F:\ALCES\Supp2\Pagemaker\Rus10s


ALCES SUPPL. 2, 2002 DVORNIKOV - MOOSE POPULATION CONTROL IN THE URALS

45

MOOSE (ALCES ALCES) POPULATION CONTROL IN THE URALS

Mikhael G. Dvornikov

Kirov Agricultural Institute, Kirov, Russia

ABSTRACT:  I discuss the spatial dynamics of moose numbers, contemporary hunting practices,

and migrations based on the structure of the landscape and subsequent human modification. I

conclude that a single population of moose, comprised of subpopulations of non-migratory and

migratory animals, inhabits the Urals.  An optimal ratio of those groups allows full usage of habitats

and high population densities.  Existing methods of using the resources of the Urals are considered.

Forms, terms, norms, and structural characteristics of removal of animals belonging to different

demographic classes are recommended for population productivity to be increased.

ALCES SUPPLEMENT 2: 45-47 (2002)

Key words:  moose, population control, Ural Mountains

Rational usage of game resources de-

mands a whole set of measures for their

exploitation, reproduction, and protection.

These measures are based on optimal popu-

lation control methods, where the main goal

for exploited populations is to ensure maxi-

mum, and if possible, stable harvest while

preserving optimal population structure and

numbers.  Research is required to achieve

that goal via the following activities: manag-

ing game species on a population basis;

estimating carrying capacity of habitat; re-

vealing and eliminating limiting factors; con-

trolling harvest; tailoring harvest quotas to

population surpluses; and, orientation to-

ward demographic classes with regard to

the quantity and quality of exploitation.

A number of specialized and general-

ized works (Yazin 1972, Filonov 1977,

Gordiyuk 1981, Nikulin 1981, Dvornikov

1984) on ecology of moose (Alces alces)
have been conducted in the Ural Moun-

tains.  Until the present, however, the popu-

lation approach to game management has

not been well grounded, and no manage-

ment strategies have been based on it.

Therefore, we are trying to define the popu-

lation as a management unit and outline a

strategy for conservation of moose for the

time being (Dvornikov 1989).

I chose a population on the basis of data

taken from the above-mentioned works.  It

was possible to trace the population history

in a particular region, where animals func-

tioned and responded to environmental

changes as a whole, in accordance with

their ecological characteristics.

Bone remnants of moose can be found

in Pleistocene deposits.  Dynamics of habi-

tation of the Urals by hoofed animals has

been traced via paleontologic material.

Moose, as a rule, inhabited forest biotopes.

At the same time, findings of material in

unusual habitats for moose gave grounds

for supposition that during periods of land-

scape change the animals migrated towards

places with a mosaic distribution of vegeta-

tion and considerable supplies of food.

Contemporary natural populations were

formed in the Holocene.  Meridional moun-

tain ridges are spotted with communities of

mountain tundra and meadows, fir (Abies
spp.), spruce (Picea spp.), mountain pine
(Pinus spp.), and pre-forest-steppe areas.
At the foothills of the Northern Urals, fir,

spruce, and mountain pine forest grow.  In



MOOSE POPULATION CONTROL IN THE URALS - DVORNIKOV ALCES SUPPL. 2, 2002

46

the eastern part of the Southern and Middle

Urals there are still some remnants of pine

forest.  Clearings in the mountain forest

started to appear in the 18th Century, which

contributed to the mosaic distribution of

vegetation.  Therefore, the perpetuation of

moose in the Urals through periods of gen-

erally unfavorable conditions (Filinov 1983)

has been facilitated thanks to the mosaic of

ecological conditions present.

In the 20th Century, transformation of

the landscape by humans influenced the

dynamics, numbers, and distribution of moose

inhabiting the Middle and Southern Urals.

During the 1920s through the 1940s, moose

were few in numbers in the Urals.  Their

migrations were but feebly noticeable.  An

intensive change in the forest structure dur-

ing the 1940s through the 1960s contributed

to increasing moose numbers.  At present

moose inhabit 64% of the basic forested

areas.  One can observe that moose favor

biotopes situated in low places and medium-

high mountains covered with saplings on

clearings and with young, mature, and

overmature coniferous forest.  Thus, the

dynamics of forest formation influenced the

number and distribution of moose.

During the 1970s and 1980s the moose

population became relatively stable and

averaged 55-60,000 individuals.  Traditional

migrations took place throughout the Urals.

In the absence of vegetation differences,

animals may be observed across a range of

560,000 km2 (350 x 1,600km).  In places of

high concentration, including remnant pine

forests, the density reached 50-80 individu-

als per 1,000 ha.  At the same time the

density in plains areas averaged 1-5 moose

per 1,000 ha.  The available food supply in

mountain and pre-mountain areas averaged

400-2,000 kg/ha, in forest-steppe areas the

average was 60-800 kg/ha (dry mass).  The

amount of food used in the latter places was

higher.  In addition, there is some specificity

in feeding among groups of animals inhab-

iting different areas.  No doubt it confirms

the theory that moose migrate to mosaic

vegetation areas with large amounts of di-

verse forage.

