Alces39_131.pdf ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 131 THE STATUS AND MANAGEMENT OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA- CIRCA 2000-01 H. R. Timmermann R. R. # 2, Nolalu, ON, Canada POT 2KO; e-mail: TTimoose@aol.com ABSTRACT: At the turn of the century 2000, the North American moose population was estimated at about 1 million distributed in 28 jurisdictions. Populations occur in 11 Canadian provinces or territories, and in at least 17 U.S. States. Densities are believed to be increasing in 12, stable to increasing in 14, and stable to decreasing in only 2. Moose continue to expand their range in New England and several western U.S. States. In 2000-01, an estimated 382,951 licensed moose hunters harvested 82,619 moose in 23 jurisdictions, down from 418,619 and 89,027 a decade earlier. Additional harvests by Native and subsistence users although largely unquantified, are believed substantial in Alaska, Minnesota, and all 11 Canadian jurisdictions. A wide variety of active and passive harvest strategies used to manage moose are discussed. Population estimates are presented for 28 of 35 National Parks where moose occur, but where licensed hunting is prohibited. ALCES VOL. 39: 131-151 (2003) Key words: distribution, First Nations, harvest, harvest strategies, hunter numbers, license quali- fications, moose population status, National Parks, seasons, subsistence The status and management of North American moose (Alces alces) circa 2000- 2001 is updated from that reported by Timmermann and Buss (1995). A compre- hensive 10-page questionnaire similar to that used by Timmermann (1987) and Timmermann and Buss (1995) was used to update the current status, population esti- mates, as well as harvest and non-harvest strategies used by 23 jurisdictions that man- age an annual licensed moose harvest. An additional 5 jurisdictions where hunting is currently prohibited were contacted to de- termine population status. Tabulated data were returned for final perusal and changes or corrections solicited. This paper reports on current (year 2000-2001) population sta- tus and strategies used to manage hunting harvest and non-harvest management. HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CURRENT STATUS The distribution of moose in North America during the latter half of the 20th century has been described by several au- thors including: Peterson (1955), Telfer (1984), Kelsall (1987), Karns (1998), Franzmann (2000), and Rodgers (2001). Four subspecies are recognized, namely A. a. gigas, andersoni, americana , and shirasi (Peterson 1955). During the past 30 years, Kelsall and Telfer (1974), Karns (1998), and Peek and Morris (1998), de- tailed expanding distributions in both west- ern and eastern states. Currently, moose (A. a. americana) appear to still be expand- ing and re-establishing on their former range in the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hamp- shire, Massachusetts, New York, and Con- necticut (Hicks 1986, Alexander 1993, Bontaites and Guftason 1993, Morris and Elowe 1993, Vecellio et al. 1993, Al Hicks, New York State Department of Environ- mental Conservation, personal communica- tion 2002, Howard Kilpatrick, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication 2002, Bill Woytek, Massachusetts Wildlife, personal commu- STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 132 nication 2002; Fig. 1). Moose in Vermont have re-occupied all suitable habitat and are currently believed to be increasing (Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, per- sonal communication 2001). Current moose populations in Maine are considered unac- ceptably high and need to be reduced ac- cording to Karen Morris (Maine Depart- ment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, per- sonal communication 2002). Likewise, populations of A. a. shirasi continue to increase and expand in the western states of Washington (Donny Martorello, Depart- ment of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State, personal communication 2002), as well as Idaho (Compton and Oldenburg 1994), Utah (Jim Karpowitz, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication 2002), Wyoming (Hnilicka and Zornes 1994), and Colorado (Kufeld 1994, Kufeld and Bowden 1996, John Ellenberger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, personal communication 2002). Low predator densities, reduced deer populations, reversion