The Status and Management of Moose in North America – Circa 2015

THE STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – CIRCA 2015

H. R. Timmermann1 and Arthur R. Rodgers2

1RR #2 Nolalu, Ontario, Canada POT 2K0; 2Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Centre for Northern Ecosystem Research, 103–421 James Street South, Thunder Bay, Onatario, Canada P7E 2V6

ABSTRACT: Both declining and increasing moose (Alces alces) populations have been reported across North America over the last decade. We surveyed all jurisdictions with extant moose populations to determine the extent of these population trends. In 2014–2015, the North American moose population was estimated at ~1,000,000 animals distributed in 30 jurisdictions, which is unchanged since the turn of the century. Populations occurred in 12 Canadian provinces or territories, and in at least 18 states. In the past 5 years, moose density is believed to be increasing in 9, relatively stable in 8, and declining in 11 jurisdictions; estimates of change were unavailable in 2 jurisdictions. In 2014–2015, an estimated 425,537 licensed moose hunters harvested 82,096 moose in 23 jurisdictions. Hunter numbers increased by 39,118, whereas total harvest remained virtually unchanged from a decade earlier. Harvests by Indigenous and subsistence users, although largely unquantified, are believed substantial and important to quantify in certain jurisdictions. A variety of active and passive harvest strategies used to manage moose are discussed.

ALCES VOL. 53: 1–22 (2017)

Key words: Alces alces, distribution, harvest, hunter numbers, Indigenous hunters, licensed qualifications, moose population status, National Parks, seasons, subsistence

Over the last decade there have been sev- 1995, Timmermann 2003), and a literature eral reports of declining moose (Alces alces) review were used to update the status, popula- populations across North America (Lenarz tion estimates, and harvest and non-harvest et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2011, DeCesare et al. management strategies used in 23 jurisdic- 2014), but there have also been accounts of tions with an annual licensed moose harvest. increasing numbers in other areas (Wattles An additional 7 jurisdictions where hunting and DeStefano 2011, Harris et al. 2015, is currently prohibited were contacted to deter- LaForge et al. 2016, Tape et al. 2016). In mine population status. Tabulated data were this paper, we update the status and manage- returned for final perusal, edits, or corrections ment of North American moose circa 2014–2015 from that reported in 2000–2001 solicited. This paper reports on current (year – (Timmermann 2003) to determine the extent 2014 2015) population status and strategies of these population trends across the contin- used to manage hunting harvest and non- ent. A comprehensive 9-page questionnaire harvest management of moose across North (located at http://alcesjournal.org/index.php/ America. Affiliations of those providing infor- alces) similar to that employed previously mation through personal communication (pers. (Timmermann 1987, Timmermann and Buss comm.) are provided in Acknowledgements.

1 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION AND by changes of ~20% or more between surveys CURRENT STATUS (Gasaway and Dubois 1987). New Hampshire, The distribution of moose in North Maine, and Vermont rely heavily on surveys of America during the 20th century has been moose observations by deer (Odocoileus virgi- described by several authors including nianus) hunters and vehicle collision rates to Peterson (1955), Telfer (1984), Kelsall estimate population trends. New Hampshire (1987), Karns (1998), Franzmann (2000), and Vermont use these annual deer hunter sur- and Rodgers (2001); 4 subspecies are recog- veys in a related regression formula developed nized, namely A. a. gigas, andersoni, ameri- from concurrent infrared aerial surveys in a cana, and shirasi (Peterson 1955). In the 3-year New Hampshire study (Bontaites et al. past 40+ years many have detailed expanding 2000, Millette et al. 2014). Jurisdictions not distributions of moose in both western and employing formal methods of population as- eastern states, provinces, and territories sessment base their estimates on professional (Kelsall and Telfer 1974, Compton and opinion. Consequently, population estimates Oldenberg 1994, Karns 1998, Peek and are not necessarily comparable across jurisdic- Morris 1998, Brimeyer and Thomas 2004, tions or years because of the high variation in Toweill and Vecellio 2004, Base et al. 2006, methodology and quality of data. As with all Thomas 2008, Wolfe et al. 2010, Matthews survey data, absolute counts are not achievable 2012, Labonte et al. 2013, Wattles and and the data herein should be treated as provid- DeStefano 2011, 2013, DeCesare et al. 2014). ing an indication of trends rather than absolute Periodic winter aerial surveys based on population estimates; the direction of popula- the Gasaway method are used by most agen- tion change (decreasing, increasing, or stable) cies to estimate moose populations and trends is more important than the magnitude of (Gasaway et al. 1986, Peterson and Page change since the last jurisdictional survey 1993, Timmermann 1993, Smits et al. 1994, (Timmermann 2003). Lynch and Shumaker 1995, Bisset 1996, Lenarz 1998, Timmermann and Buss 1998, Eastern North America Bisset and McLaren 1999, Bontaities et al. Currently, moose (A. a. americana) appear 2000, Ward et al. 2000, Gosse et al. 2002, to be still expanding and/or occupying former Heard et al. 2008, Larter 2009, Moen range in the states of Maine, Massachusetts, et al. 2011a, Cumberland 2012, Fieberg and New York, and Connecticut (Kilpatrick et al. Lenarz 2012, DelGiudice 2013, Kantar and 2003, Hickey 2008, Labonte et al. 2013, Cumberland 2013, Millette et al. 2014, Seaton Wattles and DeStefano 2011, 2013, S. Heer- 2014, Harris et al. 2015). Moose are considered kens, L. Kantar, A. LaBonte, and D. Scarpitti, among the more difficult ungulates to survey pers. comm. 2015; Fig. 1, Table 1). Moose (Harris et al. 2015) and estimating either abun- in Vermont and New Hampshire have re- dance or population trends from raw counts occupied all suitable habitat and are currently obtained by aerial survey can be challenging. considered to be in slow decline (Musante Most agencies estimate total jurisdictional et al. 2010, C. Alexander and K. Rines, populations based on the cumulative total of pers. comm. 2015; Fig. 1, Table 1). Factors specific management areas sampled every 3 or believed responsible for lower densities in more years. Such jurisdictional estimates are Vermont include purposeful harvest to reduce often considered relatively crude and are specific regional populations (Andreozzi et al. primarily used to assess population trends, re- 2014). In New Hampshire, high abundance of cruitment, and distribution over time. Real winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus) due changes in population estimates are indicated to shorter winters and possible increased

2 LE O.5,21 TIMMERMANN 2017 53, VOL. ALCES N RODGERS AND 3 – TTSO OS NN IC 2015 CIRCA NA IN MOOSE OF STATUS

Fig. 1. Estimates of 2014-2015 post-hunt moose populations in 30 North American jurisdictions. N RODGERS AND TTSO OS NN IC 2015 CIRCA NA IN MOOSE OF STATUS Table 1. Numbers of sport hunters, harvest, and post-hunt population estimates for 24 North American jurisdictions surveyed in 2000–01 (2001) and 2013–14 (2014). Symbols are as follows: population trend: +, , S indicate increasing, decreasing, or stable, respectively; — indicates no non-resident season and N/A indicates not available. Total hunters Non-resident hunters Total estimated harvest Estimated moose population

Agency 2001 2014 2001 2014 2001 2014 2001 2014 Yukon Territory1 2,440 2,793 389 501 716 617 70,000+ 70,000 S Northwest Territories2 1,300 1,125 65 123 1,400 244 20,000+ N/A Nunavut3 N/A N/A N/A N/A British Columbia 31,500 31,188 2,250 1,232 9,200 6,890 130–200 K 162,500 S Alberta 20,249 21,560 1,139 1,040 7,971 7,748 92,000 S 115,000 Saskatchewan 10,000 12,931 254 114 4,151 5,543 46,000 S 48,045 –

Manitoba4 5,409 3,252 100 143 1,000 6002 35,000 + 2017 53, VOL. ALCES 27,000 TIMMERMANN Ontario 100,000 106,752 3,000 1,743 11,000 5,071 100–110 K S 92,300

