60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying

[RollingRock]

This is from a WMUR story. I found the comments particularly interesting in how short sighted some people are. It appears that because we had a harsh winter this year, climate change is a myth. Climate change data is about trending...not based on the results of ONE winter.

Whether the yearling moose of dying of climate change or not, I find the percentage alarming. It's rare for me to see a moose sighting in NH and I always feel privileged to see one. It seems to me that moose hunting should be cancelled.

 

[PamW]

Disturbing.

 

[marnof]

It is very alarming to see such low survival rates for moose yearlings. I absolutely love seeing moose, and I, too, am very concerned about their well-being and want nothing but the best for their population. This article, however, makes an extremely silly attempt to link moose yearling survival to CO2 emissions, and I'm surprised that nobody on VFFT has called the article out for the complete BS it contains. So I'll happily throw the first pitch.

The author aims the tired moniker of "carbon pollution" at the trace gas, carbon dioxide, which we all exhale (and plants absolutely love!) Would anyone care to guess what percent of the atmosphere is comprised of CO2? .04 percent. Now, what part of that .04% is created by mankind? Less than 5 percent of the .04%. I think that works out to 20 parts per million of the dreaded poison gas theoretically warming the planet.

It also claims that rising temperatures are affecting the moose population. What rising temperatures would those be, exactly? Data, anyone?? It's widely accepted by the majority of climatologists that Earth's temperature has flat-lined for over 15 years. The article also quotes (no link provided!) a NWF document stating 7 to 11 degrees F warming is inevitable by 2100, which is bat-guano crazy. Even the illustrious International Panel on Climate Change's high estimate is much, much lower:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/...l-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/

So, in a nutshell, the article claims that unless we do something drastic to reduce the 5 percent of the .04% of CO2 in the atmosphere, the warming, which stopped over 15 years ago, will cause problems like the very recent moose mortality in northern New Hampshire, but not downeast Maine, for some strange reason. Yeah, I think I get it...

It may seem "short sighted" to disagree with ludicrous predictions about climate and moose population, but we really owe it to the moose, and ourselves, to dig deeper and find the true cause of what's ailing these incredible animals.

I have never, ever, heard or read of anyone claiming that climate change is a myth. The climate is continually changing, and will in the future. How it is changing, to what degree, the causes, what should or should not be done--those are the issues in dispute.

Regarding this past record-breaking winter, and future winters: The climate pendulum swings both ways. If you are interested in climate research, and are open-minded enough to accept the possibility of the other side of the coin, check these two articles. The first is somewhat anecdotal; the second is a long-range forecast that portrays a colder future.

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/shocking-polar-vortex-from-20000-years-ago/

http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/record-snows-in-the-pacific-northwest-in-2019-2020/

The last glacial period was mere seconds ago in the 4.5+ billion year history of the Earth. (I had to go back and added the "+" to the 4.5, to account for mankind's presence on the planet…oops) The Appalachians, one of the most ancient mountain ranges on Earth, were once the size of the Alps. I imagine that chunks of Mt. Washington may be strewn across CT, where I live, carried by glaciers a mile thick. Sea level was 400 feet lower. That's a lot of coastal real estate swallowed up by global warming since then! Thoughts to ponder. But I digress. Always question. Do the research. That's what the internet is for. It's a great thing!

 

[TCD]

Here's some lengthy reading on this from the Adirondacks:

http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888

 

[Chip]

"60% Of NH Yearling Moose Population Dying"

Does anyone know what the average % of NH yearling moose population dying annually is ? 60% might be normal.
I know the adult population has shown a decline. There're moose in CT now also.
The deer in CT are skinny, but there were 12 in our yard this afternoon, so they certainly made it through the winter.

 

[rup]

I haven't seen any REAL data that proposes 'climate change' is real. Even the IPCC reports on temperature change conclude any measurable differences are 'not statistically meaningful'. 'Climate' scale is measured in 100 year increments, so those with 10 year data are 90 years off a single data point.

 

[TJsName]

https://xkcd.com/164/

 

[RollingRock]

It also claims that rising temperatures are affecting the moose population. What rising temperatures would those be, exactly? Data, anyone?? It's widely accepted by the majority of climatologists that Earth's temperature has flat-lined for over 15 years. The article also quotes (no link provided!) a NWF document stating 7 to 11 degrees F warming is inevitable by 2100, which is bat-guano crazy.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just published the third of three working-group reports on where the science of climate change stands, on the effects that the world can expect if greenhouse-gas emissions aren't curbed, and on the options for reducing those risks. Later this year it will issue a grand Synthesis Report gathering all these pieces together.

These thousands of pages add to the tens of thousands already published in previous IPCC exercises, and the message is essentially the same: The world needs to act.

