Current weather

  • Overcast, light rain
  • 57°
    Overcast, light rain
  • Comment

Intensive management: It's all about the moose

Posted: November 11, 2011 - 9:55am

In spite of the various public comments, editorials, radio spots, etc. about predator control plans and aerial wolf management on the Kenai Peninsula recently, one indisputable fact remains. Our moose population is declining. In fact, in areas like subunit 15A (north of the Kenai River and west of the mountains), it has been declining for quite some time. As a member of one of our local fish and game advisory committees, I've had the opportunity to hear a variety of perspectives and review a fair amount of research data related to our moose population.

One thing I find troublesome, however, is when facts and figures are misquoted and/or applied incorrectly or out of context. As an example, one recent letter claimed that wolves only kill 6 percent of the moose population. My intention is not to criticize that writer, but I am not familiar with any particular research study that makes that claim. There was one local study, however, that collared 50 moose calves and determined mortality causes during the first three months of life (back in 1982). From that study, 6 percent of the mortalities discovered were determined to have been caused by wolves. It's a stretch to take that information and claim that all wolves kill only 6 percent of all moose (if this was the study referenced to make that claim). If that were true, then this same study would also suggest that black bears kill 34 percent of all moose; and if that were the case, we would not have any moose left.

Since our current predator control proposals contain a wide variety of data, we must recognize that it's not all necessarily interconnected, nor predictive. They contain information about overall populations of moose, area estimates of wolf populations, bull:cow ratios, calf:cow ratios, pregnancy rates, twinning rates, road kill numbers, historical data on fires, comments about habitat, etc. Heck, there are even rump fat indices.

How can someone sort all this out to form an educated opinion?  I believe that by isolating the basic facts (and in doing so, taking care not to inappropriately interpret data or apply findings), and by sticking to basic guiding principles, one can arrive at a reasonable understanding of the realities of the situation.
As for the basic facts, here is what we know:

* Subunit 15A has been in Intensive Management Status for approximately 12 years.

* Despite efforts and attention brought by the Intensive Management Status, moose in 15A have continued to decline and nothing has been done to change that trend.

* Although there is some cause for concern about habitat, the only time that moose starve, is in high numbers, and during severe winters. (Also, there is little hope that any meaningful habitat enhancement will be conducted in this area due to high costs, concerns about uncontrolled burning, and cooperative issues in conducting these projects on federal lands.)

* Fewer calves are surviving to breeding age, known as recruitment, which is a sign of further population decline. Low recruitment, coupled with older cows passing reproduction years, or falling prey to wolves during the winter (remember, wolves kill moose of all ages, all year long), has a compounding effect. Let's hope we don't also have a harsh winter.

To clarify our guiding principles, two things stand out:

* Our State Constitution mandates that we manage wildlife for "maximum sustained yield, and for maximum benefit of the people."

* A recent Alaska Supreme Court decision determined that management of moose and caribou populations takes priority over predators.

* That being said, it's clear that we not only have the responsibility to manage our wildlife according to these tenets, but we have an urgent obligation to do so because of the need indicated by the facts.

Although some tend to focus on aerial shooting of wolves as the centerpiece of this issue, the reason for these proposals is to perpetuate a healthy population of moose for a wide variety of users. This particular method of management may not be palatable to some, but it's hard to argue its effectiveness in reducing the impact caused by wolves, which ultimately helps achieve the goal of bringing 15A out of Intensive Management Status.

Several years ago I attended a presentation by Mr. Corey Rossi, the current Director of Wildlife Conservation for ADF&G. One particular statement he made during that presentation has resonated with me ever since. He said "The measure of success of a predator control program is not in how many bears and wolves you kill. The true measure of success is in how many more moose or caribou you put back on the ground." I couldn't agree more. I think Mr. Rossi hit the nail on the head. It's all about the moose ...

Bob Ermold is a Sterling resident and current vice-chairman of the Kenai/Soldotna Fish and Game Advisory Committee.

  • Comment

Comments (3) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
ladyonthelake 11/11/11 - 11:17 am
Great article!

Mr. Ermold hit the nail on the head.
For us who harvest wild game are disturbed the government agencies involved have neglected to recognize the significant problem in the decline in the moose population. While habitat in 15a is one of the components to the decline, it is NOT in the 15c area where over 100,000 acres have burned in the last decade. A hunter who spends anytime in these areas knows that the momentous problem is big furry animals with sharp teeth. For our public employees to continue to do nothing is irresponsible at best.

souldotna 11/12/11 - 12:07 pm
What nonsense

Bob, someone with no background in biology, is a tool of big game guides. Despite what ladyonthelake writes, the moose population in 15c is near what that habitat can support with the exceptions of bulls - but hunting regulations might have more to do with that situation.

It's the political appointees without any background in biology who are irresponsible. The current and last two governors have suppressed F&G scientists from studying and releasing reports.

orionsbow1 11/13/11 - 02:20 pm
Souldotna is right

Souldotna is right and Bob Ermold and ladyonthelake are wrong.Bob writes "From that study, 6 percent of the mortalities discovered were determined to have been caused by wolves. It's a stretch to take that information and claim that all wolves kill only 6 percent of all moose" Well Bob, its also a stretch to take that same information and claim the opposite. Further more, the study was talking about moose calfs only. Your claim that the study suggested that black bears kill 34% of "ALL" moose is also wrong. The study said that concerning moose calf mortality, 6% were from wolves while 34% were from bears. Your article doesnt explain the logic of trying to put more moose in a habitat incapable of sustaining them. Moose dont have to starve to be considered decimated. Disease, decreased fertility even migration all influence moose poulation and they are all tied to the habitat.In GMU 15C the problem is not "big furry animals with sharp teeth" as Ladyonthelake suggests but big hairy animals without 50 inch spread anlters. Restricted hunting regulations can change that.

Back to Top


Please Note: You may have disabled JavaScript and/or CSS. Although this news content will be accessible, certain functionality is unavailable.

Skip to News

« back

next »

  • title
  • title
  • title
My Gallery


  • 150 Trading Bay Rd, Kenai, AK 99611
  • Switchboard: 907-283-7551
  • Circulation and Delivery: 907-283-3584
  • Newsroom Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Business Fax: 907-283-3299
  • Accounts Receivable: 907-335-1257
  • View the Staff Directory
  • or Send feedback