4 Quebec 130,000 176,710 2,000 2,706 14,000 21,105 95–105 K + 125,000 + New Brunswick 4,174 4,626 97 97 2,537 3,683 25,000 + 32,000 + Nova Scotia 200 346 ——186 240 6,000 + 5,000 S Newfoundland 40,449 26,770 3,044 3,930 19,322 18,226 115–140K S 114,000 Alaska 30,000 31,607 3,200 1,967 5,509 7,942 120,000 175–200 K + Washington 69 134 — 2 64 118 1,000 + 3,200 + Idaho 1,011 863 101 86 774 662 15,000 + 10,000 Utah 182 137 7 10 175 128 3,400 + 2,625 S Wyoming 1,379 461 199 90 1,215 415 13,865 + 4,650 Montana 609 357 16 11 596 278 4,000 S 3-5,000 North Dakota 132 106 ——117 93 700 + 850 Colorado 74 255 — 25 64 209 1,070 + 2,400 + Minnesota5 442 —— — 125 — 5,100 3,450 Maine 6,000 3,095 300 310 2,550 2,022 29,000 + 60,000 + Table 1 continued .... ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 incidence of brainworm (Parelaphostrongy- lus tenuis) due to higher deer densities are

1,089,020 of concern. Current moose populations in – Maine, however, appear to have more than doubled since 2001 (Timmermann 2003, Wattles and DeStefano 2011) and are second to only Alaska in the United States (Lichtenwalner et al. 2014). Populations in the Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec have increased, while those on 1,050,635 1,082,020

– Cape Breton, Nova Scotia are believed relatively stable or in slight decline since 2001 (Beazley et al. 2008, Smith et al. 2010, S. Lefort, P. MacDonald, and D. Sabine, pers. comm. 2016; Fig. 1, Table 1). On mainland Nova Scotia, the current population estimated at 500 is likely still in decline, and is designated “Endangered” under the Nova Scotia Endangered Species Act (P. MacDonald, pers. comm. 2016). Moose numbers on the island of Newfoundland have been decreasing .

2 since 2001, whereas moose in the Labrador portion of the Province appear to be increasing in recent years (J. Neville, pers. comm. 2015). Overabundant moose populations on the island of Newfoundland, where densities remained higher than elsewhere in North America at the turn of the century, have led to habitat deterioration and localized population decline (McLaren et al. 2004). Conse- quently, harvest quotas were adjusted to modify population size in an effort to reduce and sustain specific populations (McLaren and Mercer 2005), and more recently to help address moose-human conflicts in select management units (J. Neville, pers. comm.

Total hunters Non-resident hunters Total estimated harvest Estimated moose population 2016).

Western North America Moose populations (Alces a. shirasi)are believed to have doubled in Washington State since 2000–2001 (R. Harris, pers. comm. 2015) and have dispersed into Oregon (P. Matthews, pers. comm. 2015; Fig. 1, Table 1). Density has declined in Idaho and Wyoming, YK Indigenous harvest isNWT not Indigenous included. harvest isNU not established included. 1999, formerlyMB part 2014 of harvest NWT, estimate populationMN pending 32,000 closed survey (2011), moose 9,984,670 completion. season km beginning 2013. Table 1 continued 1 2 3 4 5 New HampshireTOTAL 585 386,419 127 425,537 76 16,158 14,183 19 83,246 419 82,096 935,635 91 5,000 + 3,800 AgencyVermont 2001 215 2014 342 2001but is 22 stable 2014 in Utah 34 2001 (D. Brimeyer, 2014 155 K. 171 Hersey, 2001 3,500 + 2014 2,200

5 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS and S. Nadeau, pers. comm. 2015). Wyoming comm. 2015). Population estimates for vast populations declined from an estimated portions of the Northwest Territories and 13,865 in 2001 to 7,700 in 2008, and to 4,650 Nunavut (formerly part of the NWT) are currently (Timmermann 2003, Brimeyer and not currently available (M. Dumond and A. Thomas 2004, Smith et al. 2011, D. Smith, pers. comm. 2015; Fig. 1, Table 1). Brimeyer, pers. comm. 2015). Populations A further 6 of 8 jurisdictions in the mid- have grown in Colorado and remain relative- continent report recent, declining trends in ly stable compared to a declining trend in moose populations (Alces a. andersoni/ Montana (Tyers 2006, DeCesare et al. 2014, americana) including the adjacent provinces N. DeCesare and A. Holland, pers. comm. of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and 2015). Periodic dispersal into the central Ontario, as well as the neighboring states United States, primarily from North Dakota of North Dakota and Minnesota (Lenarz and Minnesota, is reported as far south as et al. 2010, R. Corrigan, G. DelGiudice, H. Kansas and Missouri (Hoffman et al. 2006). Hristienko, G. Lucking, L. McInenly, J. Moose (Alces a. andersoni) populations in Smith, R. Tether, pers. comm. 2015; central British Columbia have declined, but Fig. 1, Table 1). LaForge et al. (2016) report overall, the Provincial population has increasing moose populations in the farm- remained relatively stable since 2000–2001 lands of southern Saskatchewan. Similarly, (Kuzyk and Heard 2014, Kuzyk 2016). Manitoba populations have increased in the Moose (Alces a. gigas) in Alaska have last 20 years in the southwest farmlands of increased and those in the Yukon Territories the province where access is controlled and have remained stable (B. Dale, R. Florkie- few predators exist (H. Hristienko and K. wicz, and K. Titus, pers. comm. 2015; Rebizant, pers. comm.). These expansions Fig. 1, Table 1). appear linked to the reduction of small, pri- Moose on the Arctic coastal plain in vately owned farms being replaced by larger Alaska have expanded and contracted their corporate farms, and a corresponding decline numbers and range twice in the past 25 years in undocumented harvest. However, the ad- (B. Dale and K. Titus, pers. comm. 2015). jacent jurisdictions of Ontario, Manitoba, Recent research has linked range expansion and Minnesota give lower overall estimates in Arctic Alaska to warming and the asso- than in 2001 (Table 1). ciated increase in shrub habitat (Tape et al. Minnesota closed their harvest in the 2016). Moose have also expanded their range northwestern region in 1997 due to dramatic in northern Southeast Alaska where first population decline from unknown causes observed in Haines in 1924, and now inhabit (M. Schrage, pers. comm. 2001, Wünsch- the Gustavus Forelands (1966; Glacier Bay mann et al. 2015). The estimated decline National Park). Populations of moose now was from 4,264 in 1983 to 1,486 in 1995, to occur on all the major islands of the central ~900 animals in 2001; essential collapse of Southeast Panhandle of Alaska (B. Dale and this population occurred by the early 2000s. K. Titus, pers. comm. 2015). Murray et al. (2006) concluded that the giant liver fluke (Fascioloides magna) was largely Central North America responsible for this decline. A concurrent de- Moose have expanded northward in cline in adjacent northeastern North Dakota Nunavut and Labrador, and are found as far was investigated by Maskey (2011) who sug- north as 67˚ 31ʹ′ near Kugluktuk in Nunavut gested other factors such as brainworm play a and Richards Island in the Northwest Terri- larger role in moose mortalities. Minnesota tories Mackenzie Delta (V. Crichton, pers. closed its moose hunting season in

