There’s a reason Native Americans refer to the moose as “twigeater,” given the formidable herbivore is usually seen spending much of its day nibbling the tips of twigs, especially those sprouting recent growth. When it comes to dining, however, moose prefer the all-you-can-eat buffet that includes aquatic as well as terrestrial varieties of forage; and you can bet they will always select the better “menu” items available to them.
In fact, of all the factors a moose takes into consideration when deciding where to put down its cloven hooves, where to eat is numero uno (I suspect the moose is not alone, in this respect).
Last September, my wife and I traveled to the island province of Newfoundland, currently home to more than 10 percent of North America’s moose population, a species that did not exist on the island prior to 1878 when a bull and cow moose were shipped over from Nova Scotia.
According to Newfoundland provincial government biologist Shane Mahoney, “Moose populations are tied to available browse” – what Mahoney calls forage dynamic. “Essentially, the better the browse available to moose, the more likely each cow will be pregnant, the more likely the cow will bear twins. As food conditions diminish females may no longer twin, they may even skip pregnancies. Generally what happens is that gradually over time natural mortality of the old age classes occurs and the number of new animals being produced also decreases so the population falls.”
Newfoundland author and moose enthusiast Darrin McGrath – whose book, “Moose Country, The Story of the Moose in Newfoundland” I happened to purchase in a moment of moose madness – suggests, “Vegetation growth can be impacted by three main causes: clear-cut logging, forest fires and disease (such as an insect outbreak that destroys old timber paving the way for new growth). In either of the three scenarios, particularly where you have the natural regeneration of balsam fir, the moose population will increase as the flush of new vegetation grows up.”
Research scientist G. R. Parker and wildlife technician L. D. Morton, both with the Canadian Wildlife Service, demonstrated that in Newfoundland available woody biomass (primarily balsam fir) increased from about 178 pounds per acre in 2-year-old clear-cuts to more than 1,784 pounds per acre by eight years, at which time it peaked.
The most convincing evidence that habitat management could have a positive influence on moose populations is the fact that historically moose populations have increased when habitat has been created or rejuvenated. For example, until 1980, moose were reportedly scarce or absent in much of northern Ontario. Thereafter, and despite heavy hunting pressure, moose from more southerly habitats expanded into larger areas of northern Ontario as a result of logging operations and fires associated with construction of the trans-Canada railway.
Ask Mahoney if he thinks the moose population on Newfoundland will drastically decline and he’ll point to the fact that the moose on the island “…are well-adapted to the vegetation and forage of Newfoundland and events such as a major forest fire, clear-cut logging or an insect outbreak that destroys old growth forests all pave the way for a flush of the young vegetation moose love such as balsam fir, birch, aspen, maple and dogwoods.” Former Chief Wildlife Officer Bob Whitten agrees with Mahoney, saying, “I think the moose is going to be here forever, but it’s got to be managed and protected.”
Richard Periman, Deputy Forest Supervisor with Superior National Forest, agrees with the concept of “managing” the forest to enhance moose habitat. He views expanding timber activity as paramount to a healthy moose population here in Minnesota. Periman notes, “We’ve seen significant changes in this area of management from those of the past six years and we are getting positive feedback.”
The fact that an about-face was needed is borne out in a 2013 Minnesota Forestry research publication that concluded changes in forest habitat in northeastern Minnesota suggest reduced acreage in recently disturbed and young forest is a contributing factor in moose population decline.
Research findings indicate Minnesota’s northeast moose habitat zone has lost 18.8 percent of its young growth forests (0-10 years) since 2005. Similarly, disturbed acres (forest fires, blowdown areas) have declined 65 percent from a 2003 high of 352,299 acres. These numbers reflect the long-term statewide trend toward aging forests.
John Myers, reporter for the Duluth News Tribune, illustrated this in a June 27, 2017 article on moose, “The highest moose numbers in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness now are found where the Pagami Creek, Ham Lake and Cavity Lake forest fires occurred in the past 11 years. Those fires regenerated the forest, and that new growth makes for perfect moose food. That has spurred efforts to cut and burn more large tracts of forest on purpose to create better moose habitat.”
Given the substantial loss in total area of summer feeding habitat between 2003 and 2011, it is possible that Minnesota’s moose population is experiencing pressure due to food resource limitations. Clearly, this type of reduction in available food resource will reduce the carrying capacity of a population.
Observation: If we are serious about keeping our moose here in Minnesota, then one of the telling factors we need to consider is how to keep the better “menu” items on that all-you-can-eat buffet. Next week: The influence of pests, parasites and disease on moose.
Former Cook County Commissioner Garry Gamble is writing this ongoing column about the various ways government works.
Leave a Reply