of farmland to forest, increased logging and fire disturbance, legal protection, and conservative harvests are believed responsible (Karns 1998, Peek and Morris 1998). Minnesota closed their northwestern moose range to harvest in 1997 due to a dramatic population decline from unknown causes (Mike Schrage, Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and Gretchen Mehmel, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, personal communications 2002). The estimated population declined from 4,264 in 1983 to 1,486 in 1995 to approximately 900 in 2001. A research study is currently underway in an effort to determine the causes of this decline. Mainland Michigan population estimates are controversial and believed to be some- where between 600 and 1,100, while those on Isle Royale were estimated at 900 (Aho et al. 1996, Dodge et al. 2001, Mary Hindelang, Michigan Technological Univer- sity, personal communication 2002). Moose regularly move in and out of northern Michi- Fig. 1. 2000-2001 post-hunt moose (Alces alces) population estimates for 28 North American jurisdictions. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 133 gan and Minnesota into northern Wisconsin and Adrian Wydeven (Wisconsin Depart- ment of Natural Resources, personal com- munication 2002) estimates the current Wisconsin population at 20-40. Periodic winter aerial surveys based on the Gasaway method are used by most agencies to estimate populations and trends (Gasaway et al. 1986, Peterson and Page 1993, Timmermann 1993, Smits et al. 1994, Lynch and Shumaker 1995, Bisset 1996, Lenarz 1998, Timmermann and Buss 1998, Bisset and McLaren 1999, Bontaities et al. 2000, Ward et al. 2000). Most agencies estimate total jurisdictional populations based on the cumulative total of specific manage- ment areas sampled every 3 or more years. Such jurisdictional estimates are consid- ered relatively crude and are primarily used to compare population trends over time. New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont rely heavily on deer hunter reported moose ob- servations and vehicle collision incidents to estimate moose trends. New Hampshire and Vermont also use annual deer hunter observations and a regression formula de- veloped from concurrent infrared aerial surveys obtained over a 3-year New Hamp- shire study to estimate regional moose populations (Bontaites et al. 2000). Conti- nental moose populations in 28 jurisdictions (circa 2000-2001) are estimated at 938,350 to 1,064,130 (Fig. 1). Population estimates from 23 of 28 agencies which manage an annual licensed harvest are similar to those given in 1991 (Table 1). In summary, current moose densities in 23 jurisdictions are believed to be stable to decreasing in Minnesota, decreasing in Alaska, and relatively stable or increasing in the balance (Table 1). Five states where hunting is prohibited report expanding populations in four (Michigan, Massachu- setts, Connecticut, New York) while those in Wisconsin are considered stable (Fig. 1). MANAGING A HARVEST Economic Impact Moose hunting provides a significant annual economic impact in some jurisdic- tions. The value of resident moose hunting in British Columbia, for example was esti- mated to be Canadian (CAN) $15.8 M in 1995 (Reid 1997), while Legg (1995) esti- mated CAN $134.7 M in Ontario for all hunters in 1993. Legg and Kennedy (2000) estimated moose hunting in Ontario contrib- uted CAN $77.0 M to the gross provincial income and sustained 1,645.8 person years of employment in 1996. Regelin and Franzman (1998) estimated the economic impact of 33,000 resident and 1,000 non- resident Alaskan hunters to represent US $32.6 M in the late 1990s. Bisset (1987) reported a gross value of CAN $464 M generated in 19 North American jurisdic- tions in 1982. Harvest Control Objectives Two territories and 9 provinces in Canada, and 12 states in the USA, adminis- tered a moose hunt in 2000 (Table 1). Col- lectively, 385,569 licensed moose hunters harvested an estimated 82,466 moose in 2000-2001. A decade earlier, 417,072 li- censed hunters killed 89,100 (Table 1). Hunting regulations continue to become more restrictive and complex as the demand on moose populations and corresponding suc- cess rates increase due in part to increased road access and use of mechanized equip- ment (Timmermann and Buss 1998). Con- trol of hunting is required to affect the desired allocation of moose