6 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 northeastern Minnesota in 2013 after num- population estimates are available, and in bers dropped from ~8,500 in 2006 to 3,500 which an annual licensed harvest occurred in 2014 (G. DelGiudice and L. McInenly, in 2014, the total population estimate is pers. comm. 2015). Manitoba’s moose popu- 1,082,020 to 1,089,020 animals which is lation is believed to have dropped from a his- collectively similar to that reported in 2001 torical high of 45,000 several decades ago to (Table 1). Remarkably little overall change 27,000 in 2015 (H. Hristienko, pers. comm. has occurred despite the majority of jurisdic- 2015). Disease, over-harvest, and human de- tions reporting either increasing or decreas- velopment of landscapes are the primary fac- ing populations. Population estimates in tors thought responsible for the decline 12 Canadian jurisdictions totaled 790,845 in (Crichton et al. 2004). Recent surveys in 2014 compared to a range of 734,000 to northwestern Ontario indicate a correspond- 849,000 in 11 jurisdictions in 2001 (Table 1, ing decline in certain moose populations Fig.1, Timmermann 2003). The total population (OMNRF 2015, Table 1). increased in 17 states from 204,150–205,130 Current populations are increasing in in 2001, to 274,768–302,268 in 18 states Michigan, largely due to higher density esti- in 2014 (Table 1, Fig.1, Timmermann mates on Isle Royale (Vucetich and Peterson 2003). Of the 7 states where hunting is 2015). Abundance in 2015 was estimated as prohibited, 3 report expanding populations 323 in the reintroduced population in the (Oregon, Michigan, New York), stable popu- western Upper Peninsula, but low productiv- lations exist in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, ity and calf:cow ratios suggest population and Connecticut, whereas Minnesota closed decline (Dodge et al. 2004, D. Beyer, pers. their season in 2013 due to significant popu- comm. 2015). Populations in neighboring lation decline (Moen et al. 2011b; Fig. 1). Wisconsin, where moose regularly move in and out of northern Michigan and Minnesota, Factors affecting decreasing densities are currently estimated at <50 (K. Wallenfang, A host of factors are believed responsible pers. comm. 2015; Fig. 1). The United States for moose population declines including Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is consid- climate change, illegal harvest, habitat loss ering a listing under the Endangered Species or degradation, parasites and disease, disturb- Act of the northwestern subspecies of moose ance, moose-vehicular collisions, predators, (Alces a. andersoni) that is purported and unregulated recreational and Indigenous inhabiting upper Michigan, Isle Royale, and subsistence harvests (West 2009). In Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin the 11 of 30 (37%) jurisdictions that indi- (https://www.fws.gov/midwest/es/soc/pdf/ cated a declining population trend, the FRBatch90DayFndngs03June2016PIversion. “most important factors” were: Parasites pdf). In response, Michigan and Wisconsin and Disease (8 jurisdictions), Predators (7), submitted letters to the USFWS indicating Natural Habitat Loss (5), Unregulated Har- that moose in their jurisdictions originated vest (3), Warmer Summers/Winters (2), from eastern moose populations (Alces a. Increased Access and Vehicle Technology americana) (K. Wallenfang, pers. (1), Higher Deer Densities (1), Over harvests comm. 2016). by Licensed Hunters (1), Increased Hunting To summarize in 30 jurisdictions, current Pressure (1), and Variable Factors (1). Minne- moose density is believed stable in 8, sota initiated a $1.2 M moose mortality study increasing in 9, decreasing in 11, with data in 2013 to help determine factors responsible unavailable in 2 (Fig.1, Table 1). In 22 for the recent dramatic population decline. jurisdictions (circa 2014–2015) for which Preliminary results provide evidence of the

7 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS importance of parasites and disease and pre- management of hunting is required to affect dators as mortality factors (Wünschmann the desired allocation of moose harvest et al. 2015). In Maine and New Hampshire, among licensed hunters, secure the sustain- similar research initiated in 2014 indicates ability of moose populations, and achieve that winter ticks remain a primary influence other specified management objectives for a on calf mortality and adult cow productivity particular area. Specific moose management (L. Kantar and K. Rines, pers. comm. 2016). plans, guidelines, or statements existed in 13 jurisdictions in 2000–2001 (Maine, Vermont, HARVEST MANAGEMENT New Hampshire, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Economic impact Idaho, Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Moose, a symbol of wilderness, are much Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec; valued by Indigenous hunters, Metis People, Timmerman 2003). Specific harvest policy is recreational hunters, and a host of non- currently guided by an approved or draft consumptive users (Timmermann and Rodgers management policy including goals and 2005). Licensed recreational hunting promotes objectives in 13 jurisdictions; 3 employ un- substantial benefits to local economies written or a generalized wildlife policy. For valued in the $100s of millions annually. In example, Alaska’s constitution, statutes, and the early 1990s, for example, Legg (1995) regulations direct management activities and estimated CAN $134.7 M in Ontario for all objectives through a public process (B. hunter-related activities in 1993. More re- Dale, pers. comm. 2015), Minnesota’s policy cently, Maine estimated the economic impact is guided by a research and management plan of 3,095 resident and 310 non-resident hun- (McGraw et al. 2010, Minnesota DNRC ters to represent US $11.9 M and $3.9 M in 2011, Moen et al. 2011b), and Colorado 2014 (L. Kantar, pers. comm. 2015), and uses a specific management plan for each of Alaska valued its non-resident hunt at $11M 10 herds (A. Holland, pers. comm. 2015). in 2014 (B. Dale, pers. comm. 2015). Similar- British Columbia has recently developed ly, Quebec estimated 176,710 residents a provincial guidance and direction frame- and 2,707 non-residents generated CAN work for sustainable moose management $204 M and $8.0 M in 2014 (S. Lefort, pers. (British Columbia Fish &Wildlife Branch comm. 2015). 2015). Beginning in 2007, Ontario con- ducted a 2-year broad review and wide Harvest control objectives consultation of their moose management Three territories and 9 provinces in program that produced a new set of policies Canada, and 11 states in the United States ad- and guidelines with objectives and strategies ministered a moose hunt in 2014 (Table 1). to address the declining population and har- Collectively, 425,537 licensed hunters vest (OMNRF 2008). Two options to control harvested an estimated 82,096 moose in calf harvests included a shorter calf season 2014–2015; a decade earlier, the harvest within the regular season and a draw for was 83,246 moose by 386,419 licensed hun- calf tags (Bottan et al. 2002, Timmermann ters (Table 1). Hunting regulations continue et al. 2002, OMNRF 2009a, b). A moose to become more restrictive and complex as management plan has been developed in the demand on moose populations and corre- Newfoundland and Labrador that will help sponding harvest success rates increase, address human-wildlife conflicts (J. Neville, due in part, to increased road access and pers. comm. 2015), and Quebec currently use of mechanized equipment (Timmermann employs a fourth iteration of a manage- and Buss 1998). Specific and strategic ment plan spanning the period 2012–2019

8 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 (S. Lefort, pers. comm. 2015). Saskatchewan state to moose hunting in 2013 after the and Manitoba are developing specific man- northeastern population declined by half agement plans (H. Hristienko and R. Tether, since 2006. Manitoba legislated 3 Conserva- pers. comm. 2015). tion Closure Game Hunting Areas and 1 partial closure in 2011, coupled with a wolf reduction Allocation of Hunting Opportunities initiative to promote moose recovery (H. Moose are publicly owned and held in Hristienko, pers. comm. 2015, V. Crichton, trust by provincial, territorial, and state wild- pers. comm. 2016). Ontario continues to offer life agencies. The first priority of most agen- moose hunting opportunities for physically- cies is to ensure the long-term conservation challenged hunters in one Wildlife Manage- of moose populations and their habitats. ment Unit (Armstrong and Simons 1999). Harvest allocation is given prime consider- ation to subsistence use by Indigenous people Control Concepts under Treaty or other legal agreements in at Agencies employ a variety of strategies least 20 of 23 jurisdictions that currently to regulate harvests and distribute hunting manage a harvest. Resident hunters in 20 of pressure (Timmermann 1987, 2003). Passive 23 jurisdictions are typically favored over strategies include season length and timing, non-residents and non-resident foreigners access restrictions, weapon requirements, (10 of 23) in allocating harvest opportunities. and license qualification prerequisites; active In 2014–2015, non-residents were eligible to measures include limiting license sales or hunt in 20 of 23 jurisdictions (Table 1). Add- specifying the sex, age, or number of animals itional controls such as increased license fees, taken by specific area. Objectives often in- resident-only seasons, guide requirements, and limited permits are commonly placed on clude the harvest of pre-determined numbers non-resident hunters giving residents priority to sustain, increase, or reduce populations. in allocation of hunting opportunities. A In Alberta, Xu and Boyce (2010) developed guide was required by 10 of 23 agencies, an age-sex matrix model for harvest quota and at least 6 agencies required non-residents management of moose populations that to register with a licensed tourist outfitter, and allows easy application by managers respon- 8 required foreigners to do so to enhance sible for setting harvest quotas. Antler-based safety and success, as well as provide local hunting regulations in British Columbia economic benefit. may have resulted in disrupted reproductive Some agencies restrict or limit moose patterns and a consequent over-harvest of hunting opportunities including all states ex- large bulls (Child et al. 2010). In interior Al- cept Alaska. Washington and North Dakota aska, harvest restrictions on bull moose based offer a single moose hunt per lifetime, and on antler architecture allowed the recovery of Colorado, Utah, and Idaho limit hunters bull:cow ratios from 26:100 to 32:100 after to one antlered animal per lifetime. Others only 2 years of use (Young and Boertje require a waiting period between hunts: 2008). Conversely, liberal antlerless hunts in 2 years in Idaho, 3 years in New Hampshire, Alaska are considered vital to control moose Maine, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, 5 years populations from reaching unsustainable in Wyoming, Vermont, and Nova Scotia, and densities in specific management units - a 7 years in Montana (if successful). Hunters in general season harvest ticket is available Alaska and 8 Canadian jurisdictions may hunt to all residents/non-residents (Young and annually within quotas regardless of previous Boertje 2004, Young et al. 2006, Boertje et al. harvest success. Minnesota closed the entire 2007, 2009, Young and Boertje 2011).