It's clear that human behavior is changing the climate, but just how quickly, and with what exact consequences, is harder to say. The precise effects on weather, sea levels, incidence of disease and drought, species diversity, ocean acidification and so forth -- none of this is known with certainty.

The point is, it doesn’t need to be. Policies to mitigate climate change are best viewed as insurance against great but imperfectly understood risks.

 

[rocket21]

It may seem "short sighted" to disagree with ludicrous predictions about climate and moose population, but we really owe it to the moose, and ourselves, to dig deeper and find the true cause of what's ailing these incredible animals.

I agree...when I hear the state government attributing the die-off to 'global warming,' I think it comes off as lazy and suggests they're not going to try to determine the real cause and that we the people of New Hampshire will not have the solution.

A friend of mine had a really good observation earlier this winter, when he wondered about the impact of these summit wind farms being constructed around the state. As most anyone who's hiked higher (not not standard 4K) peaks in winter or early spring will notice, moose like to den on high elevation ridges for the winter. When you clearcut, dynamite, then install 300+ tall, loud, ice throwing wind turbines on these ridges, you've suddenly disturbed a prime moose habitat.

 

[peakbagger]

Lets look at the long term trends on moose population. Moose were basically non existent in NH 50 years ago and they don't seem to have had a significant presence until the 1980s with a major population boom in the late eighties into the nineties. Most studies I have seen is that the moose expanded out of remnant populations in Northern Maine in the sixties into new habitat. Some research I have read suggests that the Maine population recovered as a result of the spruce budworm epidemic which ranged from 1970 to 1985. The response to this epidemic was significant clear cutting of large parts of Northern and northwestern maine. The resulting regrowth of large tracts of softwoods proved to be ideal for moose to the point where some land managers were actively encouraging moose hunting to thin the population as the moose density was stunting regeneration. As the woods matured, the active herd expanded into fringe areas of their habitant which included NH. As they moved, they may have brought some of their parasites with them but I expect that it would take a while for the winter ticks to colonize a new area. In these conditions I expect that the initial large healthy population would keep expanding until something counterbalanced them and unfortunately the winter ticks appear to be the counterbalance. At some point the moose population may disappear which eventually will lead to a loss of winter tick population and then the moose may come back.

Unfortunately most people have a short term stable view of nature, they take a short term trend of a few years and project it out 30 or 40 years. The reality is that nature and natural populations are chaotic with populations rising and falling. It may be that northern NH may have seen a peak population that was unsustainable and the current die off rate is just the system reverting to the mean.

Given the massive clearcuts that occurred in eastern Coos county in recent years it would be interesting to see how the local moose populations are going to be impacted. Andy B from VFTT has noted previously that the Jericho ATV park seems to have a very dense population as it was almost completely clearcut immediately prior to the creation of the park and has been regenerating ever since.

 

[marnof]

It's clear that human behavior is changing the climate, but just how quickly, and with what exact consequences, is harder to say. The precise effects on weather, sea levels, incidence of disease and drought, species diversity, ocean acidification and so forth -- none of this is known with certainty. The point is, it doesn’t need to be. Policies to mitigate climate change are best viewed as insurance against great but imperfectly understood risks.

Human behavior is a purposely vague term, but as for CO2, it's having very little consequence on sea level, etc. These things are measurable and can be determined with a good amount of certainty. To say that certainty doesn't matter anyway--just throw precious resources at nebulous, imagined problems--takes away our ability to deal with actual, serious worldwide problems of starvation/malnutrition and lack of affordable clean energy sources for heating and cooking.

 

[marnof]

I agree...when I hear the state government attributing the die-off to 'global warming,' I think it comes off as lazy and suggests they're not going to try to determine the real cause and that we the people of New Hampshire will not have the solution. A friend of mine had a really good observation earlier this winter, when he wondered about the impact of these summit wind farms being constructed around the state. As most anyone who's hiked higher (not not standard 4K) peaks in winter or early spring will notice, moose like to den on high elevation ridges for the winter. When you clearcut, dynamite, then install 300+ tall, loud, ice throwing wind turbines on these ridges, you've suddenly disturbed a prime moose habitat.

I'm not a big fan of the turbines, either. Sorry for the pun. It baffles me that some environmentalists give them a pass, considering their damage to wildlife and habitat. Worth further study, for sure.

 

[RollingRock]

Human behavior is a purposely vague term, but as for CO2, it's having very little consequence on sea level, etc.

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Click here for a partial list of these public statements and related resources. NASA also has a webpage called "Climate Change: How Do We Know."

As to rocket21's statement, I completely agree. It's easy to pass off "climate change" as the blame for everything when the State should invest more time/money to determine the root cause. Peakbagger offered some hypotheses worthy of investigating. In the meantime, with biologists stating 'shocking' and 'alarming' regarding 60% of moose yearlings dying [this is certainly higher the average]. the moose hunt should be cancelled.

