MOOSE GRAVEYARD: Rapid climate changes may doom the moose, according to some biologists.
Image: flickr/Steve Wall
ALONG THE GUNFLINT TRAIL, Minn. -- If moose disappear from the boreal forest of northern Minnesota, as some biologists predict, they will not exit with a thunderous crash. Climate extinctions come quietly, even when they involve 1,000-pound herbivores.
Experts who have studied the Northwestern moose -- Alces alces andersoni -- believe they are witnessing one of the most precipitous nonhunting declines of a major species in the modern era, yet few outside Minnesota fully appreciate the loss.
The moose is an iconic species whose existence is woven into the social, economic and cultural fabric of this region. Its elongated head and wide antlers are emblazoned on everything from T-shirts to tire flaps. The 1960s cartoon character Bullwinkle J. Moose and his flying squirrel friend Rocky were residents of the fictionalized town of Frostbite Falls, Minn.
But the animals that inspired Bullwinkle are not what they were. Here, even healthy bulls -- whose size, strength and rutting prowess make them the undisputed kings of the North Woods -- are dying from what appear to be a combination of exhaustion, exposure, wasting disease triggered by parasites and other maladies.
The biologists are baffled and also helpless.
Mark Lenarz, who retired in March from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), where he led moose research efforts, said it's not like the TV show "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation."
"Unlike 'CSI,' it's very hard to identify in the field exactly what an animal is dying from," he said. "We know something about the symptoms" of distressed moose, he added, "but we don't necessarily know the exact causes of mortality."
What Lenarz and other experts do know is that a variety of climate stressors -- including higher average annual temperatures, a long string of very mild winters, and increasingly favorable conditions for ticks, parasites and other invasive species -- are conspiring to make northern Minnesota a moose graveyard.
Since 2002, Minnesota DNR specialists have put radio collars on 150 healthy adult moose; 119 subsequently died, most of them from unknown causes, according to wildlife officials. Car and train collisions accounted for 12 mortalities, while wolves were culpable in just 11 deaths.
Sudden collapse of herds
Meanwhile, annual surveys taken from helicopter overflights show that the state's primary moose population, in the state's northeastern Arrowhead region, has been halved in just six years, dropping from 8,840 animals in 2006 to just 4,230 this year. The decline mirrors a similar collapse a decade ago in the state's northwest corner, where moose plummeted from an estimated 4,000 animals in the mid-1980s to less than 100 by the mid-2000s.
While some monitoring of moose had occurred in the 1990s, most of the animals were gone before scientists could examine cause-and-effect relationships. In the Arrowhead, however, experts are watching mass mortality, discovering multiple moose carcasses in the same area, including animals that appeared relatively healthy only a few years before.
It's not just the occasional sickly moose succumbing to common causes of mortality, said Lenarz. "We're out in the
field collecting dead radio-collared moose, and we were finding other moose that had died along with them."
Similar mysterious deaths of one or more moose have been documented in Voyageurs National Park, where the National Park Service had launched its own radio-collar study of the animals, and in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, where moose sightings used to be routine for visitors but are increasingly rare.
Bob Baker, regarded as one of the best wildlife trackers on the Gunflint Trail, believes the region's gray wolves are preying on moose, especially young calves, whose survival is essential for the herd to maintain itself. The wolves were only recently removed from the endangered species list. "You can radio-collar as many adult moose as you want. But if wolves are eating the calves, you're still going to lose your herd," he said.
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentThe article and the title seem to show little connection. They have no idea what is happening therefore it must be climate change???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We know something about the symptoms" of distressed moose, he added, 'but we don't necessarily know the exact causes of mortality.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Lenarz and other experts do know is that a variety of climate stressors -- including higher average annual temperatures, a long string of very mild winters, and increasingly favorable conditions for ticks, parasites and other invasive species -- are conspiring to make northern Minnesota a moose graveyard."
That's like saying "We don't know how Tom died, but we know Dick and Harry are to blame."
