Isle Royale
General Topic
Why can't our government Federal, State, or local get anything right. Now that the wolf population on the island is nearly extinct, and the moose population is booming, and will destroy the island in short order, why can't we get a limited draw hunt, to control the population, protect the environment, bring money in to the state DNR and the economy Nope, they will figure out the most expensive and least effective way to deal with it, and take years doing it. Just gets frustrating.
This is why: Common sense is the least common of the senses
The problem is they take man out of the equation and want everything to be "natural". They forget that man is part of nature. when in reality, since the dawn of mankind, if humans discovered that there was an abundance of moose on the island they would have found a way to get there and kill some, thereby managing the surplus.
Humans are a part of nature and need to be a part of the management equation.
Mike, I would imagine that humans were killing moose on that island for a very long time. Maybe since before it was even an island! They are finding all kinds of evidence in the Great Lakes of habitation when the water levels were much lower.
Read a few articles and it sounds like they are wanting to bring in 20-30 more wolves. Kind of seems silly to spend huge amounts of money to bring wolves back if they will likely suffer the same fate as the previous bunch.
Sure seems like it would make more sense to allow human hunting. Do something cool like require hunters to hunt with the same equipment as prehistoric Native Americans - Nothing more advanced than a self bow, wood arrows, and flint tips! Limit access to areas by either foot or birch-bark canoe. Heck, a Paleo Hunt would be awesome!
I'd be happy with any hunt at this point
The real point that gets ignored in every article is that modern wildlife management, including hunting, is the proven solution for maintaining a balanced population. Its like everyone panicking over a nasty cut, running around looking through drawers and throwing out ideas while ignoring the doctor with a big first aid kit standing there willing to take care of it. He has all the necessary supplies and knowledge and he'll even leave you with a few bucks afterwards instead of a bill.
I agree Tavis and a big part of the problem today is that they don't let humans be a part of the solution.
Wolves didn't survive, maybe this time they will try cougars.
Pecorino, Don't give em any idea's!!!!!
Peco, Don't give em any idea's!!!!!
Its a much deeper question that just opening it up to hunting. I worked on IR in 1987 and used to give interpretive presentations on the wolf/moose interactions. Much of what I knew was from the biologist on the island. The NPS made a decision way back when to let the wolves and moose interact without interference. At that time there were many more wolves on the island and there was an up and down cycle of both populations. Around my time more or less on the Island, Parvo virus was introduced to the island from domestic dogs brought over against park rules by recreational boaters. This was destructive to the population. Also, there has been no new genetic influence for (cant remember) years. This means you have siblings breeding, cousins etc. It makes the wolves vulnerable to a host of problems. The lack of new DNA is because there have been no new wolves in decades. The original wolves crossed on ice when Superior froze over. At least as far as I know there has not been an ice bridge from the mainland in a long time and wolf populations along the Superior shoreline have been pushed back in many areas. Some say global warming is responsible for the lack of ice(not going there). All that being said, because this biosphere is so unique there is finally talk of introduction new dna/wolves to continue the experiment. It is literally the only place where there is such a relationship between two species. I don't argue it would be a neat hunt and the cost of relocation is high, but this is also a one of kind place. I doubt you will ever see anything like the population control being turned over to hunting. I know the place is controversial for many reasons, the wolf/moose relationship just being one. The people who used to have cabins on the island were forced to abandon them(life leases) with no compensation for example. Hugh. PS, that's me in 87 with a wolf that was killed by a rival pack.
The study has come to a completion(2 Wolves to go, mother and daughter I believe) the result of the study....... Isle Royale is not big enough to house a sustainable wolf population. If they do introduce more wolves, what are we going to learn that we haven't already learned in the last fifty years. I understand the study, but it's not " natural to keep introducing wolves to keep the population up(I believe it's happened twice already) again conclusion, not enough land area for a sustainable wolf population. Now let's move on and use this as a SUSTAINABLE resource, that we can definitely control. And do it soon enough it's not out of hand, destroying the island and the moose population. There are already too many, this will end up a complete waste of resources, nothing new.