harvest among licensed hunters, to secure the sustainability of moose populations, and achieve other specified management objectives for a par- ticular area. British Columbia, for example, has recently suggested future management objectives focus on maintaining appropriate adult sex ratios, provide diverse hunting opportunities, and optimize recreational days STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 134 Table 1. Numbers of sport hunters, harvest, and post-hunt population estimates for 23 North American jurisdictions, 1990-91 vs 2000-01. Total Non-resident Total Estimated moose hunters hunters estimated harvest population Agency 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 1991 2001 Yukon Territory 2,040 1,410 387 342 640 716 50,000 70,000+ Northwest Territories 1,300 1,300 60 65 1,400 1,400 9,000 20,000+ British Columbia 39,400 31,500 1,860 2,250 13,500 9,200 175,000 165,000* 4 Alberta 50,000 20,429 1,150 1,139 12,200 7,971 100,700 92,000* Saskatchewan 12,000 10,000 1,170 5,260 4,100 3,412 50,000 46,000* Manitoba 6,500 5,409 100 100 1,100 1,000 27,000 35,000+ Ontario 92,000 100,000 2,700 3,000 11,000 11,000 120,000 100,000* 5 Quebec 150,000 130,000 2,500 2,000 11,900 14,000 67,500 100,000+ 6 New Brunswick 5,200 4,174 — 97 1,700 2,537 20,000 25,000+ Nova Scotia1 200 200 — — 113 186 3,000 6,000+ Newfoundland 29,200 40,449 1,400 3,044 21,000 19,322 140,000 125,000*7 Alaska 22,000 30,000 2,410 3,200 6,100 5,509 155,000 120,000- Washington1 8 69 — — 8 64 200 1,000+3 Idaho1 500 1,011 — — 490 774 5,500 15,000+ Utah 299 182 290 72 290 175 2,700 3,400+ Wyoming 1,713 1,379 218 199 1,475 1,215 13,645 13,865+ Montana 675 609 19 16 511 596 4,000 4,000* North Dakota1 110 132 — — 107 117 550 700+ Colorado1 7 74 — — 7 64 425 1,070+ Minnesota1 1,820 442 — — 410 125 6,700 5,100-* Maine 2,000 6,000 200 300 960 2,550 23,000 29,000+ Vermont — 215 — 22 — 155 1,300 3,500+ New Hampshire 100 585 20 76 89 378 4,000 5,000+ TOTAL 417,072 385,569 14,484 16,117 89,100 82,466 979,220 985,635 + increase, - decrease, * no change. 1 No non-resident season. 2 Plus 36 permits available for resident and non-resident hunters. 3 Range 850-1,000. 4 Range 130,000-200,000. 5 Range 100,000-110,000. 6 Range 95,000-105,000 winter 2002. 7 Range 115,000-140,000, with 1,000 in Labrador. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 135 per harvested moose. This would replace traditional objectives associated with popu- lation size, harvest, hunter numbers, and hunter days, which are difficult to achieve or measure (Hatter 1999). Harvest policy is currently guided by a written approved or draft moose manage- ment policy, including goals and objectives in 15 jurisdictions, while 8 employ an un- written or generalized wildlife policy. Spe- cific moose management plans, guidelines, or statements have been prepared or are being updated in Maine (Morris and Elowe 1993, Anonymous 2000a), Vermont (Alex- ander et al. 1998, Anonymous 2001), New Hampshire (Anonymous 1997), Utah (Anonymous 2000b), Colorado (Kufeld 1994), Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 1990, Hnilicka and Zornes 1994), Idaho (IDFG 1990, Leege 1990), Ontario (OMNR 1980), Québec (MLCP 1993), Saskatchewan (Arsenault 2000), British Columbia (British Columbia Minis- try of Environment, Lands and Parks 1996), Yukon (Yukon Renewable Resources 1996, 1999), and Alberta (Alberta Natural Re- sources draft pending). Alaska uses a dated 1980 moose policy (Alaska Depart- ment of Fish and Game 1980) and currently manages 45 distinct populations individu- ally. Examples of specific moose plans include those for Region 1, southeastern Alaska, as well as the Yukon Flats and Koyukuk River (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1990, 2001). Several agencies have recently attempted to review and evalu- ate their moose harvest program and policy. These include Ontario (Simmons 1997, Pro- v i n c i a l A u d i t o r 1 9 9 8 , O M N R 2 0 0 1 , Timmermann et al. 2003), British Columbia (Hatter 1999), Saskatchewan (Arsenault 2 0 0 0 ) , N e w f o u n d l a n d ( M e r c e r a n d McLaren 2002), Québec (Courtois and Lamontagne 1999, Lamoureux 1999, Sigouin et al. 1999), and Alaska (Schwartz et al. 1992, Hundertmark and Schwartz 1996, Hundertmark et al. 1998, Kovach et al. 1998, Regelin and Franzmann 1998). Allocation of Hunting Opportunities Moose are essentially publicly owned and held in trust by provincial, territorial, and