand the consequences of their actions on other species and the surrounding environment.

Species generally adapt/evolve and/or modify their environments in ways that benefit themselves in the short term. However, such selfish changes may be harmful to other organisms which may ultimately be harmful to the species itself in the longer term. (Eg a newly arrived/evolved super-hunter may eat all of its food species and then starve or a disease may become so successful that it kills all of its available hosts.)

The fossil record shows that an estimated 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are currently extinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction). Many of these extinctions have occurred during mass extinction events caused by large and/or rapid change in the environment. We are currently in an anthropomorphically caused mass extinction event...

We are rapidly damaging the ability of this plant to support humans. Polluting the air, water and land, stressing our food supplies, consuming resources faster than they are being replaced (eg coal, oil, water, and soil), altering the planet's energy balance resulting in massive climatic change (ie global warming), and more. (And if we engage in an all out nuclear war there may be no human survivors...)

Changes per se are certainly natural and the so-called "balance of nature" is not static. Populations change constantly and species are created and go extinct and have done so since well before humans came on the scene. Modern humans (particularly given their large population and large per-capita demands) currently have an extremely large effect on the ecosystem and environment which is degrading it for many other species. The moose die-off may be just one symptom.

Conservation may tend to focus on individual (generally non-human) species, but ultimately it is an attempt to keep the planet habitable for humans. And thus, IMO we, as a species, need to reduce the impact of our actions, natural or not, on the planet and its non-human inhabitants.

Doug

 

[Neil]

Regarding humans as being natural I like the way Nash put it in "Wilderness and the American Mind". To paraphrase, "Man ceased to be a member of the natural world when he began detonating nuclear devices".

This map shows the range of Moose, which indicates that in the US moose are in "edge habitat", which is the most fragile and most vulnerable to ecological perturbations. Subtle shifts in conditions are powerful drivers of evolution in, or extirpation from, edge habitat populations.

Regarding natural man I thought this was interesting:

The current mass extinction is different from past events in several ways. First, it is happening much more quickly: each of the "Big Five" played out over thousands of years, but the current mass extinction is likely to be concentrated within 200 years. By the end of the 21st century, we may have lost two-thirds of the species on Earth (footnote 16). Second, past mass extinctions are thought to have been caused by natural phenomena such as the shifting of continents, comet or meteoroid impacts, or climate change independent of human influence, or some combination of these factors. In contrast, as we will see below, humans are causing the current mass extinction.

 

[TJsName]

Conservation may tend to focus on individual (generally non-human) species, but ultimately it is an attempt to keep the planet habitable for humans. And thus, IMO we, as a species, need to reduce the impact of our actions, natural or not, on the planet and its non-human inhabitants.

Doug

Thank you, Doug. That is ultimately what I was trying to get at before my laptop died (definitely due to human activity).

This discussion does tend to become very philosophical (what is life?, what is the point?), which is fun but we can get caught in the weeds pretty easily (mental bushwhacking?). To try and bring it back, if we accept that all human actions are natural, then it follows that human actions taken to avoid significantly altering vast ecosystems are just as natural as ones that cause climate change. Imagine if the opposite were happening - if human actions were cooling the planet and the solution was to burn fossil fuels to stave off an ice age. The 'natural vs. unnatural' argument is meaningless. We have a vested interest in our survival as a species, so modifying the environment to ensure that is understandable.

The issue we have is that actions are being taken that are significantly changing the climate in ways we don't fully understand - such as the intricacies between climate change and (mass) extinction. Maybe we'll figure it out and the answer is a warmer planet is better for us as a species, but until that happens I don't think it makes sense to mess with the climate and just write off everything as 'natural'.

We're not sure what the full implications are of moose populations crashing are just yet. To me, the point of the article was to bring to light an effect of climate change by using the image of something many people are familiar with. There is probably some nasty looking insect that is getting the short end of the stick too.

 

[expat]

Lest I seem like someone who might trash the earth for my own benefit, I think I'm a pretty good steward overall. My cars get good gas mileage, I work close to home intentionally, I have a house that is not oversized, I practice LNT, I donate time and money to assist those who are needier than I am, etc.