I don't know, it's 45 miles x 9 miles. Seems like enough room for some dogs.
The problem is obviously the lack of genetic diversity over time. It may help(for a while)if they bring in wolves that are completely unrelated.
How can you artificially, through human interference, sustain a population and then claim it is an experiment in natural balance? Man is now considered an alien interloper on the earth with no part in the "harvest" end, but must constantly muck about in the preservationist aspects.
Look at the # of wolves they say are in Yellowstone, and look at the land area. 1 pack in Yellowstone covers more area than the whole island.
Have you ever been to Isle Royal? I'd think the reason why a limited draw hunt isn't conducted would be that the logistics of hunting an animal as large as a moose, somewhere with no roads, no vehicles, no pack animals, limited logistics support, AND about 20 rough-water miles off the Minnesota shore (and farther to MI) would be pretty obvious.
At best, it would be a tough hunt and I know there are plenty who could pull it off, but the downside is getting some rookies out there that turn it into a PR disaster for the NPS and for hunting. Either by hunters getting injured or killed trying to get there / back or by wasting a moose kill due to a combination of a remote kill site, high winds and/or bad weather slowing the recovery and the moose spoils.
Also, given the steep decline in the moose herd in Minnesota to the point where there is no longer a season and probably never will be again, having anything go bad on a hunt 20 miles off the shore would not go down well.
I'm all for opening up hunting opportunities and I totally agree there are many places where hunting is being kept out for illegit reasons. But Isle Royal is not one of those places unless there was a highly organized logistics effort to provide help in recovering every ounce of meat and getting it cooled and off the island.
Grouse
Yes, I have been there, and I agree, logistics would be challenge. But I'm talking about a limited hunt, you could have the hunters qualify, just like they do for the city hunts. I realize the city hunts are really only marksmanship, but you could have hunters provide a game plan. Or better yet require a guide, just like Canada, and Alaska. Don't think it would be easy, but neither is any backwoods hunt.
Grouse, I've never been to Alaska, or a mountain elk hunt, but I can't imagine it would be much different. Along with a hunt they could transplant the OVERPOPULATED moose to bolster Minnesota's dwindling herd, and Michigan's Dwindling herd. Which may not help much until we get the wolves under control on the main land. Which I have hope for with our new administration, yes I said hope not "it's going to happen"
Since Isle Royale is unique and there is no other place like it in the world, why do we have to study it forever? It does no good to study something and not be able to use the information. By the way, Lake Superior did freeze over a couple years ago and one of the wolves left the island for mainland Canada.
I just read a new article on this, pretty fascinating stuff.
There are now 1600+ moose on the island and just 2 wolves.
Pic of the last 2 wolves.
Yes, agree, maybe we could do a more useful study on moose with no predators, except hunting. I know it sounds like I'm being sarcastic, I'm not, it would give us more useful information than we've ever had.
Yes, and I stand corrected the last two on the island are father, daughter, with both having the same mother. They had a pup last year that didn't make it. Think about that 1600 moose now, by spring add another 800? (I'm guessing 1/2 are calves and some of those have twins. Even call it 600, 400 it doesn't matter) No predators, they will destroy that island, and with overpopulation disease will run rampant, and never be controlled. Good way to wipe out the mode population also. Another resource wasted.
Well... About all I can tell you about IR is that
A) it is accessible by kayak from MN (BTDT)
B) Seemed like an awful lot of moose there 20 years ago when they walked through camp at night.
And if some form of predation is not brought back, it's going to get ugly.
I can't think of a BETTER place in the lower 48 for a wolf pack (or several), but based on the lessons from Yellowstone, I'd think that the smart move would be to thin the moose herd and THEN introduce the new wolf stock. I have a feeling that the prey base is so rich right now that we'd see a (wolf) population explosion, and an ensuing series of boom/bust cycles. You have to remember that the Yellowstone packs grew at rates and up to numbers of individuals that nobody even began to anticipate; truly an UN-natural phenomenon, because the situation was so far out of bounds to begin with...