 

[marnof]

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

A poll?

Isn't that a political tool having very little to do with actual science? The 97% number sounds a bit high, as well. More like election results from North Korea, less like the opinions of diverse scientific minds on a complex and highly politicized subject.

A little research would reveal that the 97% meme has been widely refuted. It's purpose is to promote groupthink on global warming, and it was devised by grossly manipulating a poorly crafted poll and its results.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

It is heartening that you acknowledged peakbagger's excellent comments. This is, after all, all about the moose, isn't it?

 

[peakbagger]

I am not sure there is a direct link between calf mortality and the moose hunt. The moose numbers are based on the overall health of the moose herd in a particular zone, if the herd is declining in a particular area the moose hunt targets for that zone are adjusted and possibly eliminated, this is done on yearly basis by fish and game. Shocking and Alarming are both great headlines but if the population density is too high in an area, it would stand to reason that the yearlings are the least able to survive the winter and therefore possibly that is the way that the population goes back into balance. If predators were reintroduced into the area, I expect they too would target the most vulnerable which would be yearlings and the one most affected by ticks would be the ones that the predators would cull. Pure speculation on my part is that if predators were reintroduced that the moose density would be lower.

If someone doesn't like moose hunting, that's fine, I don't hunt but I don't object to someone hunting as long as the moose hunt numbers are based on sustainable limits. If the current population density drops below acceptable limits in particular zones the target will be reduced or eliminated and the system works.

I did live through a period of time when the moose population was arguably excessive in my area. At the end of my road there were 7 moose killed by vehicle collisions for two years in a row at and sadly 2 drivers were killed plus many injured. In the Berlin Gorham Milan Shelburne Randolph area during this time, the number of moose vehicle collisions were in the hundreds in less than a three week period.

 

[TJsName]

I did live through a period of time when the moose population was arguably excessive in my area. At the end of my road there were 7 moose killed by vehicle collisions for two years in a row at and sadly 2 drivers were killed plus many injured. In the Berlin Gorham Milan Shelburne Randolph area during this time, the number of moose vehicle collisions were in the hundreds in less than a three week period.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I'm not sure it's fair to blame the moose for getting hit by cars.

I also have no issues with a well managed moose hunting permit program. The hunt for this year might be cut from 275 to 124: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/Hunt_species/hunt_moose.htm

There is a 3 year study that started in January 2014 to try and determine the cause of the increased moose mortality rate: http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Newsroom/2014/Q1/moose_study_update.html

They'll be looking at reproductive success, winter ticks, and other parasites or diseases as potential causes.

 

[Neil]

When a breeding population's range contracts I'm assuming it isn't due to members migrating towards the center. I would think it means that at the shrinking edges there is an increase in the death rate of juveniles.

If you look at a map of the range of moose in North America you can see that in NH they are at the southern edge of their range. Edge populations are usually more borderline or precarious as far as survival goes and it is upon edge populations that evolutionary selection pressure is most heavily exerted. Even very slight changes in conditions can affect viability. Who knows, the ticks might be just the tip of the iceberg and other, less visible stressors interact in a way that render the moose more susceptible to the ticks.

 

[peakbagger]

Not blaming the moose , but during that time there were resident moose at just about every wet spot along route 2. I could reliably find either moose or recent muddy footprints at 15 or 20 places within 10 miles of my house. I contend that that sort of population density was not sustainable. On any given weekend Lowe's garage would have several totaled vehicles parked in the lot from cars running into moose. There are still accidents but far less in the last few years.

 

[TJsName]

Not blaming the moose , but during that time there were resident moose at just about every wet spot along route 2. I could reliably find either moose or recent muddy footprints at 15 or 20 places within 10 miles of my house. I contend that that sort of population density was not sustainable. On any given weekend Lowe's garage would have several totaled vehicles parked in the lot from cars running into moose. There are still accidents but far less in the last few years.

I know you weren't - and I appreciate your points.

If I knew there were that many moose in an area I'd definitely slow down. As it is, there are already a few spots when I do that to look for moose (93 SB south of Lafayette Place, 303 between Zealand and Highland Center, etc). I remember when I was a kid and we'd drive up... they had the 'Break from Moose' signs with a kill count on them. Not sure when and why they changed it to 'Hundreds of Collisions' - perhaps trying to be less morbid, or too costly to update the sign each week?

 

[peakbagger]

Unfortunately it was the later, too costly to update the signs. I seem to remember one spring where there over 40 collisions in three weeks in my area. There are far less spots frequented by moose along route 2 these days, they are still out there but far less of them. I still try to avoid Rt 16 north of Berlin, especially north of Dummer anywhere near dark as its prime habitat.