status and trends of minnesota’s moose populationsb · northeastern minnesota’s moose...
TRANSCRIPT
Status and Trends of Minnesota’s Moose
Populations
Glenn D. DelGiudice, Ph.D
Forest Wildlife Populations & Research Group, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology, University
of Minnesota-St. Paul
St. Louis
Itas caLak e
Polk
Beltrami
Pine
Aitkin
Cook
Kooc hic hing
Ros eau
Otter Tai l
Becker
Marshal l
Stearns
Todd
Kittson
Pope
Swift
Lyon
Morrison
Renvil le
Car lton
Hubbard
Ric e
Wilkin
Nor man
MartinNobles
Wright
Grant
Fi llm oreMower
Crow Wing
Sibley
Murray
Redwood
Clearwater
Lak e of the Woods
Brown
Roc kJacks on
Douglas
Goodhue
Meek erKandiyohi
Winona
Isanti
Dak ota
Faribau lt Freeborn
Olmsted
Stevens
Scott
Steele
Lincoln
Blue Earth
Houston
Wadena
Dodge
Travers e
Mille Lacs
Kanabec
Wabasha
McLeod
Benton
Chippewa
Nic ollet
Waseca
Lac Qui Parle
Pennington
Chisago
Car ver
Big Stone
Cottonwood
Mahnom en
Le Sueur
Pipestone
Red Lak e
Sher bur ne
Yellow Medicine
Washington
Watonwan
Hennepin
Ram sey
Clay
Cas s
Anok a
St. Louis
Itas caLak e
Polk
Beltrami
Pine
Aitkin
Cook
Kooc hic hing
Ros eau
Otter Tai l
Becker
Marshal l
Stearns
Todd
Kittson
Pope
Swift
Lyon
Morrison
Renvil le
Car lton
Hubbard
Ric e
Wilkin
Nor man
MartinNobles
Wright
Grant
Fi llm oreMower
Crow Wing
Sibley
Murray
Redwood
Clearwater
Lak e of the Woods
Brown
Roc kJacks on
Douglas
Goodhue
Meek erKandiyohi
Winona
Isanti
Dak ota
Faribault Freeborn
Olmsted
Stevens
Scott
Steele
Lincoln
Blue Earth
Houston
Wadena
Dodge
Travers e
Mille Lacs
Kanabec
Wabasha
McLeod
Benton
Chippewa
Nic ollet
Waseca
Lac Qui Parle
Pennington
Chisago
Car ver
Big Stone
Cottonwood
Mahnom en
Le Sueur
Pipestone
Red Lak e
Sher bur ne
Yellow Medicine
Washington
Watonwan
Hennepin
Ram sey
Clay
Cas s
Anok a
St. Louis
Itas caLak e
Polk
Beltrami
Pine
Aitkin
Cook
Kooc hic hing
Ros eau
Otter Tai l
Becker
Marshal l
Stearns
Todd
Kittson
Pope
Swift
Lyon
Morrison
Renvil le
Car lton
Hubbard
Ric e
Wilkin
Nor man
MartinNobles
Wright
Grant
Fi llm oreMower
Crow Wing
Sibley
Murray
Redwood
Clearwater
Lak e of the Woods
Brown
Roc kJacks on
Douglas
Goodhue
Meek erKandiyohi
Winona
Isanti
Dak ota
Faribault Freeborn
Olmsted
Stevens
Scott
Steele
Lincoln
Blue Earth
Houston
Wadena
Dodge
Travers e
Mille Lacs
Kanabec
Wabasha
McLeod
Benton
Chippewa
Nic ollet
Waseca
Lac Qui Parle
Pennington
Chisago
Car ver
Big Stone
Cottonwood
Mahnom en
Le Sueur
Pipestone
Red Lak e
Sher bur ne
Yellow Medicine
Washington
Watonwan
Hennepin
Ram sey
Clay
Cas s
Anok a
7___
l/
_
______
‘I_LJ_L||U L:__‘N+
‘FWl_|T_
>Jll_JVl‘I7'7
Fl_||__‘_l|l
___
‘IIIr_V|:L___Lfi__:_]‘__
_J___
_
__1(I_ lT}y|";‘_\||:_“_|_i|4_(4.__
_In_l1
1|I“__
r)“l'L4||(J:||"__Ll|_I1r“l|‘’||‘_w____‘VI’!’___H:\ll_u‘ i[ ‘J
WV
ll_____[|\|‘_"|_[|__|Ii____ _
1I_k_1"
I‘ r‘_T“_l7_
/
l_:_|_|+jL|H L1
Q2q“I%iii?