However, I also see many benefits in the changes that humans have brought about over the past 200 years. Sure, planes, trucks, cars, etc. pollute and use resources, but how would we get medicines, food, and other quality-of-life-improving products out to locations where they are needed in a timely manner otherwise? And how would those be produced without factories and equipment powered by some means? I completely agree that excess is a human trait, but also likely a product of evolution, and as others have pointed out we should be smarter about it as a group, even if individuals may not all act that way. However, also as indicated by others, none of that makes us less a part of nature, and some of our activities as natural beings do have an effect, but many of those activities are part of the fact that we are humans by nature, doing things that are dictated by natural processes.

I do agree that we should do what we can to reduce our impact as we are more sentient than other species, but we will still impact our surroundings as a result of our natural activities. So in regards to climate change, where this thread led, I agree that we should review what we're doing, but let's not throw out any babies with our bathwater. Let's be smart about what we do to try to "fix" something that has at least some natural vector to it.

 

[Daniel Eagan]

Radio segment broadcast today on WNYC's Leonard Lopate show:

What's Happening to the Moose?
http://www.wnyc.org/story/whats-happening-moose/

 

[Chip]

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.

Okay: I'm not qualified to speak on the subject:
Last I found (that looked unbiased) was 7 or 8 of the last 10 or 12 years have been warmest on record in the northeast and it's the next 10 or 15 years that might be cooler...now.

 

[summitseeker]

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.

This is a very interesting theory.

Ecological succession and species competing for dominance often result in changes in an ecosystem that are not as easily seen as a direct A-B relationship. In any food web and/or ecology there is a direct cause and effect relationships between organisms but it is the less obvious non-direct relationships that are often overlooked. If squirrels, for instance, became extinct there would be a direct effect upon the predators that prey upon them. The less obvious relationship would be the decreased spread and germination of seed bearing plants.

I applaud your look deeper into this complicated issue, Peakbagger.

As far as the previous comment regarding moose not being cognizant of temperature changes as they move farther north, I have to disagree. Even organisms as "simple minded" as baitfish will adjust their position in a water column or thermocline as a result of a preferred climatic range.

I know that moose are not sitting around pondering the notion of colder winters if they travel north, but as moose wander within their home ranges it is not an impossible notion that they may extend their range into an area that is more favorable. Gradually and organically over time many species spread their ranges to suit there biological needs. The bluefin tuna, for instance are moving further north in search of colder water. The direct need being fulfilled is food. They are in fact chasing baitfish further up the coast as the baitfish themselves seek out the zooplankton that thrive in colder temperatures but freshwater bass will also move under the thick cover of lily pads as a result of experiencing temperatures that can be up to 10 degrees cooler during times of oppressive heat.
Largemouth bass aren't exactly brainiacs when compared to mammals and other more intelligent species but they are capable of learning. Their learned behavior is to move to locations during times of extreme temperature fluctuations. I hooked a bass from beneath a dock a few summers ago that immediately swam for the post and was frantically trying to circle the post. I plunged my rod under the water, applied side pressure, and used the trolling motor to gain better leverage. Once landed I removed two other hooks with sizable lengths of monofilament from the fish before releasing it. Clearly this fish had learned that in order to avoid capture the action of swimming around the posts of the dock would result in its escape.

Long winded, I know, but I truly love to discuss matters of science.

Z

 

[DougPaul]

Okay: I'm not qualified to speak on the subject:
Last I found (that looked unbiased) was 7 or 8 of the last 10 or 12 years have been warmest on record in the northeast and it's the next 10 or 15 years that might be cooler...now.

The issue is essentially settled in the scientific community--according to one study 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening. There are multiple lines of evidence supporting the trend.

The transition, however, is not smooth. (For example, look at the transition from summer to winter--the progression of daily temps is not smooth, but there is an overall trend.) By picking specific points on the global temp record (ie a warm starting point and a cooler stopping point) opponents have claimed to have found a multi-year cooling period. This is also known as choosing the data to support your preconceived conclusion... (Ie cheating or lying.)

Doug

 

[Chip]

Yeah. I was trying to get info on the northeast that might explain the moose.