Gee whiz, let's protect the gray wolf, but pretend that they have nothing to do with the declining moose herd. After all they only gobbled up 11 of the tagged moose. No one is counting on the juveniles that get gobbled up and are much easier targets. Considering that no good crisis should go to waste, let's blame our favorite political scape goat - global warming. Yeh, that's it - global warming. And let's not get confused with cause and effect analysis. They radio tagged 150 animals and 119 died from unknown causes. That's nearly 80% of the tagged animals, but it certainly couldn't have anything to do with the radio tags, now could it?.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT. S. Elliot, The Hollow Men, This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper. How far north are the Moose populations affected? If we are going to lose the southern herds, and from the article it sounds like 20 years (at current rates of warming and die offs in Minnesota) will all but eliminate the herds in their southern ranges, will the species have a refuge farther north? Combine this article with the news of the devastation of the forests from bark beetles... whimpering and keening are in order. And to all the climate change deniers... can we at least mourn together the losses from all the changes occurring and those coming, even if the deniers claim that the hot smoking guns found at everything from melting glaciers and ice caps, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, to explosions of bark beetles, moose with 50 to 70,000 ticks, and one hundred year storms every ten years cannot yet be "directly" blamed on our burning the fossil fuels of the planet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless you have some reason to suspect that the radio collars are affecting the moose in some adverse way, I don't know why you would resort to that explanation?? Do you have evidence that radio collared wildlife are more vulnerable than non-collared wildlife?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt sounds like you fancy yourself an anthropogenic climate change sceptic and don't like seeing climate change being used as an excuse for anything, regardless of the evidence.
There are 29,000 moose in Maine (Eastern or Taiga subspecies) - are they at risk and declining too?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate change?..hint...Atlantic Canada is chock full of moose...a couple hundred thousand in Newfounldand.. and it's warmer than the forests of northern minnesosta.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother ridiculous 'drink the purple Kool-ade' piece of hysteria brought to us by the global warming cultists.
nobias: "The article and the title seem to show little connection. They have no idea what is happening therefore it must be climate change???"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA graveyard! Be afraid...be very afraid...ha! ha!
What a travesty by Scientific American to use such UNSCIENTIFIC jargon.
Read the entire article, not just the first page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead the entire article. Not just the first page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Another ridiculous 'drink the purple Kool-ade' piece of hysteria brought to us by the global warming cultists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and this mouthpiece calls himself a teacher!
Once again I am astounded at his or her lack of reading and comprehension skills.
This article was very well written and you would have to have an IQ lower then Gilligan's belt size to come to the conclusion that this has nothing to due with climate changes. The scary part is that half the country still follows the rhetoric of college dropouts and drug addicts like Rush Limbaugh who wouldn't hesitate to spend an entire program putting this article down without having read the entire article either.
This moose die out problem should be a classic science lesson on cause and effect of even minor changes in climate that take place in a few decades instead of the several millenniums that was the normal rate of change in the past. Under normal conditions the moose would have slowly migrated north, but a sudden change in climate has trapped them.
Can you imagine what some of these phoney teachers would think if 10 to 20 times the number of mosquitoes, ticks and parasites that a moose normally fends off each year suddenly attacked them?
Well I think it is just plain carelessness to lose so many moose. Climate change might have had something to do with it indirectly. The dogma that is.The scientists are so convinced that everything can be blamed on climate change they do not look hard enough for other causes. The other population that dwindled from 4000 to 100 in about 20 years must have had an undiscovered cause also. More likely a disease than climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this‘Since 2002, Minnesota DNR specialists have put radio collars on 150 healthy adult moose; 119 subsequently died, most of them from unknown causes’
That was 10 years ago. What is the average life expectancy in the wild for moose? Perhaps it was mostly the oldest animals in the herd that were able to be caught.
Remember for years scientists were blaming climate change for the world wide decline in frogs. Turned out to be a disease. Chytridiomycosis — a fungal disease. Blaming climate change is a cop out.
The article doesn't say climate change killed them. It says it is not known what the problem is, but climate change has caused an increase of parasites and put stress on the moose who are used to a colder climate. These are obviously contributing factors. It certainly could be caused by a new disease. A warming trend can cause that too. This kind of rapid die out is most often a combination of things. I am sure poaching in a recession is also a contributing factor, but that doesn't mean we should overlook the obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you research the subject you will find that during this period the deer population in the area has exploded. Perhaps there are not enough predators that favour deer. Deer are carriers of parasites that they are largely immune to but that can decimate moose if they occur in large numbers. I actually have some sympathy for the researchers. By linking the problem to climate change, they can link into the billions of dollars available for AGW research. This could give them the funding they need to pursue the real causes. They would not be the first or last to use this ploy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou sure like to paint a dreary picture of scientists in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "This could give them the funding they need to pursue the real causes, like you actually know what the real causes are."
You insinuate they are all liars and cheats for grant money, but you have offered absolutely no evidence to show they are wrong. Your attempts to call them cheats and liars is nothing more then a cheap shot if you can't come up with your own explanation.
You are starting to sound more like Rush Limbaugh, the uneducated king of cheap shots, every time you post. That is exactly what Rush does every day. If he knows nothing about the science, he makes up a straw-man argument to hoodwink anyone too stupid to see through it. If that doesn't wash, he resorts to insults and name calling.