______|_Ui
“L\|_"L|)fl|‘|_JFTHTIH_j__
_
___|‘_|,,'|__
_‘IL4}"‘_||L_
J]I V‘IIWIIIN
_
N|__:J__‘_‘_F“‘L_|L______:+‘_‘_I:_L‘:__I]
__4:_1[;VH,||'_I\i[U‘"El.(
‘ A_FJ__‘|{_::1
_V“I____
%"EM
Northwestern Minnesota
Moose population estimate
Mid-1980s: 4,000+
2007 : < 100 (last State survey in the NW)
J’ I\|‘\{t‘J~"-€__;_ -K ‘r ‘1 ‘ ¢ K
*1!
W. ,.
- 4
5 '-
Q
. .g fife-yr ,.__, fp _ “L
w - .4 ~- K " 3. _
-Y’: '. J17 I‘--"\:__" ;‘*"“_\‘u. \ Y W , ,ix; -.i.;|_) ‘ mi - . -
'\L"~7: ‘
W.‘
. uh g,‘ ,IF
xi?‘ "5:‘; S_“'-I ‘ _ >151,
\ In:»>--1 Q». *A ~.V 1(- --:1--rs
1 -x . . ..4‘QM .'q1;‘~ , 1?‘-1 , 1""!‘§"'.1', ~§_»- l . +3 5 L '¢;1v,-,.~_\.vfi;-; ("7' y,‘”*“A =1. ~ . .;;?@;
’> 7 I’-1 _ . .'. V '1‘.
(4~_>‘-
-v~. "..;’, - _‘ “_‘T:‘ q|,IL:""- __f‘-_ - "“'.'
.: ‘____-.‘_ -J,“-:...._
\ u"' g1; .' nk'b~ I‘,-.-mrrr». - ~.-+-~-’~8* - p _ - -~
-;
ilIII \.'
. ;~~- - .u-‘ uq
._" uul .
‘Hit_ _ A? "-
IF'_"‘|"'~ __‘_ 1'. ' M.‘ ' -.* —;-;‘.
, .. .‘ _ .,. 'Y'_r - Q
I
1:1-ck‘*1
I-.
nu-1-11:
Northwestern MN Moose Population Population crash – >4,000 moose in the 1980’s, by the 1990’s, things started to change……. • Stopped hunting in 1997 • Habitat management efforts • Radiocollared (VHF) adult mortality study
• Climate change correlation • Health related (liver flukes and
brainworm)
Liver Flukes
likely
31%
Brainworm likely
5%Accidents
4%
Poaching
3%
Unknown
25%
Predation
7%
Disease/Starved
likely
25%
EstmatedMoosePopulaton
5000
4500
2[AI U1ZZ
2|\J U1ZZ
00
G8
1000
500
0
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2M2 ZCO4 2006 2008
W I I I I I I I I I |§| [LI
Year
‘-2
Additional research findings:
1. Low mean annual survival of
ad (0.79) and yrl (0.64), but
high calf survival (0.66)
2. Low pregnancy rates (48%)
3. Annual pop. growth rate
related negatively to mean
summer temperature
Murray et al. (2006): study period 1995-2000
Northeastern Minnesota January 2014
Pop. estimate: 4,350 Calves:cow: 0.44
Bulls:cow: 1.24
QK5K_
__
QV‘"________,___j___‘___UVgq_’j__AZ___‘_¥_(__{;_____AH___Q(wkIV?3?__I3JJ:
9_'_ _____:___if__.‘tK _'__
*3Kk____\__‘___*_
‘I‘_3'‘Q>T
__:_
__‘_______1),_
_______
___V_______,’!-__\-v'_-_iI_||Il'.‘-l_}__l-___‘.___31___
___r
_______I
____
_
_
___V__
___QI‘_
L:I
___:jg:__)7_->_fa?if_
_________55:5’rm;
‘_r__\‘ii_ ___'_rS____ __‘___’,IV, |_¢\______'___;__‘I?7_§_________lgM*__
_‘
i§z__’____N___,‘'_ _‘_,_
‘Ire__fi‘_L
_u:_fi___@_____ _______:___
F_;
_____K‘ ___,>t___
’__h~,"___d__V‘;‘v‘__
_:
_>:__V,________‘__‘_J_I_‘_Pr_________vl_____U?___k‘_‘
,_7_ L’
__
__.
__ _|_»___”
__1__I___I__:_ ___
jI_ _,‘»
/____fixif‘u
I‘_,5‘)?‘Ff
I_‘
‘_“___?
