Does Predator Reduction Have an Impact on Moose Harvest?

[Patsfan54]

A new scientific paper on predator reduction efforts in a large area of the Interior and Southcentral Alaska has found they have not increased hunter moose harvest over several decades.

Retired Alaska Department of Fish and Game wildlife biologist Sterling Miller said “There’s a lot of support in the Legislature, and indeed in the Alaska public and particularly in the Board of Game, in the concept that killing more predators results in more moose,” he went on to say “what our paper sets out to do is examine whether or not that’s true or not, and we decide based on our kind of analysis that it isn’t.” He further said “What we can infer from our data is that the historical harvest of predators has not resulted in increased harvest of moose”

Current state biologist Tom Paragi said “The fact is the moose harvest did increase substantially, almost doubling from about 2003 to 2015, coincident with the implementation of wolf control and simultaneously brown bears had been reduced because of liberalized harvest regulations”

Predator reduction efforts have not increased moose harvests, study says

A new scientific paper on predator reduction efforts in much of Interior and Southcentral Alaska has found they have not increased hunter moose harvest over several decades.

alaskapublic.org

I haven't had a chance to read the study linked in the article yet, but I look forward to finding out how reduction in predators doesn't impact moose harvest.

 

[cdubbin]

Was just reading that same article, interesting stuff...obviously going to be a controversial take...

 

[SmokeRoss]

Well out where our cabins are, the bears slaughter the calves every spring. Brown bears, since the hinting on them has been so restricted. We used to see black bears there, but when the brown bear hunting was prohibited, their numbers skyrocketed. Yes you can hunt them now by permit, but there isn't enough permits. It's especially bad with all the blown down spruce trees. It's like a corral for the calves. They don't have a chance. Plus we are on the edge of the Refuge and those people want the bears preserved.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Clearly the only intelligent thing to do add more wolves

 

[Daveinthebush]

Brown bears, since the hinting on them has been so restricted. We used to see black bears there, but when the brown bear hunting was prohibited, their numbers skyrocketed.

The same thing happened in Unit 13 where we used to bait. The browns took over we quit hunting the stand for a lack of black bears. You could not take a brown over bait back then. It has changed now but we have better areas for blacks.

 

[mark knapp]

Here are some things to remember. Stirling is but one man with one opinion. I wonder why it's a retired biologists opinion we are focused on and not the opinion of an active biologist, Tom Paragi.

It also seems to me that, the comparison would have been better if the difference would have been between an area that has no predator management and one that does instead of only in the area that had predator management. What would the same area have looked at if it had had no predator control? Maybe a lot worse.

I would like to see more numbers on hunter opportunities, calf production, calf survival, other moose mortality rates and other influences etc. Instead of just raw numbers. It goes on and on, forest fires, weather condition trends, and yes, even the economy will have an effect on hunter success rates.

The other questions are, were the comparisons done with other things in mind, like hunters per capita, hunt hours afield as apposed to hunter days, days actually hunted and time spent actually hunting rather than just buying a license.

It could be that, when you look at the longer term, other variables blurred the results but when focused on smaller data sets, the correlation is more obvious, like the one Tom did.

There are other variables that would all need to be graphed in order to get a true picture of what had an affect on what the numbers show. There are just too many questions not answered in this article.

Statistics can be aligned to say almost anything, and they are. I closer look is needed to see what the report is actually saying.

You also need to look at who is publishing this article, "Diversity" and NPR. They may have view points and agendas they are trying to push rather than learning what the study actually says. Saying it says what "They" want it to say.

I've been a little busy but for my own knowledge, I will study the report.

 

[SmokeRoss]

A big variable around here (northern peninsula) is that the regulations vary so much between the State and the wacky liberal Refuge people.

 

[4merguide]

Here are some things to remember. Stirling is but one man with one opinion. I wonder why it's a retired biologists opinion we are focused on and not the opinion of an active biologist, Tom Paragi.

It also seems to me that, the comparison would have been better if the difference would have been between an area that has no predator management and one that does instead of only in the area that had predator management. What would the same area have looked at if it had had no predator control? Maybe a lot worse.