What research have you done on the subject? There is at least one other solution to the mystery as I detailed above. Do as I did. Go find it for yourself. It was not detailed in this climatewire report. I & a few others try to keep them honest. You just lap up whatever they feed you. An inability to analyse & think for yourself is your problem. Believe it or not you need people like me who can see through BS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, you say: The article doesn't say climate change killed them-----
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what about the headline? Rapid Climate Changes Turn North Woods into Moose Graveyard.
Is it acceptable for the headline to be BS so long as the following text moderates the claim a little? Surely an allarmist headline should warn you about the veracity of the whole article?
Moose are ugly. Not like cute polar bears. Can't raise $$ using moose as your cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't expect the eco-corps to back you on this one.
"There is at least one other solution to the mystery as I detailed above. Do as I did. Go find it for yourself. It was not detailed in this climatewire report."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI looked but I couldn't find the information you claim on the Drudge Report. If you really have something to add, post a link.
One of the leading suspects is an advancing deer herd, known to carry parasites deadly to moose. Peterson said the panel recommends continued aggressive deer hunt management, to keep the white tailed deer numbers in check.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Managing deer at a low density in moose range was maybe the thing that could happen right away on the ground and might help moose right away, because deer are doing better further north," Peterson said. "They've moved way into Ontario, up into caribou country actually. So deer exist at pretty high densities now in northern Minnesota.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/18/moose-recommendations/
www.sbaa.ca/assets/attachments/cms/david_and_goliath.pdf
The above link is the one I was referring to in particular. It shows a see saw effect between deer & moose populations.
I made no reference to the Drudge Report.
As to the moose, some unbalance is clearly at work here; the non-collared are dying just as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be entirely frank, I would not rate Warming as our sole major problem. Chemical pollution in general (such as affecting bees, frogs and other sensitive species) of which GHG are merely a specialized subset; resource depletion (perhaps we should start switching to electric cars only AFTER all the oil is gone in a few more decades, and a crisis is installed); and overpopulation (the poor man’s unconscious revenge – how many middle class families do you know with 8 kids), all put together, would be more aptly described as the general problem here, which could be entitled, ARE WE NO BETTER THAN LOCUSTS?
The sole rational response would be to invest massively on viable nonpolluting energy sources (I prefer low-tech physics here, not biofuels, but this is just me); alternatives to all pollutant chemicals wherever possible; and free birth clinics everywhere, but particularly in poor regions (I would include free dental in their services, to help people feel and work better, too; bad teeth really saps the energy of people).
Of course, the Plutocracy (and their lackeys, the corporations) which has successfully conspired to regain privilege, however without the former accompanying obligation of noblesse oblige (as was prior to the American and French Revolutions) thus bypassing the Social Contact which would theoretically be the pillar of the modern Republic, will complain about costs, even as they pay no taxes and bear no risks. Being devoid of noblesse oblige, as opposed to the pre-revolution aristocracy, they will just suck everyone and everything dry, and shrug about the consequences as the world burns.
The article cites all kinds of reasons why warmer temperatures are detrimental to the moose population. So those of you who are complaining about the lack of evdence linking climate change to the decline either did not read the article or can't read. The headline does overstate the case, but that is not untypical of most publications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the drug companies could come up with a flea and tick killer for Moose kind of like what I give my dog...also works on heart worm. Maybe need one that works on flukes...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out the links I gave above. #20. It shows that moose populations have been studied since the late 1800s & that large swings in population had been noted by early 1900s. An increase in deer population was noted to be matched by decrease in moose population, followed by a swing in the other direction. Historically these two populations have see sawed. So why is it only now attributed to climate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, you are tiresome. In your zeal to downplay climate change you overlook the obvious. If you have two populations interacting with each other (deer and moose) and something changes in favor of one, the other one will most likely suffer. The article makes clear how warming climate does not favor moose. It also states that many man-made changes do not favor the moose, urban and suburban development, changes in forests, etc. It is like you watch for every mention of a "suspect" and cry out that the author forgot to say "alleged suspect", and in this case, the authors do a good job of identifying a whole group of "alleged suspects", and the sum total does not bode well for moose. I won't be surprised if someone doesn't join this commentary by asking why scientists are "so" concerned about the loss of moose, what? don't they like deer? Ecology, the study of how everything interacts in an environment, and rapid (VERY rapid) global climate change means that we now study those interactions across whole ecosystems and on unprecedented time scales, well, maybe with the exception of asteroid impacts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what caused the previous see saw between these species before AGW was even dreamed of oh wise one?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, the article did not make clear that moose are still thriving in areas that are warmer such as stated here: 7. geojellyroll
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this06:51 PM 5/18/12
Climate change?..hint...Atlantic Canada is chock full of moose...a couple hundred thousand in Newfounldand.. and it's warmer than the forests of northern minnesosta.
What is tiresome is the unending effort to connect every variation in nature to climate change, preferably if only by insinuation, to AGW