/’
P__;_‘>_7Q}_‘‘J1?_
_{______J}‘*_F‘___.V__V___‘___
/__ ____fl‘M‘_‘{H5__ _‘_'(__
_‘__i'__%’_I______‘_Hi_
_____
1
’__ ______q_?_j_“‘ k __ _
_i_
_1_ _____
_%_HI>(IJ
____‘
1%:F_____
|_I!
I‘*\_‘!i|“
U‘‘
'1'__ ____'_|___\\
W‘__‘l_‘|‘4JN\i‘3__'H"r'__\_-_\
\$
\
Minnesota’s annual aerial moose survey method Consistency and standardization
StMPE5OOMH_nEA__-Et53M41_U2
‘IVIn-II
_____:_::@::::__m
G
_I““m“Ifi;‘1I“*-I-11-|_v|‘___-‘-III-I‘?
31D2aFm
_:_____:“_m
tSWN
______:::______1_?u;I__::_____m__:_
1Mm%flm%““__:;___
SS?
::_*:::__:
:::____
I%1m1Xm%mmi__
MPMbMMM310231rW
___:1_mm_N
M
-ummu.—@—__——n§-
___11'11111
““§..H‘
___________
J?
___1::;KKmHKLim
__"_
q__H
$CC§l‘“QC“§$Z__Z__$Z$
__Jm
fl—__u____I__
__
2-?-
_“
_|_n_|""_____|_L.-ML
_]J_-wfi_|
i__Q
___l____
_!W___$m#m_"mwH_r!‘1_
‘__-
Minnesota’s annual aerial moose survey method
liiqugh:2014 Aer|al Moose Survey
Li-5/Ifllil ,-1:365 J66!‘/r _
1iZ§flI'I6fl:!/Irfi?4'.7’I' '9.‘/la"/J I §s$0:IaaéI‘-':|nz.I-za/..-=.».,,mI—|--a-.122-:/.'.'/.1-91¢:-zif/wwanmw*-wmw Iiing-:;:;-1|:v//37116I—|--II1-2":-mm0lI§|I5:!l=%—_ I-I-:=a-—In:.z-'
ii
ll$&Q8
IFI17013‘HIE;‘III!“IR
,1 ...=;-7.-a@Ii|.vz0zwZfi!—/Jyaflfinflfivnav/Zlil/ZwvnfjfirilLfiififlflldfzi? 7/(9I:|fZI9'I_$IIfiiMfz/07/4vZ|!"4§I%':aZ//I92%!’/)9I:|f)fl9ZZ"'/.514 I6!(:97/J'iZI§/A66’/39? '1'?‘Z’?/{Z71V19/flfiiifififi
L.
=I-==--III-II.I%'i{7§,!-'ir|!-:,~:5;.'-.=-IIIII"E."
‘P’
I—_I-III_l----——I_1I.
hinne-scIl.a Counfies
2014 Survey Plots |:| sway Harem| LDw.Den5|ty
|:] Med“-.n Dam” Ei0|.l13?_ry\fiLate|'s CanoeArea Ilclerness
I"I High Density I i I 1 Range
Permanent Habitat Pint
II
1|"'L“I.‘I1
n.
-0 -0! -5
Minnesota’s annual aerial moose survey method
’/I/Zi
.-
nIi.JIL.... -.a.;..‘-.-. . .1»... u»&\ ."l“0i_,»n.lLIl 1. .....-.... -..__
‘ . , _.»I7'
' ~\ /
@_
1 t-_ _ "Md ii" -I '11 ‘kl;-1| vim Ii; .- wait:/an/~\\
"‘f"'
:—i|w-as
I
I»,
\::~..wJw:.x
.-1\vIrrn<xr-\.z'IrI§4lnr
Minnesota’s annual aerial moose
survey method
2004 – detection probabilities are estimated using a Sightability Model (Giudice et al. 2012)
“.fi‘Iz'*E)‘_I15‘!il!‘>a’i:Dfi
‘H‘;!