I would like to see more numbers on hunter opportunities, calf production, calf survival, other moose mortality rates and other influences etc. Instead of just raw numbers. It goes on and on, forest fires, weather condition trends, and yes, even the economy will have an effect on hunter success rates.

The other questions are, were the comparisons done with other things in mind, like hunters per capita, hunt hours afield as apposed to hunter days, days actually hunted and time spent actually hunting rather than just buying a license.

It could be that, when you look at the longer term, other variables blurred the results but when focused on smaller data sets, the correlation is more obvious, like the one Tom did.

There are other variables that would all need to be graphed in order to get a true picture of what had an affect on what the numbers show. There are just too many questions not answered in this article.

Statistics can be aligned to say almost anything, and they are. I closer look is needed to see what the report is actually saying.

You also need to look at who is publishing this article, "Diversity" and NPR. They may have view points and agendas they are trying to push rather than learning what the study actually says. Saying it says what "They" want it to say.

I've been a little busy but for my own knowledge, I will study the report.

After all we went through with covid, it's easy to not believe anything we read these days when you can pretty much guarantee there is some sort of political bias one way or another.

 

[bottom_dweller]

After all we went through with covid, it's easy to not believe anything we read these days when you can pretty much guarantee there is some sort of political bias one way or another.

And the party that has the most money to influence wins. I like NPR for most of their news but their stories about our wildlife are skewed and out of touch. You can cherry pick any information and lean this or that.

 

[ranting]

This is age old Q> But this has happened in the last some years in the area I lived, Elk , Moose have moved into I live so did the wolves! Thats the way it goes! . Elk, Moose herds do well>so do the wolfs!> this is the ups and downs forMMMMMM> how many years!

 

[ranting]

Healthy , Deer pop, Elk, Moose, Wolfs are very HAPPY!

 

[kenaibow fan]

And the party that has the most money to influence wins. I like NPR for most of their news but their stories about our wildlife are skewed and out of touch. You can cherry pick any information and lean this or that.

NPR is tax payer funded and slightly less bias then fox, cnn, msnbc and the like. Click bait central for add revenue, in my opinion. Wonder what o’l Walter would say about all these media outlets today.

As for some one saying less predators doesn’t correlate to an increase in numbers for predated population of in this case moose seems laughable but I’m not a mathmatist.

 

[The German]

Ok, the only thing I can say on this subject, is if you think that culling out some of the preditory players doesn't give the ungulates alittle breathing room,,,,,, you don't get out much....... enough said.
TG

 

[4merguide]

Ok, the only thing I can say on this subject, is if you think that culling out some of the preditory players doesn't give the ungulates alittle breathing room,,,,,, you don't get out much....... enough said.
TG

I totally agree!

 

[The German]

Ok, and as I said earlier, my Sheep Hunt wasn't successful this year,,,,,, but that doesn't mean I didn't leave some "Blood" on the Mountain, and it wasn't my Blood,,,,,, I'll leave it at that.....
TG

 

[mark knapp]

Ok, and as I said earlier, my Sheep Hunt wasn't successful this year,,,,,, but that doesn't mean I didn't leave some "Blood" on the Mountain, and it wasn't my Blood,,,,,, I'll leave it at that.....
TG

Umm... what? If you did something illegal on the mountain, 1s't... shut up. Second, don't do illegal things on the mountain. I't don't make you cool.

JMHO

 

[The German]

Oh, you mean something like this eh.......
TG

 

[mark knapp]

Oh, you mean something like this eh.......
TG

I don't mind the killing of wolves, I've done my share. I'm talking about breaking the laws. Why act like you did an improper thing if you didn't.

 

[4merguide]

I don't mind the killing of wolves, I've done my share. I'm talking about breaking the laws. Why act like you did an improper thing if you didn't.

I didn't take it as he did something improper, only that he perhaps didn't want to deal with the armchair quarterbacks around here. Which I can understand. Many folks don't post pics and/or stories like they used to. I know I don't.

 

[bottom_dweller]

Umm... what? If you did something illegal on the mountain, 1s't... shut up. Second, don't do illegal things on the mountain. I't don't make you cool.

JMHO

Yeah what he said, but mostly the shut up part!