Moose Mismanagement
Politics Trumps Science
Gregg D. Stoll, former DNR wildlife biologist Manistique office
February 2008
The first moose translocation to try and re-establish moose from Isle Royal to the U.P. was conducted from 1934 to 1937. This attempt resulted in 69 moose being brought into the U.P. under very difficult conditions. This was a time of increasing deer populations and the project failed.
In the 1980s Lou Verme was the only DNR (formerly Conservation Dept.) biologist still working that was familiar with and had done some research on the first moose translocation. Lou Verme spent his entire career in the U.P. and was responsible for many ground breaking deer studies at Cusino Wildlife Research Center at Shingleton. Deer research at that facility is now no longer done. Lou and I had the opportunity to talk on various wildlife management issues fairly frequently. Michigan had few if any wolves when the 1930’s translocation was performed, so predation would have probably not been a factor. I asked Lou why first moose transplant failed. He felt it was a combination of brain worm and poaching, with brain worm being the most significant.
The U.P. in the period from the 1920’s to the 1950’s was vegetated with vast tracts of cutover and burned over second forest growth. Many large tracts were open to semi-open land that was created from 1800s logging followed by forest fires. Wild fires were seldom contained prior to WWII. This young forest growth set the stage for phenomenal growth of the deer herd. Lou Verme had started work in the 1940’s and observed this deer herd increase first hand. He estimated that in the early 1950’s the U.P. had one million deer. Imagine that!
In 1983 talk started on another moose transplant. Charlie Guenther was Wildlife Division Chief. Charlie was a law enforcement officer and not a biologist. Charlie wanted big splashy projects and wanted them to move fast. The moose transplant and the Schiwan pheasant project were to be Charlie’s legacy. As is typical of Wildlife Division programs, little research or study was done as to what effect brain worm would have now and how many moose would be needed. The project was rushed into being with little thought as to whether it would succeed and what cost would there be to the hunters who pay the bill. In only one year the decision and planning was done on a project that has cost millions, the assumption was made that this could not possibly fail. In fact anyone who suggested the project was hastily planned or may have a less than favorable outcome was castigated for their opinion to the extent most kept their opinion to themselves.
The DNR web site states that by 1970s the Lake Superior watershed deer herd had declined drastically. This was not true from the standpoint of a possible impact on moose. The decision had been made by Wildlife Division chief Guenther and U.P. DNR regional director Frank Opolka, another law enforcement officer, that this translocation would go forward. For purely political reasons Opolka promised the politicians in Marquette that the moose would be brought there and not to the eastern U.P. The eastern U.P. has had a small self sustaining population of moose and has a large area of excellent moose habitat. The moose in the eastern U.P. had sustained themselves over several decades but in low numbers. Some theorized these moose were only escapees from nearby Ontario, as some surely were. It was however documented that calves were born in the eastern U.P. every year. This information was discounted and deemed to be of no significance to the moose project. The eastern U.P. moose herd, though widely scattered, was growing slowly in size.
Now comes the ugly part. To sanitize the decision to make Marquette the release area two things had to be done. First the eastern U.P. would have to be declared as poor moose habitat. Second the release site would have to be declared void of deer or at least have an extremely low deer population. John Hendrickson, wildlife biologist from Baraga, was the man whose work area covered the proposed moose release site. Hendrickson declared the area, and a large portion of both Marquette and Baraga counties as having very low deer numbers, therefore there was supposedly vacant habitat. This would then remove much of the danger of brain worm. The moose release launched Hendrickson’s career and he later became the Wildlife Division regional biologist in Marquette.
To declare the Marquette County area the best habitat, the Marquette regional wildlife biologist, Ralph Bailey, brought in the North American eastern boreal forest moose expert. Anthony Boubinik, from Ontario was brought to the U.P. to examine potential moose habitat. Boubinick had done much ground breaking research in similar habitats in Ontario and was the big expert at the time. Even though the Ontario moose habitat is more like that of the eastern U.P. and less like Marquette County the political demands dictated that an expert declare Marquette most suitable. At the time Jack Cook, the district biologist from Newberry and I wanted moose to be transplanted into the eastern U.P. This was only logical as there were moose already there and the habitats were so similar. We pushed for splitting the moose project into two and therefore not put all the eggs in one basket. Also, deer numbers in the Tahquamenon and upper Manistique drainage basin systems were demonstrated to be quite low. Both Jack and I made it known the eastern U.P. should get moose. The two areas could then be studied and a failure in one site would not necessarily mean a failure in the other.
Well, this did not set well politically with Opolka, who had promised the moose to Marquette! So when Bailey and Boubinick were to tour the eastern U.P. to look at habitat, neither myself nor Jack Cook were allowed to attend. Bailey drove Boubinick across M-28 from the Soo to the Seney Road and up the Seney road into the Fox River plains. This is a large very dry sandy area with jack pine and very large openings, not moose habitat. All the prime moose areas of the eastern U.P. were not considered or examined by the DNR’s expert. Boubinick of course declared the eastern U.P. to not be good moose habitat and off to Marquette they drove. Marquette was then declared the best moose habitat the U.P. had to offer, with some qualifications. It had some differences with Ontario, notably less marsh, bog and water areas, so typical of the eastern U.P. habitats where moose exist now.
The decision to move all moose to the Marquette County area had now been sanitized and given the mantel of scientific scrutiny by the biggest name in moose research in North America! To ensure these decisions would not be challenged, Jack Cook, me and Lou Verme were not allowed to participate in any moose meetings. We were not allowed to take part in the actual translocation. We were ordered to not attend and go to the moose release sites.