9 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS A specific controlled hunt to reduce a required hunters to pass a shooting and written local moose population and impacts on cole test before qualifying for a big game hunting crops was implemented in Maine in 2009 license (Timmermann and Buss 1995). Al- (Kantar 2011). New Hampshire and Vermont aska requires all archery and black powder have increased regional/local harvest rates hunters to pass a proficiency test (W. Regelin, with higher antlerless quotas to alleviate pers. comm. 2002). browsing impacts on regenerating forests and vehicular collisions (C. Alexander, pers. Seasons comm. 2002, Andreozzi et al. 2014). In Season length and timing are used to 2014–2015, 9 agencies offered unlimited se- manage the availability of hunting opportun- lective or non-selective harvest opportunities, ity, hunter success relative to vulnerability and all 23 jurisdictions restricted or limited based on moose behavior, and seasonal harvests on a selective or non-selective access. Seasons are generally specific to basis in certain management areas (Fig. 2). weapon type (e.g., conventional firearms, In addition, closed seasons were employed black powder, or archery), and seasons tend to prevent licensed harvest in specific areas, to be longer in more remote areas and shorter including certain provinces, territories, states, closer to population centers. The most liberal National Parks, and Wildlife Refuges. season length (365 days, 1 July-30 June) occurs in 3 Game Management Areas in License qualifications and fees Nunavut (Table 2). Season lengths for all In 2014, proof of hunting proficiency, ei- hunts in parts of Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, ther a previous license or completing a hunter Montana, North Dakota, Yukon, Northwest safety education course, was required to ob- Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, tain a moose hunting license in all jurisdic- Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, tions. In 2015, Canadian resident license and Newfoundland equal or exceed 3 months; fees averaged CAN $52.57 (range $5.00 in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Vermont, and the Yukon Territory to $81.30 in New Bruns- New Hampshire restrict season length to 5–9 wick), and non-resident licenses averaged days. Early archery seasons are typically in $374.45 (range $48.00 in Quebec to addition to firearm seasons, and are offered $619.24 in New Brunswick). Resident fees in 17 jurisdictions (Table 2). Most firearm in the states averaged US $162.00, (range = seasons begin during the latter portion of the $25.00 in Alaska to $ 413.00 in Utah), and rut period (Wilton 1995) and many extend non-resident fees averaged $1,168.03 (range into November or December. Split seasons = $350.00 in Vermont to $2,271.25 in Idaho). (early vs. late fall) occur in at least 11 jurisdic- Some agencies, including Alaska and Maine, tions. Minnesota closed their northeast moose charged higher fees to non-resident foreign- hunt in 2013 after a continuous 41-year period ers. Export permits or trophy fees are of offering a limited non-selective hunt requir- required, in addition to the license fee, to ing all eligible hunters to apply in groups of up transport an animal from the Yukon Territory, to 4 individuals (Judd 1972). Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. Currently, only New Management areas and harvest Hampshire requires moose hunters to demon- strategies strate shooting proficiency using convention- All agencies have subdivided their moose al fire-arms prior to purchasing a hunting range into various sized management areas license, as described by Buss et al. (1989). (Wildlife, Game, or Moose Management Previously, New Brunswick and Newfoundland Units) to facilitate specific harvest control

10 LE O.5,21 TIMMERMANN 2017 53, VOL. ALCES N RODGERS AND 11 – TTSO OS NN IC 2015 CIRCA NA IN MOOSE OF STATUS

Fig. 2. Moose harvest strategies employed by 30 North American jurisdictions (circa 2014–2015). Numbers indicate management areas or subdivisions under each harvest strategy in each jurisdiction. STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS

Table 2. Characteristics of moose hunting seasons in North America, 2014–2015. Number of management areas Season length/timing

Size (km2)

Agency With moose Min. Max. With open Season Max days Earliest Latest Yukon Territory 443 64 2,919 360 92 Aug. 01 Oct. 31 Northwest Territories 6 56,270 278,183 61 123 Sept. 01 Jan. 31 Nunavut 3 N/A N/A 1 365 July 01 June 30 British Columbia 193 465 18,982 1771 107 Aug. 15 Nov. 30 Alberta 177 99 26,079 1631 91 Aug. 25 Nov. 30 Saskatchewan 82 232 82,443 801 92 Sept. 01 Nov. 30 Manitoba 60 222 139,204 291 117 Aug. 31 Jan. 24 Ontario 76 832 122,397 691 93 Sept. 14 Dec. 15 Quebec 30 1,471 204,142 281 92 Aug. 27 Dec. 01 New Brunswick 25 826 6,402 25 10 Sept. 20 Sept. 30 Nova Scotia 5 204 2,700 51 6 Sept. 29 Dec. 11 Newfoundland 54 217 4,533 541 121 Aug. 29 Jan. 24 Alaska 22 9,117 217,559 221 243 July 01 April 15 Washington 11 747 2,857 111 60 Oct. 01 Nov. 30 Idaho 70 220 7,843 461 86 Aug. 30 Dec. 01 Utah 15 809 5,394 12 34 Sept. 12 Oct. 15 Wyoming 38 100 10,000 311 81 Sept. 01 Nov. 20 Montana 88 95 60,926 821 87 Sept. 15 Nov. 30 North Dakota 7 47 36,514 51 101 Sept. 04 Dec. 13 Colorado 65 130 1,540 571 25 Sept. 12 Oct. 14 Minnesota 30 200 875 — season closed - 2013 Maine 28 1,424 5,320 25 24 Sept. 28 Nov. 28 Vermont 21 639 2,036 161 6 Oct. 1 Oct. 26 New Hampshire 22 391 1,365 20 9 Oct. 18 Oct. 26

1 Offers early archery season. strategies. The number of management areas require mandatory kill registration and sea- ranges from 3 in Nunavut to 443 in the son termination once a prescribed harvest is Yukon, and vary in size from 47 km2 in North achieved. Dakota to 278,183 km2 in the Northwest Ter- Several agencies have developed harvest ritories (Table 2). All jurisdictions except strategies that maximize hunter participation. Nunavut continue to employ either a selective For example, sharing a moose between 2 or or non-selective limited hunter participation more hunters optimizes hunting opportunities strategy, or a combination of both (Fig. 2). and accommodates hunters who wish to hunt Most favor some form of limited selective with friends. Perhaps the most liberal ap- or limited non-selective strategy to control proach is in Ontario which previously allowed sex- and age-related harvests. Alaska alone all eligible hunters to hunt calves in any of 64 continues to employ registration hunts which Wildlife Management Units (Timmermann