Shame on the Humans if we make the same, stupid mistake again...
With that high a population one thing that probably won't occur is twins but it's still way too high and the environment has to be getting hammered.
I live in MN and have been keeping an eye on the IR scenario for the last couple of years in light of our declining MN moose populations and increasing wolf populations. I think Hugh is spot on from everything I have read and heard.
Mark
I don't know that hunting on IR would be that much different than hunting in remote areas of Alaska, Canada or out west in the mountains. If they were to open up a moose hunt, I have the means of getting there ;^)
My solution if wolves and moose on the island is the end goal:
Determine the cost of occasionally relocating new wolves from MN mainland for genetic diversity.
Sell moose licenses to cover that cost. Set max/min population numbers for both species based on carrying capacity. Maintain those numbers by issuing more or less moose and wolf licenses. Not a new idea, its how successful wildlife populations are managed all over North America.
I'm not in favor spending a bunch of money to create an artificial natural zoo thats only open 4 months a year. The islands isolation means it will always need human intervention if we want consistent and sustainable wildlife and habitat. Too many wolves eat all the moose, too many moose eat all the preferred trees and now they eat fir, inbreeding effects them all.
Moose and wolves are both newcomers anyway. If we "restore" some balance, we are only rewinding back to the 50's. If we want it "natural" as in before Europeans arrived, we need to remove both species and get some caribou and lynx re-established.
I agree Hugh is spot on with the facts. The problem is the study has run its course, we have learned ( for 1 thing) the island does not have enough land area to sustaine a wolf population. The study being a "no human intervention study" is done, there is a father and daughter with both having the same mother left on the island. They have already had pups that don't survive. According to the "reasoning" for bringing in more wolves to study the relationship between the two species living through climate change. Ice bridges are not occurring very often, and when they do it's only resulted in 1 wolf staying. Way too much uncontrollable fluctuation in population of both species, which will only destroy habitat, thT takes much longer to recover. It's like putting your hand on a hot stove on high and getting burned, and then putting the stove on medium high to see if you get burned again.
Wow, first thought when I saw that picture was "Shoot! Probably get both of them with one shot from a 12 gauge!".
Too much Texican in my background, I guess...
I can not imagine that Isle Royale would be much more difficult of an area to hunt moose than most of Canada. Particularly if accessed from the water via boat. Can probably get pretty close to about anywhere around the island with a boat to minimize packing distance.
If they went with my concept of a "Paleo Hunt", it might even be pretty darn fun!
Couple of guys in hide/leather clothes paddle their birch bark canoe out to the island. Set up a wikiup/tepee for camp. Go out and either get a moose with an atal-atal or cane arrow with a flint tip. Skin and quarter with a flint knife. Pack meat back to camp in the skin. Set up smoking racks to preserve the meat before paddling back to the modern world.
Now that would be an Outdoor Show worth watching! Way better than "Naked and Afraid" or "Alone"! Probably be a better "experiment" and learn vast amounts more than 50+ years of wolves vs moose! Something like that could even be used to bring in extra income for the National Parks! Might even be worth expansion to the other National Parks across the US...
Let's see, so far this 50 year "experiment" has shown us: * Wolves eat moose - check. * Wolves with no genetic diversity => inbreeding and wolf die off - check. * Lack of predation on moose => population explosion - check.
The continuation of the "experiment" would be to do nothing and let the wolves die off and then let the moose population overpopulate to the point destroying their food sources and crashing. Pretty ugly and extremely wasteful to our minds, but that is nature.
Might be interesting to study how fast the moose population will recover from the crash without wolves, though. Could be applied to big game population models over here in the western states to estimate when we will have hunt able populations of moose back in some areas of Wyoming where they have been decimated by wolves. Particularly in the areas outside the "trophy management" zone.
Bringing more wolves in to IR will just repeat the cycle and it is man manipulating nature again.
Not sure I see the point.