Lou Verme went to the moose release site anyway in advance. He examined the area for habitat and deer numbers. Later Lou told me that the project area had a far larger deer population than publicly stated. Lou felt the project would fail on the basis of brain worm exposure and the general mortality rate of shooting and accidents. I did attend the last moose release and noted the abundant deer sign in the area. Lou was quite upset that he was not consulted and that this was just another mismanagement fiasco. Jack Cook, Lou and I kept quiet, went about our business and waited to see the results.
Keep in mind that this was prior to the wolf re-introduction. Damage was done and all moose were released into the Marquette county site. The goal as announced in 1985 was to have a huntable population by 2000, what happened? By the way license buyers, a huntable population by 2000 was the goal and the justification for spending hunter license dollars. There where three things that ensured this would fail and today I call it a failure as all we have is a very token population. A population density of 1/10 of a moose per sq mile to at best 2/10 of a moose per sq mile is the claimed number of moose. This may be an over estimate.
There was a complete lack of adequate planning to ensure a large enough number of moose were translocated to overcome the basic issues of mortality and low reproductive rate. The project was approached with a cocky bravado that it would certainly succeed, if only because everyone wanted it to. All the moose were put in a relatively high deer area, thus brain worm would have an immediate impact, along with other mortality. This aspect was sanitized by John Hendrickson declaring the area devoid of deer. The problem is, no one bothered to tell the deer in the area or the poor moose
Moose scattered as frequently happens to scared, confused animals and did not contribute to the core nucleus breeding stock, hence the DNR declaration that more bulls were needed. This is not terribly unusual in translocations, but George Burgoyne was put in charge and as we learned in previous weeks he was not a biologist. No research or significant effort was put into determining how many animals would be needed to overcome the mortality issues. As the nucleus herd animals became more scattered, they became more vulnerable to losses.
Then there is the predation issue, both human and from nature. The DNR web site states emphatically that poaching, moose/car accidents/ brain worm and wolves are not major factors in moose mortality! Then what exactly is preventing the moose from obtaining the mythical goal of a huntable population by the year 2000? All these factors and probably others are impacting the herd. It is merely common sense that if the herd has not reached the magic predicted number of 1,000 moose by year 2000, then something is killing the animals!
There is one issue the DNR website does not discuss that is a major source of moose mortality in Alaska and Canada and is well documented in the scientific literature. That is mortality caused by black bears, particularly on moose calves. Large adult black (and grizzly bears for that matter) cause significant mortality on moose calves wherever the range over laps. This is well documented in the literature and you may note is not discussed at all on the DNR web site. Coincidentally at about this same time period the DNR wildlife division started restricting bear permits. There were two goals to the restriction on the number of permits issued for hunting of bears. One was to increase the total number of bears, i.e. increase the bear population. The other result of the restriction of permits or bear kill was to increase the age and therefore size of bears killed in the U.P. This has been successful as average age and therefore size is increasing.
What happens when there are more, older, mature, aggressive male or boar bears running around? Yes you guessed it, spring time mortality on moose calves and also deer fawns goes up. The increase can be quite dramatic. This is not studied and not mentioned by the DNR as they have no information. So this was then followed shortly by the DNR releasing wolves into the U.P. and the resultant rapid and uncontrolled growth of the wolf population in the U.P.
Now since the DNR admits they cannot accurately count the number of moose they have, how do they know what the mortality is not caused by?
One other factor that has not been discussed is ticks. Yes the common wood tick and its cousins, found all across the continent in moose habitat. In fact moose habitat and good tick habitat are basically one and the same. How many of you trout fisherman have come out of the tag alder or willow stream bottoms covered in ticks? Well the situation is the same for moose and they suffer. Scientific literature documents the mortality of adult moose by exposure and malnutrition caused by tick infestations. Can it happen in the U.P.? I would bet on it.
Mortality factors are all additive, not compensatory. This means that a dead moose is a dead moose regardless of the cause. Animals lost to the population would not necessarily be lost to other causes as in the theory of compensatory mortality. Stabile or growing populations have compensatory mortality. Compensatory mortality means that animals lost by one cause would have been killed by another anyway and do not impact the total population. So wolves by themselves may not hold the moose back, but all the factors together, brain worm, wolves, bears and human factors are now and have held moose back.
How did they get the goal of 1000 moose by the year 2000? I do not know and cannot imagine. They started with 59 moose in total transplanted and 11 died immediately, but calves were born to pregnant females and some calves may have been born in 1986. To look at the projected population I started with 70 animals in 1987 and went forward. To get to 1,000 animals by the year 2000 would require a growth rate without mortality of 23% per year. That is without any mortality, so a mortality rate of 10 to 15 % would require a reproductive rate of about 30%. I have bad news for you folks but that is not in the scientific literature anywhere and was made up as a justification for spending all the deer license dollars on moose. The DNR now admits a reproductive rate of 5 to maximum of 10%. The reality is the actual reproductive rate is 5% or less. Since the DNR cannot accurately count the animals the actual herd status may be one of stability or even decline in some years.
Should we spend more hunter dollars on this when it is not going anywhere? Frankly I would be surprised if Michigan hunters can hunt moose before the year 2030 if at all. The reproductive rate is very low and with what has to be increasing mortality from wolves, moose are in trouble. Michigan has already spent millions on this project with no end in sight. While I would join the ranks of those wanting to be able to hunt Michigan moose, I am not willing to continue to spent large amounts of deer license dollars on the project. If moose are going to make it, they will make it whether we spend millions or not.