12 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 2003, Fig. 2). In 2015 calf hunting was provided a more detailed description of this reduced to a 2-week period, and beginning subject, including the use of interactive voice in 2016, opening seasons will be delayed by response technology, use of a telephone ques- 1 week (OMNRF 2016). In addition, Ontario tionnaire, and modeling to predict population hunters may apply in groups of up to 15 changes resulting from various harvest hunters for the chance of obtaining an adult strategies. tag that is area-specific, allowing a limited number of tags to be spread more evenly Moose hunter education and among hunter groups (OMNRF 2015, 2016). engagement Sharing a moose is currently required in at All first time hunters are required to suc- least 2 jurisdictions including Quebec (mini- cessfully complete a hunter safety/education mum 2 hunters/moose) and Manitoba which course in 23 jurisdictions that managed a provide an option of purchasing a conserva- moose hunt in 2014. Most (19 of 23) charged tion license (2 hunters using a single tag; S. fees ranging in Canada from no fee in Yukon Lefort and V. Crichton, pers. comm. 2015). to CAN $160 in Ontario, and in the United Timmermann (2003) detailed additional States from no fee in Washington and Vermont, moose-sharing mechanisms including a US $5 in New Hampshire, and $10 in Utah and “Group Hunt” and a “Limited Entry Shared Wyoming. Four states (Idaho, Utah, Vermont, Hunt” in British Columbia, a “Special Antlered and New Hampshire) incorporate a practical Moose Partner License” in Alberta, and a shooting test in their Hunter Safety/Education “Companion Moose Hunting Stamp” in Nova Course. All jurisdictions (22 of 23) except Scotia. Each successful permittee in Maine, Nunavut provide moose hunters with infor- New Hampshire, and Vermont may select a mation on their official websites, and 9 use sub-permittee to hunt together and harvest a social media. Printed hunting regulations single moose. To help maximize hunter oppor- were available in 22 of 23 jurisdictions, and tunity, Newfoundland gives preference to party 15 provided printed pamphlets, brochures, applications (restricted to 2 individuals) over and/or fact sheets. Television and/or radio individuals, and to those unsuccessful in previ- was used to provide information in 4 jurisdic- ous years (Timmermann 2003). Yukon has tions, 10 used newspapers and/or magazines, “Special Guide Licenses” that annually allow and 17 used email and/or traditional mail. 100 Yukon residents to guide a non-resident hunter, in part to accommodate family mem- Harvest by native and subsistence users bers/friends from outside the Territory (S. Currently, most North American moose Czetwertynski, pers. comm. 2016). management agencies give primary consider- ation to subsistence use by Canadian Indigen- Harvest assessment ous peoples and Native American peoples in All sources of mortality must be assessed recognition of obligations made under histor- to monitor the effectiveness of various har- ical treaties signed by both federal govern- vest strategies. Hunters, whether successful ments (Crichton et al. 1998, Lynch 2006). or not, are required to report their hunting ac- Currently, nine 9 of 24 jurisdictions (Yukon, tivity in 11 of 23 jurisdictions, and harvest Northwest Territories, British Columbia, registration is compulsory in 13 (Table 3). Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Twelve jurisdictions apply a non-compliance Idaho, Montana) report primary allocation penalty to hunters failing to report, although of the moose resource to subsistence use by enforcement of these requirements varies Indigenous People under Treaty or other legal among agencies. Timmermann (2003) agreements. In many areas unrestricted

13 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS

Table 3. Moose harvest assessment strategies used in North America, 2014–2015.

Hunt activity report Kill registration Non-compliance penalty Agency Compulsory Voluntary Compulsory Voluntary Yukon Territory X X1 Fine - CDN$100.00 Northwest XX1 none Territories Nunavut X X Fine - CDN$200.00 British Columbia X X Fine - CDN$230.00 Alberta none X N/A Saskatchewan X none N/A Manitoba X none N/A Ontario22X 2 none1 N/A2 Quebec none X Fine- CDN$250-750.00 New Brunswick X X Fine- CDN $100-500.00 Nova Scotia X X N/A Newfoundland X X none Alaska X X Loss of future eligibility Washington X X Fine - US$25.00 Idaho X X Fine - US$25.00 - 1,000 & jail Utah X none Ineligible to apply next year Wyoming X X none Montana X X N/A North Dakota X X Ineligible to apply next year Colorado X X Loss of future eligibility Minnesota Season Closed 2013 Maine X X Fine - US$100-1,000 / Lic. loss Vermont X X Fine- US$262 + & Lic. loss New Hampshire X X Fine- US$248-1,000 & loss of future eligibility

1 Export permit/trophy fee. 2 Compulsory hunt activity/harvest report in 5 Wildlife Management Units; $150.00 fine for non-compliance and inability to receive a tag in subsequent year. access to moose exists year-round, and cur- the magnitude of this harvest which some rent regulations are considered liberal given managers believe approaches or exceeds the the widespread use of modern technology licensed harvest in certain jurisdictions. (Courtois and Beaumont 1999). Because con- Metis, who are considered people of mixed flicts often occur between licensed sport hun- Indian and White ancestry (Swail 1996), are ters and Indigenous People, moose managers testing their perceived rights in court in Al- must consider the annual harvest by both berta, Manitoba, and Nova Scotia where groups in formulating hunting regulations they claim the right to hunt and fish on trad- (Lynch 2006). The harvest by Indigenous itional territory both within and outside their hunters is difficult to quantify and unfortu- current harvesting zone (V. Crichton, pers. nately, little effort has been made to measure comm. 2016). The Supreme Court of Canada

14 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 has refused to hear an appeal involving Metis Ute and Ute Mountain Tribes (A. Holland, hunting and fishing rights in Alberta follow- pers. comm. 2015). Future sustainable har- ing a Supreme Court ruling 10 years previous vests and population goals will largely that granted hunting rights to Ontario Metis. remain elusive until the total harvest, includ- However, in April 2016 the Supreme Court ing harvests by Indigenous and Metis peoples declared that the federal government has con- and subsistence users, are both agreed to and stitutional responsibility for Métis and non- verifiable. status Indians, which could have important Under federal regulations in Alaska, all implications for their hunting and fishing rural residents are subsistence users which rights. Timmermann (2003) provided esti- allows certain communities or households to mates of the annual moose harvest by Indigen- harvest moose. In addition, special regula- ous and Metis peoples in British Columbia, tions allow moose harvesting outside of nor- Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, mal hunting seasons by Alaskan natives for Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, North- ceremonial and cultural purposes. All agen- west Territories, and the Yukon Territory. cies suggested such harvests were “substan- A moose monitoring program was estab- tial” in specific local areas during the period lished in the Northwest Territories between 2000–2001. Oregon has 2 native tribes which the Dehcho First Nations and government hunt ungulates in areas where moose occur; biologists that yielded valuable biological in- one tribe hunts moose and the other is consid- formation to identify changes in moose popu- ering a moose season (P. Matthews, pers. lations (Larter 2009). In a similar effort to comm., 2016). involve Indigenous people in northwestern Illegal hunting losses appear to be signifi- Ontario, LeBlanc et al. (2011) suggested cant in some jurisdictions including Colorado, that provincial calculations may underesti- Utah, and Ontario (Timmermann 2003). Most mate total harvests by up to 40%, and agencies encourage all hunters to report illegal concluded that developing a working rela- infractions using a toll-free telephone number. tionship with Indigenous communities is Ontario introduced a “Moose Watch” Program necessary to effectively manage moose in in 2001 to help reduce poaching (Todesco Ontario. A moose management plan was 2004). Conservation Officers in Ontario’s drafted by the Nova Scotia Mi’Kmaq in Northeast Region found 1,741 illegally killed 2005 to aid in tripartite negotiations between moose from 1997–2014 (Todesco 2004, C. the band and the provincial and federal gov- Todesco, pers. comm. 2016). During this per- ernments (Bridgland et al. 2007). The Nova iod, >238,000 hunters were contacted, 7,328 Scotia DNR is currently working with the warnings issued, and 5,514 charges were laid Nova Scotia Mi'Kmaq to develop a collab- while conducting moose hunt enforcement orative management plan for Cape Breton duties. moose (P. MacDonald, pers. comm. 2016). It is hoped such collaborative management MANAGING UNHUNTED will sustain moose populations long-term on POPULATIONS Cape Breton Island. Cooperative manage- Parks, refuges, and special areas ment of moose between state and 3 tribal Most North American jurisdictions bands in northeastern Minnesota has led to where moose occur provide for areas where increased levels of trust since 1988 (Edwards hunting is not a primary management object- et al. 2004). In Colorado, moose harvested by ive. Currently, 7 states have no open moose Native and subsistence hunters is monitored hunting season and 11 of 23 jurisdictions pro- by the Brunot Agreement with the Southern vide closed seasons in 2–33 management