If they let the moose go with no intervention, I don't believe they would recover after the inevitable population crash. After eating everything in sight, and the inbreeding causing disease, you would have a population with terrible, IF sustainable genetics.
Hey Cheesehead, I like that boat.
That'll haul a bull moose no problemo.
And they say the wolf isn't responsible for the decimation of the moose in Minnesota
Can we get some of that parvo virus bottled up and sprinkled on every wolf kill west of the Mississippi?
Shrewski x2..... my same thoughts first time I read it..... =D
Logistics I would think would be easier than a Yukon hunt. We have a few here on bowsite that pull off solo AK moose hunts. I'm guessing a good many northern/eastern moose hunts aren't the norm when I see them out with tractors dragging them in......
They could open up an archery season for a bit, but archery likely isn't going to get done what they need. Maybe follow with the boom sticks, but going to have to harvest a BUNCH and quickly. Would NOT be a trophy hunt in any way, in fact the way to do would be to make it cow only just to eliminate any trophy hunters. Focus on population control and meat recovery. At least the first year or three.... then if populations stabilize they could do a more "normal" draw hunt for management.
I've been on "control" and/or "eradication" hunts before. There is a job to do and you need to do it quickly and efficiently. If you aren't making the impact needed you will be replaced with pro shooters, maybe helicopters. Dead moose.... left to rot.
Here's a pic of the deformed pup that died. It's on the left obviously.
As much as I dislike an unmanaged overpopulation of wolves and hate what they have done to my favorite deer hunting grounds in northern Wisconsin, it's kind of sad to me to see the photos of the "last 2 wolves" and the deformed pup. They have their place in the wild and they need to be managed at healthy acceptable levels...
Cheese, I would agree with you , they have their place, at acceptable levels. However the island obviously isn't their place, there's not enough area to support a population.
"Determine the cost of occasionally relocating new wolves from MN mainland for genetic diversity."
To me, that makes a lot of sense. Just one or two wolves a year would be enough.
I don't believe for a minute they would ever allow hunting on the island. Just ain't gonna happen.
I was in the UP of Michigan attending Northern Mich U in 1970 when they introduced wolves to the UP . They transplanted a pack of 12 wolves from Minnesota to a large plot of land on the west side of the UP. Not sure what the experiment was for but maybe to control deer populations or just to see what would happen if wolves were introduced. Not sure who was behind this transplant but I am sure the Michigan Division of Wildlife had a big part.
Three plus years later, all of the wolves were missing and gone. If I remember correctly, Some shot, one or two trapped and killed, one was hit by a truck, and some migrated back to Minnesota was the thought. Not sure why they did not repopulated the transplant area. Maybe not enough game to feed on, or space to roam. There is no doubt that the IR study has been on going and will unlikely be halted unless funding is cut, but I am sure some private organizations will keep it going. Hunting? as others have posted above, I doubt that will ever happen as this study has been a dream child of the pro-wolf organizations and the state, federal biologist who study them and receive grants to preform their duties.
There was some interesting info when I Googled , IR wolf studies and population dynamics, wolf/moose.
I agree I'm sure the hunting won't happen, especially because the superintendent is anti-hunting. The whole point of this post was, once again the govt are making bad decisions, and costing taxpayers for there own beliefs or ideas, instead of what the people want. Could be a win-win for everyone with a hunt, would bring in a bunch more money to the Dnr, they close the island in Sept. So have the hunt after that and it wouldn't compromise tourists at all. Instead they will chose expensive, ineffective, and failing practices and waste a great resource.
"The relationship between deer and moose, can they share the same habitat?"
Valid question. However, the moose herd in North Dakota is expanding and deer share the same habitat.
Imo the difference is the presence of wolves.
Rob, Good questions, the only answer have to any is populations do crash because of overpopulation, eventually the animals will get weak and starve because they will strip the island of nutrition. Of course not all animals will die, but they would also begin inbreeding (just like wolves) and that would open the ones left to weaken genetics and desease
The last known wooly mammoths died out 4000 years ago. They were living on an island north of Siberia. What's interesting is that they became a dwarf mammoth in response to their isolation and limited habitat.