L, ‘L_/Mfg
5
_‘
1‘
i\_%_L&___
\M
Ifi‘'
:H_!__“___‘P‘S'_
‘ ‘is_6‘“MM
‘_LTH_FA1N‘F\
k"./
/
r>
_ 9‘‘_
‘RH,
f
Eh
Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population, 2005-2014
Survey Estimate
90% Confidence
Interval
2005 8,160 5,960 – 11,170
2006 8,840 6,670 – 11,710
2007 6,860 5,230 – 9,000
2008 7,890 5,970 – 10,420
2009 7,840 6,190 – 9,910
2010 5,700 4,480 – 7,250
2011 4,900 3,810 – 6,290
2012 4,230 3,190 – 5,600
2013 2,760 2,120 – 3,580
2014 4,350 3,220 – 6,210
_+_I
UWOOE_u0u_fiE_HWm_
______________|00000000000000000000004208642111
4102310221021102010290D280027002600250024002
Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population, 2005-2014 Estimated calf:cow ratios (solid diamonds)
Percent calves (solid squares)
Estimated bull:cow ratios
Cafcowrat0
-a-6-4-2
-I I I I I I I I I I I
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
cowrat'oSQ
0
1 .80
1 .60
1 .40
_\ NO
1 .00
.°ono
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.002004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201 0 201 1 201 2 201 3 201 4
-20-1a-16
Percentcaves
-14-12
_\O
Northeastern Radiocollared (VHF) Moose Study
Results, 2002-2008 (Lenarz et al. 2009)
Vehicle 8% Train
2%
Hunters 14%
Poached 2%
Wolves 9%
Bacterial Meningitis
1%
Unknown Health Related
31%
Unknown 33%
Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population
Additional research findings: Lenarz et al. (2009, 2010): Study period 2002-2008
1. Models based on Jan temperatures above a critical physiological
threshold were inversely correlated with subsequent adult survival
2. Explained >78% variability in spring, fall, and annual survival, and 55%
for the next winter’s survival
4. Mean annual adult survival rates were 0.81 (0.68-0.96)
5. No difference in male and female survival
Research, Management, and Future of Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population
Aggressive research efforts studying:
1. Specific causes of adult and calf mortality relative to intrinsic and
extrinsic factors, seasonal and annual survival rates relative to
environmental variables, and reproductive performance
2. Nutrition and use of habitat before and after forest manipulations
3. White-tailed deer-moose interactions and potential of disease
transmission
4. Thermoregulation by moose relative to behavior, habitat type, and
ambient temperature
5. Wolf-moose interactions, seasonal wolf diet composition and impacts on
the moose population
6. And more….
Research, Management, and Future of Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population
Management efforts:
1. Ongoing annual aerial moose survey, with recent inclusion of
assessments of moose use of disturbed areas in northeastern Minnesota
2. Development of Minnesota Moose Research & Management Plan
3. Cancelled the State’s annual moose harvest (2013) until further notice
4. Moose listed by the State as a Species of Concern
5. Fond du Lac Indian Band, 1854 Treaty Authority, and Grand Portage
Band of Chippewa cancelled moose harvests until further notice
6. Annual research/management moose meeting
7. Moose habitat inventory and development of Habitat Suitability Index
(HSI)
Research, Management, and Future of the Northeastern Minnesota’s Moose Population
7. Ongoing habitat manipulation projects by the many landownerships for
moose habitat improvement (including Habitat Collaborative projects)
8. Development of moose management and research websites, frequent
presentations to the public and special interest groups
9. Development of a moose biennial work plan and a climate change
biennial work plan (including a focus on moose)
Acknowledgements
Cooperating parties:
Fond du Lac Resource Management
Division
1854 Treaty Authority
Natural Resources Research Institute, University of Minnesota-Duluth
Voyageurs National Park, U. S. National Park Service
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, The Nature Conservancy
Grand Portage Band of Chippewa
Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, & Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota-St.
Paul
U. S. Forest Service
U. S. Geological Survey
Hi‘;‘flI_!nhI\GI‘€-BIPuH‘
VN“_'W I>‘»_
__
‘W7
\‘__\__,_':_,>_\(1_M___
\
J’____1l‘E___1‘__:Z_\é‘_»_____1___’I‘__u_L_‘__
__n_’ ___’_____‘
_“_J_____V__T_'3
‘Z;}_7 V
$3k“,V____1“;_,__
‘_,__p_u_,___“,,I‘Ix__>_____‘_~‘_
Q_wHx5_\;_i L__%H_‘§‘\____\‘_____ ‘___>_q_@_§;l__\ __>___ _/f‘_____7 ___‘*»&fl_i‘fr
__
___Z-(__/PZ“__*W
l _<_>_:__’_‘
_,_,____;,___._