15 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS areas (Fig. 2). The assumed common object- reported population estimates and trends ive of closed areas that include game or wild- were based on professional opinion rather life reserves, national, provincial, territorial, than systematic surveys, the weight of evi- and state parks, and nature reserves is the dence suggests that moose are not immediate- preservation of moose in representative nat- ly at risk of disappearing from southern ural habitats for education and recreational regions of their distribution. The more inter- enjoyment. Further maintenance of biodiver- esting enquiry at this time would be to deter- sity and ecosystem function is often a stated mine how and why moose continue to thrive objective. A review of moose management and even expand their range southward in objectives and programs in parks, refuges, and certain areas. special areas was detailed by Timmermann Moving forward in the face of climate and Buss (1995) and Timmermann (2003). change and ever-increasing human develop- Moose are native to at least 30 North American ment, it will be vitally important to maintain national parks in 18 jurisdictions with Isle systematic aerial surveys to monitor moose Royale perhaps the most famous, boasting a population trends, and to implement these 58-year continuous ecological study of wolves wherever they are not in use. This will be a and moose beginning in 1959 (Vucetich and challenge not only because of the financial Peterson 2015). Timmermann (2003) detailed and human resources required, but also be- moose-related studies in several National Parks cause climate change may hinder the collec- including Isle Royale in Michigan, Elk Island tion of long-term data due to lack of snow in Alberta, Voyageurs in Minnesota, and Gros required to efficiently conduct aerial surveys. Morne in Newfoundland. West (2009) reported Thus, further research into new technologies approximately 39,000 moose inhabited 35 that are not hindered as much by environ- National Wildlife Refuges in the United States, mental conditions will be highly beneficial, with ~38,000 in Alaska alone; 9 refuges used such as forward-looking infrared radiometer management practices to specifically benefit systems (FLIR; Millette et al. 2014) and sen- moose (i.e., prescribed wildland fire). sor-equipped drones. Our survey revealed variation in moose DISCUSSION population trends across North America, Telfer (1984) found a close correspond- and local variation expected within jurisdic- ence between the southern limit of moose tions. As indicated by survey respondents, distribution worldwide and the 20 °C July numerous factors can affect moose popula- isotherm. Since then, several studies have tion trends both locally and regionally. suggested that moose numbers and the south- Although research might be undertaken to ern limit of their distribution may be affected identify the most important factors in a par- by climate change (Thompson et al. 1998, ticular area, the responses of local moose Murray et al. 2006, Lenarz et al. 2010) but managers are limited because many cannot others have documented increasing numbers be controlled directly (e.g., parasites and and expanding moose populations at the disease, weather). Instead, most moose southern edges of their jurisdictional bound- managers can only use harvest and habitat ary (Wattles and DeStefano 2011, Harris et al. management to mitigate declines in moose 2015, LaForge et al. 2016). Our survey across population numbers. These options will be- North America further indicated that 10 of 15 come ever more important as climate change moose populations at the southern limit of and human development gradually increase their distribution are stable or increasing. their influence on moose numbers and distri- Although we acknowledge that many of the bution across North America.

16 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Adamczewski, Department of Environment Appreciation is extended to the following and Natural Resources, Government of North- individuals in the United States who provided west Territories, Yellowknife, Northwest unpublished information in response to a Territories; Mathieu Dumond, Department 9-page questionnaire survey: Bruce Dale of Environment, Arviat, Nunavut; Gerry and Kim Titus, Alaska Department of Fish Kuzyk, Ministry of Forests, Lands and and Game, Juneau, Alaska; Rich Harris, Natural Resources Operations, Victoria, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, British Columbia; Rob Corrigan, , Environ- Olympia, Washington; Pat Matthews, ment and Parks, Edmonton, Alberta; Rob Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tether and Mike Gollop, Saskatchewan Enterprise, Oregon; Steve Nadeau, Idaho Ministry of Environment, Saskatoon, Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho; Kent Hersey, Saskatchewan; Hank Hristienko and Ken Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake Rebizant, Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, City, Utah; Andy Holland, Colorado Parks Manitoba; Vince Crichton, retired Manitoba and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado; Doug Conservation, Winnipeg, Manitoba; Greg Brimeyer, Wyoming Game and Fish Depart- Lucking and Patrick Hubert, Ontario ment, Jackson, Wyoming; Nick DeCesare, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, Peterborough, Ontario; Charlie Todesco, Montana; Jason Smith, North Dakota Game Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and and Fish Department, Jamestown, North Forestry, Wawa, Ontario; Sébastien Lefort, Dakota; Glenn DelGiudice and Leslie Quebec Ministère des Forêts, de la Faune McInenly, Minnesota Department of Natural et des Parks, Quebec City, Quebec; Dwayne Resources, Forest Lake, Minnesota; Dan Sabine, New Brunswick Department of Storm and Kevin Wallenfang, Department Natural Resources, Fredericton, New Bruns- of Natural Resources, Rhinelander, Wisconsin; wick; Peter MacDonald, Nova Scotia Depart- Dean Beyer, Michigan Department of Natural ment of Natural Resources, Kentville, Nova Resources and Northern Michigan University, Scotia; John Neville and Conor Edwards, Marquette, Michigan; Lee Kantar, Maine Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Environment and Conservation, Corner Brook, Bangor, Maine; Kristine Rines, New Hamp- Newfoundland. shire Fish and Game Department, New Hampton, New Hampshire; Cedric Alexander, REFERENCES Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, St. ANDREOZZI,H.A.,P.J.PEKINS,andM. Johnsbury, Vermont; Andrew LaBonte, Depart- LANGLAIS. 2014. Impacts of moose ment of Energy and Environmental Protection, browsing on forest regeneration in – North Franklin, Connecticut; David Scarpitti, northeastern Vermont. Alces 50: 67 79. ARMSTRONG, E. R., and R. SIMONS. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wild- 1999. Moose hunting opportunities for life, West Boylston, Massachusetts; Steven physically - challenged hunters in Heerkens, Department of Environmental Con- Ontario: a plot study. Alces 35: 125–134. servation, Utica, New York. BASE,D.L.,S.ZENDER,andD.MARTORELLO. Appreciation is extended to the following 2006. History, status, and hunter harvest of individuals in Canada who provided unpub- moose in Washington State. Alces 42: lished information in response to a 9-page 111–114. questionnaire survey: Sophie Czetwertynski BEAZLEY, K., H. KWAN, and T. NETTE. 2008. and Rob Florkiewicz, Environment Yukon, An examination of the absence of estab- Whitehorse, Yukon; Angus Smith and Jan lished moose (Alces alces) populations

17 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS in southeastern Cape Breton Island and Wyoming and recent trends in Jackson Nova Scotia, Canada. Alces 44: 81–100. Hole. Alces 40: 133–143. BISSET, R. A. 1996. Standards and Guidelines BUSS,M.,R.GOLLAT,andH.R. for Moose Population Inventory in TIMMERMANN. 1989. Moose hunter Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural shooting proficiency in Ontario. Alces Resources, Fish and Wildlife Branch, 25: 98–103. Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. CHILD, K. N., D. A. AITKEN,R.V.REA, and ———, and M. A. MCLAREN. 1999. Moose R. A. DEMARCHI. 2010. Potential vulner- Population Aerial Inventory Plan for ability of bull moose in central British Ontario: 1999–2002. Ontario Ministry Columbia to three antler-based hunting of Natural Resources, Northwest Science regulations. Alces 46: 113–121. and Technology. Information Report COMPTON, B. B., and L. E. OLDENBURG. IR-004. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. 1994. The status and management of – BOERTJE,R.D.,K.A.KELLIE,C.T.SEATON, moose in Idaho. Alces 30: 57 62. OURTOIS EAUMONT M. A. KEECH,D.D.YOUNG,B.W. C , R., and A. B . 1999. The influence of accessibility on moose hunt- DALE,L.G.ADAMS,andA.R.ADERMAN. 2007. Ranking Alaska moose nutrition: ing in northwestern Québec. Alces 35: – signals to begin liberal antlerless harvests. 41 50. CRICHTON, V. F. J., W. L. REGELIN,A.W. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: FRANZMANN, and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1494–1506. 1998. The future of moose management ———,M.A.KEECH,D.D.YOUNG,K.A. and research. Pages 655–663 in A. W. KELLIE,andC.T.SEATON. 2009. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Managing for elevated yield of moose Ecology and Management of the North in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Management 73: 314–327. Press, Washington, D. C., USA. BONTAITES, K. M., K. GUSTAFSON and R. ———,T.BARKER, and D. SCHINDLER. MAKIN. 2000. A Gasaway-type moose 2004. Response of a wintering moose survey in New Hampshire using infrared population to access management and thermal imagery: preliminary results. no hunting- a Manitoba experiment. – Alces 36: 69 75. Alces 40: 87–94. BOTTAN, B., D. EULER, and R. REMPEL. CUMBERLAND, R. E. 2012. Potvin double- 2002. Adaptive management of moose count aerial surveys in New Brunswick: – in Ontario. Alces 38: 1 10. are results reliable for moose? Alces 48: BRIDGLAND, J., T. NETTE,C.DENNIS, and D. 67–77. QUANN. 2007. Moose on Cape Breton DECESARE,N.J.,T.D.SMUCKER,R.A. Island Nova Scotia: 20th century demo- GARROTT,andJ.A.GUIDE. 2014. graphics and emerging issues in the 21st Moose status in Montana. Alces 50: century. Alces 43: 111–121. 35–51. B.C. F&W (BRITISH COLUMBIA FISH AND DELGIUDICE, G. D. 2013. Minnesota Moose WILDLIFE)BRANCH. 2015. Provincial Aerial Survey. Minnesota Department framework for moose management in of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minne- British Columbia. Ministry of Forests, sota, USA. Lands and Natural Resources Opera- DODGE,W.B.Jr.,S.R.WINTERSTEIN,D.E. tions, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BEYER Jr., and H. CAMPA III. 2004. British Columbia, Canada. Survival, reproduction, and movements BRIMEYER, D. G., and T. P. THOMAS. 2004. of moose in the western upper peninsula History of moose management in of Michigan. Alces 40: 71–85.