I wonder if that would happen to the moose on Isle Royale if given enough time?
It is their own little Galapagos island, but they are too arrogant/ignorant to intervene "unnaturally (by their standards)" in order to maintain the gem they have.
Ground, We could only hope, but I think any "new" direction from the govt wouldn't happen fast enough, I could be wrong, but as I stated before, if it were to have a hunt, it would be 1 of the most desirable hunts in America, high harvest rate, just because of the area involved.
I'd put in for it, unless a guide was required, as one poster suggested. What's a guide going to do to help recover an animal that a hunting partner with a strong back couldn't do?
It's wishful thinking. Being a hunt isn't likely I have no problem with throwing a few wolves on the island here and there to help out. If they do that, I just don't want to hear the claim of "no human interference" in the off chance a hunt is ever proposed for the island.
I was the one who suggested a guide, and I would have to agree very unnecessary. The only reason I said that was a rebuttal about logistics.
I live near the IR Nat'l Park Headquarters in Houghton, MI. There have been meetings on what to do. One thing has been made clear, there will not be a hunt on the island. The "scientists" from Michigan Tech have been living on this gravy train for over 50 years. It has always been no human interference, but now they want to interfere by transplanting wolves. I believe the reason is, if there are no more wolves on the island, they will lose their funding.
Kieth, Cannot agree with you more, and THAT is a shame, "NO HUMAN INTERVERTION" until it fits a select few wants.
There is simply no good reason to allow the population of moose to grow unchecked on the island. Research or not, any time you allow the population to exceed natural numbers, you are subjecting that population unnatural death by starvation or disease, with the latter being a potential threat to the entire species. One can use the example of CWD which was first discovered at the Foothills Wildlife Research Facility in Colorado. The disease then escaped captivity and spread to wild deer and is a now a threat nationwide to all deer species. The same could happen on Isle Royale when disease eventually becomes rampant in the moose herd (and it will) and then an infected moose, or part of an infected moose leaves the island. If the wolf project failed, then it's time to allow human intervention. Pardon me if I don't believe the government makes the best decisions when it comes to wildlife management.
- Cheryl
Dang that's a big dog. Print of the male.
Won't take much more of this and the population will crash and burn. It's a mathematical certainty.
having been to isle royale, i can't imagine what a logistical nightmare it would be to try and get a moose off from that island.
I've never been on a moose hunt, but I have been to the island, from what I read about on Alaskan hunts, they pretty much run a boat up rivers, and hunt daily close to the shore. I would think you could do the same, except instead of running up rivers, you would get into the bays, and shoreline. Wouldn't be easy, but I can't believe it would be much different.
I've flown into IR a couple of times on a CG helo. It's a pretty neat place. As far as being unique as the only island with wolf/moose cohabitation...not so fast on that. A few of us had a discussion about this on the Michigan Sportsman website a few years ago about this very topic. There are some islands in SE Alaska and BC that may have this interaction. The below National Geographic article was one of the first Googles I got back. These sea wolves can swim long distances.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/sea-wolves/mcgrath-text
IMO the study has run it's course. One issue I think may be present is the people who have been closely involved with the study for many years have deep emotional ties to IR and the study. They may have lost their scientific objectivity to emotion and can't let it go. It may take state and Congressional intervention to stop the "non-study".
Removing the moose to reduce the population is doable if the money and desire is there. The Coast Guard can do the relocation. They moved and/or introduced musk ox and caribou to places in Alaska and Greenland and this was before helo's. Nowadays a ground party could collect the moose, a helo could sling load a moose to an awaiting crate on one of the bouy tenders or CGC Mackinaw. The moose would then be delivered to an awaiting team in Duluth for further transport to wherever they are needed. It would be kinda cool to see 20 or 30 moose crates being delivered to more needy places.
It maybe more logical and productive at this point to use the IR moose as a long term source for seed crops to reestablish moose in places where they once roamed in the states.