The characteristics of traditional mi-

grations are believed to be caused by the

development of special mechanisms in re-

sponse to the environment: the amount and

the quality of forage and the depth of snow

cover late in winter.  Once a stimulus is

received, animals inhabiting large areas

begin to migrate.  The traditional migration

of moose in the Urals has been one of the

main ecological events for a long time.

Those characteristics in ungulates are fixed

genetically and through parents’ experi-

ence.  The migrating groups are believed to

appear as a common adaptive phenomenon,

which later directionally changed the ge-

netic structure of animals in accordance

with the population cycle.

From the existing evidence, I conclude

that there is one population of moose in the

Urals.  It includes subpopulations of non-

migratory and migrating individuals in the

same area.  Their optimal ratio of abun-

dance ensures their ability to use the forest

fully and maintain high populations.  At the

same time one can see that the noticeable

migration of moose is caused by the fact

that in freezing weather moose prefer young

coniferous stands as well as mature juniper

stands over deciduous stands.  Large virgin

tracts of forests remained throughout the

North Urals and in the Middle and Southern

Urals at an elevation of 500-1,200 m.  Thus,

large groups of moose exist in the moun-

tains where clearings border on large tracts

of forest.

We know that population production

may be increased through intensive man-

agement of hunting.  Hunters take 6–7,000

moose in the region annually, 35–45% of

them in November.  The mortality rate

including hunting is 22–31%.  So taking into

account the population of moose in the



ALCES SUPPL. 2, 2002 DVORNIKOV - MOOSE POPULATION CONTROL IN THE URALS

47

North Pre-Urals and Trans-Urals, I recom-

mend harvest rates of 10% in heavy conif-

erous forests in the mountain-, north- and

middle-taiga habitats, and 15% in the light

coniferous forests in the middle-taiga, with

a ratio of yearlings:immature:mature ani-

mals of 15:10:70, and a sex ratio of 50:50.

In the Middle and Southern Urals, as

well as in the Pre-Urals and Trans-Urals,

harvest rates can reach 15% in dark, light,

and broad-leaved coniferous forest if the

aforementioned ratios are met.  In mountain

pine, sub-taiga, and broad-leaved, dark co-

niferous forests, it is possible to harvest

20%, with age ratios of 20:15:65 and a sex

ratio of 55:45 (males:females).  In broad-

leaved and aspen (Populus)-birch (Betula)
forest-steppes, the bag rate may amount to

25% with ratios of 20:15:65 and 50:50.  In

island pine-steppe forests, including forest-

steppe reserves, the same harvest rate can

be achieved with age and sex ratios of

25:18:57 and 60:40, respectively.  It is rea-

sonable to carry out hunting from 1 October

to 30 November, sport hunting from 15

October to 15 December, hunting utilizing

calling from 20 August to 20 September,

and selective harvest from 15 December to

15 January.

In some papers there are data on the

validity and efficiency of biotechnical meas-

ures directed at the weakening of limiting

factors.  I believe that biotechnical meas-

ures are necessary in mountain pine pre-

forest, steppe-pine, and birch forests, and

broad-leaved and aspen-birch forest steppes

of the Middle and South Urals.  It is neces-

sary to concentrate those measures in

biotopes situated in middle parts of moun-

tain ridges and in low places with mixed 80–

140-year-old forested stands with a diver-

sity of young trees and high capacity of

biological rotation.  While carrying out these

measures it is necessary to follow the norms

given for the region.

Moose preservation and further observ-

ance of their sex and age structure by visual

methods and hunting samples are the main

conditions of their rational use.  It is also

necessary to envisage hunters returning

one molar from their kill with a license in a

special envelope.  From the information

received it will be possible to judge the

status of the population and to correct the

number and quality of animals harvested.

REFERENCES

DVORNIKOV, M. G.  1984.  Ecology and the

biogeocentric role of ungulates in the

Ilmeny State Preserve named after

Lenin.  Candidate Scientific Thesis,

Sverdlovsk, Russia.  (In Russian).

.  1989.  Ecological aspects of har-

vest, reproduction and protection of wild

ungulates of the Ural mountains.  Pages

75-80 in Management of populations of
wild ungulates.  Sverdlovsk, Russia.  (In

Russian).

FILONOV, K. P.  1977.  Management of

hunting. The dynamics of the number of

ungulates and management of pre-

serves.  Forest Management, Moscow,

Russia.  (In Russian).

.   1 9 8 3 .  M o o s e .   L e s n a y a

Promyshlennost, Moscow, Russia.  (In

Russian).

GORDIYUK, N. M.  1981.  Aspects of the

ecology of ungulates in the Bashkir

Preserve.  Candidate Scientific Thesis,

Sverdlovsk, Russia.  (In Russian).

NIKULIN, V. F.  1981.  The moose of the

upper Kama River and its role in forest

management and hunting.  Candidate

Scientific Thesis, Sverdlovsk, Russia.

(In Russian).

YAZAN, Y. P.  1972.  The animals of Pechora

taiga.  Volga-Vyatskoye, Kirov, Rus-

sia.  (In Russian).