18 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015

EDWARDS, A. J., M. SCHRAGE, and M. Moose Conference and Workshop 8: LENARZ. 2004. Northeastern Minnesota 240–243. moose management - a case study in KARNS, P. D. 1998. Population distribution, cooperation. Alces 40: 23–31. density and trends. Pages 125–139 in A. FIEBERG, J. R., and M. S. LENARZ. 2012. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, Comparing stratification schemes for editors. Ecology and Management of aerial moose surveys. Alces 48: 79–87. North American Moose. Smithsonian FRANZMANN, A. W. 2000. Moose. Pages 578– Institution Press, Washington, D. C., USA. 600 in S. Demarais and P. R. Krausman, KANTAR, L. E. 2011. Broccoli and moose, not editors. Ecology and Management of always best served together: implement- Large Mammals in North America. ing a controlled moose hunt in Maine. – Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Alces 47: 83 90. ——— Jersey, USA. , and R. E. CUMBERLAND. 2013. GASWAY, W. C., S. D. DUBOIS, D.J. REED, Using a double-count aerial survey to and S. J. HARBO. 1986. Estimating estimate moose abundance in Maine. – moose population parameters from aerial Alces 49: 29 37. surveys. Biological Papers of the Univer- KELSALL, J. P. 1987. The distribution and sity of Alaska, Number 22. Fairbanks, status of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Alaska, USA. Supplement 1: 1–10. ———, and S. D. DUBOIS. 1987. Estimating ———, and E. S. TELFER. 1974. Biogeog- moose population parameters. Swedish raphy of moose with particular reference Wildlife Research (Supplement) 1: to western North America. Naturaliste 603–617. Canadien 101: 117–130. GOSSE, J., B. MCLAREN, and E. EBERHARDT. KILPATRICK, H. J., R. RIGGS,A.LABONTE, 2002. Comparison of fixed- wing and and D. CELOTTO. 2003. History and Status helicopter searches for moose in a mid- of Moose in Connecticut. Connecticut winter habitat-based survey. Alces 38: Department of Environmental Protection, – 47 53. Hartford, Connecticut, USA. http://www. HARRIS, R. B., M. ATAMIAN,H.FERGUSON, ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/wildlife/pdf_files/ and I. KEREN. 2015. Estimating moose game/moose02.pdf (accessed July 2016). abundance and trends in northeastern KUZYK, G. 2016. Provincial population and Washington State: index counts, sight- harvest estimates of moose in British ability models, and reducing uncertainty. Columbia. Alces 52: 1–11. – Alces 51: 57 69. ———, and D. HEARD. 2014. Research HEARD, D. C., A. B. D. WALKER,J.B. Design to Determine Factors Affecting AYOTTE, and G. S. WATTS. 2008. Using Moose Population Change in British GIS to modify a stratified random block Columbia: Testing the Landscape design for moose. Alces 44: 111–116. Change Hypothesis. Wildlife Bulletin HICKEY, L. 2008. Assessing re-colonization No. B-126. British Columbia Ministry of moose in New York with HSI models. of Forestry, Lands and Natural Resources Alces 44: 117–126. Operations, Victoria, British Columbia, HOFFMAN, D., H. H. GENOWAYS, and J. R. Canada. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/ CHOATE. 2006. Long-distance dispersal environment/plants-animals-and-ecosys and population trends of moose in the tems/wildlife-wildlife-habitat/wildlife- central United States. Alces 42: 115–131. health/wildlife-health-documents/2014_ JUDD, S. L. 1972. Minnesota’s 1971 moose bc_moose_research_design.pdf (accessed hunt. Proceedings of the North American July 2016).

19 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS

LABONTE, A. M., H. J. KILPATRICK, and J. S. M. SCHRAGE,L.FRELICH,M.LENARZ, BARCLAY. 2013. Opinions about moose and D. BECKER. 2010. An advisory com- and moose management at the southern mittee process to plan moose management extent of moose range in Connecticut. in Minnesota. Alces 46: 189–200. Alces 49: 83–98. MCLAREN, B. E., B. A. ROBERTS,N.DJAN- LAFORGE, M. P., N. L. MICHEL,A.L. CHEKAR, and K. P. LEWIS. 2004. Effects WHEELER, and R. K. BROOK. 2016. of overabundant moose on the New- Habitat selection by female moose in foundland landscape. Alces 40: 45–59. the Canadian prairie ecozone. Journal of ———, and W. E. MERCER. 2005. How Wildlife Management 80: 1059–1068. management unit license quotas relate to LARTER, N. C. 2009. A program to monitor population size, density, and hunter ac- moose populations in the Dehcho region, cess in Newfoundland. Alces 41: 75–84. Northwest Territories, Canada. Alces 45: MILLETTE, T. L., E. MARCANO, and D. 89–99. LAFLOWER. 2014. Winter distribution of LEBLANC.J.W.,B.E.MCLAREN,C.PEREIRA, moose at landscape scale in northeastern M. BELL,andS.ATLOOKAN. 2011. First Vermont: a GIS analysis. Alces 50: Nations moose hunt in Ontario: a commu- 17–26. nity’s perspectives and reflections. Alces MINNESOTA DNRC (DEPARTMENT OF 47: 163–174. NATURAL RESOURCES -MOOSE ADVIS- LEGG, D. 1995. The Economic Impact of ORY COMMITTEE). 2011. Minnesota Moose Hunting in Ontario, 1993. Ontario Moose Research and Management Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Plan. Minnesota Department of Natural Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA. LENARZ, M. S. 1998. Precision and bias of MOEN, R., M. E. NELSON, and A. EDWARDS. aerial moose surveys in northwestern 2011a. Using cover type composition of Minnesota. Alces 34: 117–124. home ranges and VHF telemetry loca- ———,J.FIEBERG,M.W.SCHRAGE, and A. tions of moose to interpret aerial survey J. EDWARDS. 2010. Living on the edge: results in Minnesota. Alces 47: 101–112. viability of moose in northeastern ———,R.O.PETERSON,S.K.WINDELS,L. Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Manage- FRELICH, and M. JOHNSON. 2011b. Min- ment 74: 1013–1023. nesota Moose Status: Progress on Moose LICHTENWALNER,A.,N.ADHIKARI,L. Advisory Committee Recommendations. KANTAR,E.JENKINS,andJ.SCHURER. NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/ 2014. Echinococcus granulosus genotype TR-2011–41. Minnesota Department of G8 in Maine moose (Alces alces). Alces Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minne- 50: 27–33. sota, USA. LYNCH, G. M. 2006. Does First Nation’s MURRAY,D.L.E.W.COX,W.B.BALLARD, hunting impact moose productivity in H. A. WHITLAW,M.S.LENARZ, T.W. Alberta? Alces 42: 25–31. CUSTER,T.BARNETT, and T. D. FULLER. ———, and G. E. SHUMAKER. 1995. GPS 2006. Pathogens, nutritional deficiency, and GIS assisted moose surveys. Alces and climate influences on a declining 36: 145–151. moose population. Wildlife Monographs MASKEY, J. J. 2011. Giant liver fluke in North 166: 1–30. Dakota moose. Alces 47: 1–7. MUSANTE, A. R., P. J. PEKINS, and D. L. MATTHEWS, P. E. 2012. History and status of SCARPITTI. 2010. Characteristics and moose in Oregon. Alces 48: 63–66. dynamics of a regional moose Alces alces MCGRAW, A. M., R. MOEN,G.WILSON,A. population in the northeastern United EDWARDS,R.PETERSON,L.CORNICELLI, States. Wildlife Biology 16: 185–204.