Kind of reminds me of the bear study program n No. MN.
Researchers so attached to the bears (public game) that the public dare not shoot one.
As usual ignoring the fact many are shot by hunters every year (and have been for an Epoch) that it should be part of the study.
Watched a re-run of a special on it a while ago and the quote from the Scottish guy about having to wear a bullet proof vest during "hunting season" even made my 13 year old son plainly see how ridiculous these "researchers" and their assistants can get.
I for one would be plenty willing to hike into the IR and pack our a moose by foot and hand carts. Did it with elk why not with a moose? The IR is one cool place to visit.
It would be cheaper to let hunters maintain the proper herd level. That said.....
Because IR is a national park, the Feds (NPS, USFS and USCG) would carry much of the cost of the relocation and whatever state wants the moose would kick in some too.
Let a few vids/pics of overpopulated, starved, emaciated moose make the national news and I bet that would gin up some relocation interest.
"So you kill a moose and the temp is around 70 for the next couple of days, then what? "
what if you were in AK or the Yukon with a bull down and the temps were in those ranges? It's happened before, you deal with it. Happens with elk, debone, hang it in the shade, etc. Never lost any meat that was hanging in the meat bags. Polly not going to get a tractor with a front loader in there though, yu betcha.....
There are many commercial fisherman who would love to provide transportation help if a hunt was organized, for a fee of course. Hunters in and moose out. I saw and participated with this, back in the sixties on Lake superior's Apostle Islands. A hunt or hunts should be tried before reduplicating the past. After all the animals were put on earth for man's enjoyment and use, were they not.
My opinion only....if hunting were allowed, I could see float planes becoming popular forms of transportation for hunters.
Totally different thought just for the sake of discussion. If hunting were allowed, would the animals be recognized by PY/BC? Would IR be considered a free range, fair chase hunt? The island is only 9 miles x 45 miles.
Yeah, cuz I could easily shoot 45 miles with my bow and 9 miles is a chip shot! ;^)
Float planes and the Lake Superior waves might not always be the best combination...
National Park.......no hunting. Would love to get there and get a moose. Rory
Hope they trap them all here on the Iron Range and ship them out to Isle Royal. Rory
Not every animal that walks the face of the earth needs to have a bullseye on it for mans pleasure. I'm perfectly fine with nature running its course on Isle Royal. Hell no one that commented has even been there I bet. It's a beautiful place with or without moose or wolves. But hearing the wolves at night laying in your tent is pretty F....Ing cool. Unforgettable.
Killinstuff, next time read the thread before you insert your opinion. There are some excellent insights provided above by folks who have spent significant time on Isle Royal and have participated in research there.
Nature has taken its course and the wolves have dwindled, bringing in more wolves is not letting nature take its course.
lol, there's no shortage of ways to get there and get moose and hunters off. Logistics of getting there and back is 10x easier than any Canadian/Alaskan hunt. Look at just the #1 way moose hunters get to where they get. Float plane. There's a number of beautiful lakes a guy could land a plane on in the island. 10 mile flight what's that gonna cost? $500? Sign me up. Boats, any motivated guy with a boat could do this hunt. it's 15km. Even with a 16ft boat and a 40hp Merc you can do that trip in 30 minutes. So you have to be a bit more careful about getting good weather. Same as a fly-in hunt, your days in and out always change due to bad weather. But if you want to be more sure, you rent a big boat or pay a local with a big boat to get on.
Ya why they don't sell some hunts is kind of beyond me. At the cost of moose hunts these days, the gov't could sell a tag there for $1500/piece as a one time deal and be sold out in minutes. logistically from the lower 48 this would be the easiest, cheapest, and most accessible moose hunt for most americans.
Everyone needs to scroll up and read Hugh's post again. Great post and that hair cut makes you my new hero! Haha.
Whether wolf or moose, you have to continue in some fashion to continue to bring new moose and wolves to the island for genetic diversity.
APauls - $1,500? Are you kidding me? In the NW most states are almost double that. I would make the tags $5k+.