 

[DougPaul]

As far as the previous comment regarding moose not being cognizant of temperature changes as they move farther north, I have to disagree. Even organisms as "simple minded" as baitfish will adjust their position in a water column or thermocline as a result of a preferred climatic range.

I didn't say that individual moose were not aware of temp changes as they move around, just that they didn't need to be aware for the population range to shift north over time as the climate warms. The different survival rates (driven by the temp changes) at different points on the edge of the range is sufficient to move the range. (This may require several generations or longer.)

The comparison to fish is weak--fish are cold blooded animals whose body temp is basically set by the water temp. Moose are large warm-blooded animals whose body temp is essentially independent of the external temp.

Peakbagger noted that Maine is the southern edge of the moose range. Unless there is a strong geographic barrier, survival on the edge is generally marginal which would make population very sensitive to small changes. The ticks may be a factor in defining the southern edge of the range. Also, the past high populations may have made the species more susceptible to a parasite or disease. (Read up on mono-cultures...)

Doug

 

[summitseeker]

I didn't say that individual moose were not aware of temp changes as they move around, just that they didn't need to be aware for the population range to shift north over time as the climate warms. The different survival rates (driven by the temp changes) at different points on the edge of the range is sufficient to move the range. (This may require several generations or longer.)

The comparison to fish is weak--fish are cold blooded animals whose body temp is basically set by the water temp. Moose are large warm-blooded animals whose body temp is essentially independent of the external temp.

Peakbagger noted that Maine is the southern edge of the moose range. Unless there is a strong geographic barrier, survival on the edge is generally marginal which would make population very sensitive to small changes. The ticks may be a factor in defining the southern edge of the range. Also, the past high populations may have made the species more susceptible to a parasite or disease. (Read up on mono-cultures...)

Doug

I am aware that fish are cold blooded. I was merely making a comparison to species I feel I am fairly knowledgable about. Obviously moose at the lowest geographic range are more susceptible to die off but it also provides a strong argument for a need to move farther north.

My reply was not a personal affront to you.

Z

 

[hikerfast]

any there any numbers on the moose increase and decline

 

[DougPaul]

I am aware that fish are cold blooded. I was merely making a comparison to species I feel I am fairly knowledgable about. Obviously moose at the lowest geographic range are more susceptible to die off but it also provides a strong argument for a need to move farther north.

Yes fish and many other aquatic organisms move around to stay in and/or find favorable temps. However, IMO the comparison to fish is unlikely to inform the survival of moose and the movement of their range. Fish are sensitive to short-term (minutes) temp changes while moose are sensitive to longer-term (seasonal to multi-year) temp changes.

My reply was not a personal affront to you.

I was not offended. I am a professional researcher (PhD electrical engineer) and was responding to you as if you also had a scientific background*. Researchers are used to discussing issues (including disagreement and if need be agreeing to disagree on issues that cannot currently be resolved). Science is driven by evidence which ultimately overrides opinion. As long as we stick to issues and avoid personal remarks no one should be offended.

* I have no idea if you do indeed have such a background.

Doug

 

[rocket21]

any there any numbers on the moose increase and decline

...and if there are any published tables, will they show the contemporarily invented 'no moose before 1970' claim?
...and, how do we really know the population, or its health, when perhaps the healthiest moose are the deepest in the backcountry?
...and is there any actual correlation to mild winters, such as the ones that crippled the ski industry in the early 1950s, early 1970s, and early 1980s?

 

[Daniel Eagan]

any there any numbers on the moose increase and decline

From the radio segment I linked to above:

According to Michelle Carstensen, wildlife health program Supervisor at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, one population group under study in the northwest part of the state went from 4000 in the 1980s to under 100. In the northeast part of the state the moose population had a 50% decline in three years.

According to Kristine Rines, a certified wildlife biologist and moose project leader at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the moose in New Hampshire are dying young and not reproducing. She also said the highest cause of moose mortality in New Hampshire was winter tick, and that climate change—that is, shorter, warmer winters—is the biggest factor in the spread of winter tick.

 

[hikerfast]

what about numbers for nh