20 ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 TIMMERMANN AND RODGERS – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015

(OMNRF) ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL SMITH, C., K. BEAZLEY,P.DUINKER, and K. RESOURCES and FORESTRY. 2008. A. HARPER. 2010. The impact of moose Ontario Moose Program Review 2008. (Alces alces andersoni) on forest regener- Information Package. Queen’s Printer, ation following a severe spruce budworm Toronto, Ontario, Canada. outbreak in the Cape Breton highlands, ———. 2009a. Moose Management Policy. Nova Scotia, Canada. Alces 45: June 2009. Queen’s Printer, Toronto, 135–150. Ontario, Canada. SMITH, M. A., S. KILPATRICK,B.YOUNKIN, ——— . 2009b. Moose. Population Objec- L. WORK, and D. WACHOB. 2011. tives Setting Guidelines. June 2009. Assessment of crucial moose winter Queen’s Printer, Toronto, Ontario, habitat in Western Wyoming. Alces 47: Canada. 151–162. ——— – . 2015. Hunting Regulations 2015 SWAIL, P. J. 1996. Blais vs the Queen. A 2016. Ontario Ministry of Natural conviction under the Criminal Code of ’ Resources and Forestry. Queen s Printer, Canada on August 22, 1996, for hunting Toronto, Ontario, Canada. big game out of season contrary to ——— – . 2016. Hunting Regulations 2016 Section 26 of the Manitoba Wildlife Act. 2017. Ontario Ministry of Natural ’ http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/2003/ Resources and Forestry. Queen s Printer, 2003Scc44.html. (accessed July 2016). Toronto, Ontario, Canada. TAPE, K. D., D. D. GUSTINE,R.W.RUESS,L. PEEK. J. M., and K. I. MORRIS. 1998. Status G. ADAMS, and J. A. CLARK. 2016. of moose in the contiguous United States. Range expansion of moose in Arctic Alces 34: 423–434. Alaska linked to warming and increased PETERSON, R. L. 1955. North American shrub habitat. Plos One | DOI: 10.1371/ Moose. University of Toronto Press, journal.pone.0152636. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. TELFER, E. S. 1984. Circumpolar distribution PETERSON, R. O, and R. E. PAGE. 1993. and habitat requirements of moose (Alces Detection of moose in midwinter from – fixed-wing aircraft over dense forest alces). Pages 145 182 in R. Olson, R. cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: Hastings, and F. Geddes, editors. North- 80–86. ern Ecology and Resource Management. RODGERS, A. 2001. Moose. World Life University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Library, Voyageurs Press, Stillwater, Alberta, Canada. Minnesota, USA. THOMAS, T. P. 2008. Moose Population Man- SEATON, K. A. K. 2014. Evaluating options agement Recommendations. Wyoming for improving GSPE performance and Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, developing a sightability correction Wyoming, USA. https://wgfd.wyo. factor. Alaska Department of Fish and gov/WGFD/media/content/PDF/Habitat/ Game, Division of Wildlife Conserva- SWAP/Mammals/Moose.pdf (accessed tion, Federal Aid Final Research Per- July 2016). formance Report 1 July 2007–30 June THOMPSON, I. D., M. D. FLANNIGAN,B.M. 2014, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration WOTTON, and R. SUFFLING. 1998. The Project 1.66, Juneau, Alaska, USA. effects of climate change on landscape di- SMITS, C. M., R. M. P. WARD, and D. G. versity: an example in Ontario forests. LARSEN. 1994. Helicopter or fixed-wing Environmental Monitoring and Assess- aircraft; a cost-benefit analysis for moose ment 49: 213–233. surveys in Yukon Territory. Alces 30: TIMMERMANN, H. R. 1987. Moose harvest 45–50. strategies in North America. Swedish

21 STATUS OF MOOSE IN NA CIRCA 2015 – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 53, 2017 AND RODGERS

Wildlife Research Supplement 1: WATTLES, D. W., and S. DESTEFANO. 2011. 565–579. Status and management of moose in the ———. 1993. Use of aerial surveys for esti- northeastern United States. Alces 47: mating and monitoring moose populations- 53–68. a review. Alces 29: 35–46. ———, and ———. 2013. Space use and ———. 2003. The status and management of movements of moose in Massachusetts: moose in North America – circa 2000– implications for conservation of large 01. Alces 39: 131–151. mammals in a fragmented environment. – ———, and M.E. BUSS. 1995. The status and Alces 49: 65 81. management of moose in North America- WEST, R. L. 2009. Moose conservation in the early 1990’s. Alces 31: 1–14. National Wildlife Refuge system, USA. ———, and ———. 1998. Population and Alces 45: 59–65. harvest management. Pages 559–615 in WILTON, M. L. 1995. The case against calling A. W. Franzmann and C.C. Schwartz, and hunting moose during the main rut – editors. Ecology and Management of the period-a viewpoint. Alces 31: 173 180. North American Moose. Smithsonian In- WOLFE, M. L., K. R. HERSEY, and D. C. stitution Press, Washington, D. C., USA. STONER. 2010. A history of moose management in Utah. Alces 46: 37–52. ———,R.GOLLAT, and H. A. WHITLAW. 2002. Reviewing Ontario’s moose man- WÜNSCHMANN, A., A. G. ARMIEN,E. BUTLER,M.SCHRAGE,B.STROMBERG, agement policy - 1980–2000: targets J. B. BENDER,A.M.FIRSHMAN, and M. achieved, lessons learned. Alces 38: CARSTENSEN. 2015. Necropsy findings 11–45. in 62 opportunistically collected free- ———, and A. R. RODGERS. 2005. Moose: ranging moose (Alces alces) from competing and complementary values. – – Minnesota, USA (2003 2013). Journal Alces 41: 85 120. of Wildlife Diseases 51: 157–165 doi: TODESCO, C. 2004. Illegal moose kill in 10.7589/2014–02-037. northeastern Ontario: 1997–2002. Alces YOUNG, D. D. Jr., and R. D. BOERTJE. 2004. – 40: 145 159. Initial use of moose calf hunts to increase TOWEILL, D. E., and G. VECELLIO. 2004. yield, Alaska. Alces 40: 1–6. Shiras moose in Idaho: status and man- ———, and ———. 2008. Recovery of – agement. Alces 40: 33 43. low bull:cow ratios of moose in interior TYERS, D. B. 2006. Moose population history Alaska. Alces 44: 65–71. on the northern Yellowstone winter ———, and ———. 2011. Prudent and im- range. Alces 42: 133–149. prudent use of antlerless moose harvests VUCETICH, J. A., and R. O. PETERSON. 2015. in interior Alaska. Alces 47: 91–100. Ecological Studies of Wolves on Isle ———, ———,C.T.SEATON, and K. A. Royale. Annual Report, Michigan KELLIE. 2006. Intensive management of Technological University, Houghton, moose at high-density: impediments, Michigan, USA. achievements, and recommendations. WARD, M. P., W. C. GASAWAY, and M. M. Alces 42: 41–48. DEHN. 2000. Precision of moose density XU, C., and M. S. BOYCE. 2010. Optimal estimates derived from stratification sur- harvesting of moose in Alberta. Alces vey data. Alces 36: 197–203. 46: 15–35.