F:\ALCES\Supp2\PAGEMA~1\Rus 19s ALCES SUPPL. 2, 2002 MIKHYEVA AND GAROSS – MOOSE IN LATVIA 85 MOOSE IN LATVIA AND INTENSIVE GAME MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Ruta V. Mikhyeva and Vitauts G. Gaross Research and Production Association “Silava,” Riga, Latvia ABSTRACT: Historical population trends of moose in Latvia and current information on moose population size, sex and age ratios, annual increment rates, and mortality factors are presented. The authors review moose antler quality, interspecific competition, food habits, and discuss forest damage by moose. A management framework for regulating moose harvests in accordance with carrying capacity, under conditions of intensive forestry, is outlined. ALCES SUPPLEMENT 2: 85-88 (2002) Key words: Alces alces, Cervus elaphus, ecology, intensive forestry, interspecific competition, Latvia, moose, population composition, red deer Little information is available in the published literature on moose (Alces alces) in Latvia. The purpose of this paper is to present some general background informa- tion on moose ecology within this region and discuss the role of moose management within Latvia’s intensive forestry program. PAST AND PRESENT MOOSE POPULATION STATUS Moose have been common over the land area of present–day Latvia since the end of the glacial era. Data on moose populations for the last 5 centuries are scanty. Indirect evidence, however, indi- cates that moose were highly valued and populations were large enough to supply people with meat and hides. Moose num- bers decreased sharply by the end of the 18th century, and 100 years later it was assumed there were no more than 1,000– 2,000 moose. More reliable data indicated there were only 85 moose in 1923 and about 1,000 in 1940. The post–World–War II period was distinguished by a marked increase in moose all over Latvia. The highest number, ac- cording to official information, was recorded in 1973 (21,830). However, more reliable methods showed these estimates were in- correct and, in most cases, underestimated the actual size of the moose population. The official numbers represent, at best, only rough estimates of population size. Follow– up investigations, using more accurate meth- ods, estimated the number of moose in 1975 at approximately 45,000 or 22 moose/1,000 ha of forest land. On some forestry enter- prises and forest ranges, this figure reached 40 moose/1,000 ha. The total harvest be- tween 1954 and 1988 was 111,829 moose. The moose population started declining af- ter 1975 (Fig. 1). A reliable estimate of the 1989 spring population was 16,000–17,000, or 6 moose/1,000 ha of forest. In a number of localities, the population density ranged from 1 to 5 moose/1,000 ha of forest. The adult sex ratio of moose between 1935 and 1937 varied from 1 male/female to 1 male/1.7 females. Similar sex ratios were recorded in 1963, when there was practi- cally no harvest and the impact of predators was insignificant. These sex ratios are believed typical for Latvia. Sex ratios in 1975, 1978, and 1989 were 1 male/female, 1 male/0.9 female, and 1 male/1.3 females, MOOSE IN LATVIA – MIKHYEVA AND GAROSS ALCES SUPPL. 2, 2002 88 Bark chewing results in the spruce stem becoming infected by fungal diseases, and die–backs occur within 5–15 years. INTENSIVE MOOSE–FORESTRY MANAGEMENT Forestry remains one of the corner- stones of Latvia’s national economy, yield- ing timber worth 240 million rubles (1 US$ ≈ 29 Russian rubles) annually, in addition to other forest products. Yet moose manage- ment runs counter to the forest yield–man- agement practices on which modern for- estry should be based. One of the principal reasons why hunting quotas for moose were raised during the 1970s, and the harvest increased (Fig. 1), was to reduce moose– related forest damage. Unfortunately, be- cause of indecisive and conservative atti- tudes to the problem in question, as well as inaccuracies in the population estimates, this action was delayed for 5–8 years. This resulted in the forest sector suffering tre- mendous losses, which will require at least 60–70 years to repair. Despite the decline in the moose population after 1975, inten- sive harvesting continued until 1989. Biolo- gists and land managers believe this was another mistake because moose harvest should have been reduced. Detailed analyses of the population data and the occurrence of forest crop damage show the so–called “silviculturally optimum” moose population density for the forest of Latvia in general, or individual forestry en- terprises (covering 30–50,000 ha of forest), to be invalid. The estimate of 5–10 moose/ 1,000 ha of forest, as an index of carrying capacity under conditions of intensive for- estry, is considered a very rough estimate. All the factors affecting moose abundance such as the number of predators (mainly wolves), food availability, weather, climate, and man’s activities should be known when estimating carrying capacity. These fac- tors are extremely dynamic and are consid- ered relatively stable only on smaller areas (around 10,000 ha for Latvia). In order to harmonize management of the moose–for- est system, the following data should be accumulated annually: the occurrence of forest crop damage; moose population size, sex ratio, and annual increment rates; and the number of moose dying from harvest, predation, accidents, diseases, and other factors. The general trend in population density should be maintained upward with the following principle kept in mind: the moose population should be large enough to utilize the annual increment produced by its natural forage, without harming forestry interests. In practice, management pro- ceeds by allowing the population to grow when there is no visible damage to the forest crops; i.e., the kill is further reduced from the previous year and the harvest is set less than or equal to the annual increment. If crop damage is increasing, hunting quotas are raised. Moose densities are thus re- duced when required to avoid overutilization of natural forage and to reduce forest crop damage. In summary, a prolonged period of in- tensive hunting on moose in Latvia, based upon the hunting techniques used (mainly enclosures), has had no long–term adverse impacts on the moose population. The population estimate for 1989 indicates that the cutbacks currently practiced should be halted and management should change to a policy of population control by implement- ing the principles discussed above. In this respect, methods that stimulate the growth of natural moose forage are of greatest importance. Only an integrated approach will resolve the problem between moose and intensive forestry and increase the over- all productivity of the forest biogenocenosis.