state wildlife agencies. The first prior- ity of most agencies is to ensure the long- term conservation of moose populations and their habitats. Harvest allocation is given prime consideration to subsistence use by Native people under Treaty or other legal agreements in at least 10 of 23 juris- dictions that manage a harvest. Resident hunters are typically favored over non-resi- dents and non- resident aliens, in allocating harvest opportunities. Added controls, such as increased li- cense fees, resident only seasons, guide requirements, and limited permits are com- monly placed on non-resident hunters, giv- ing residents priority in allocation of hunting opportunities. In 2000-2001, non-residents were eligible to hunt 17 of 23 jurisdictions (Table 1). A guide was required by 8 of 23 agencies, and at least 2 agencies required non-residents to register with a licensed tourist outfitter to stimulate local economic benefits. Allowances to enable some non- residents to hunt with resident hunters have been made. For example, a non-resident of British Columbia, who is a resident of Canada or a Canadian citizen, may be ac- companied by a resident of British Colum- bia who holds a $40.00 Permit to Accom- pany (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2001). Some agencies restrict or limit moose hunting opportunities. They are limited in all U.S. States except Alaska. Washington, North Dakota, and Minnesota offer 1 moose hunt per lifetime, while Colorado and Utah limit hunters to 1 antlered animal per life- time. Others require a waiting period be- tween hunts; Idaho and Maine 2 years, New Hampshire and Vermont 3 years, STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 136 Wyoming 5 years, and Montana 7 years after a moose is taken. Hunters in Alaska and all 11 Canadian jurisdictions may hunt annually within quotas whether they were successful or not the previous year. On- tario has introduced a pilot study in 1 Wild- life Management Unit that offers moose hunting opportunities for physically-chal- lenged hunters only (Armstrong and Simons 1999). Control Concepts Agencies employ a variety of strategies to regulate harvests and distribute hunting pressure (Timmermann 1987). Passive strategies used include season length and timing, access restrictions, weapon require- ments, and license qualification prerequi- sites; while active measures include limiting license sales or specifying the sex, age, or number of animals taken by specific area. Objectives often include the harvest of pre- determined numbers to sustain, increase, or decrease populations. Both New Hamp- shire and Vermont have recently applied harvest rates and antlerless quotas aimed at reducing moose densities in some areas to help reduce impacts of browsing on regen- erating forests and vehicle collisions (Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, per- sonal communication 2002). In 2000-01, 10 agencies offered unlimited selective or non- selective harvest opportunities while all (23 of 23) restricted or limited harvests on a selective or non-selective basis in some management areas (Fig. 2). In addition, closed seasons were employed to prevent licensed harvests in specific moose inhab- ited areas, including some provincial, terri- torial, state, and National Parks. Alaska, for example, has eliminated or restricted any-sex seasons and now uses regulations limiting bull harvests to specific antler shape and size in much of the road accessible portions of the state (Schwartz et al. 1992, Hundertmark and Schwartz 1996, Huntertmark et al. 1998, Kovach et al. 1998, Regelin and Franzmann 1998). License Qualifications and Fees In 2000, proof of hunting proficiency, including either a previous license or com- pleting a hunter safety education course, was required to obtain a moose hunting license in all jurisdictions. In 2001, resident license fees averaged CAN $35.76 in Canada (range $10.00 Northwest Territo- ries to $ 57.50 in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), while non-resident licenses averaged CAN $204.41 (range $20.00 Northwest Territories to $460.00 in New Brunswick). Resident fees in the U.S. averaged US $106.00, (range $20.00 in North Dakota to $ 310.00 in Minnesota), while non-resident fees averaged US $727.70 (range $80.00 in Vermont to $1,643 in Idaho). Some agencies, including Alaska and Maine for example, charged higher fees to non-resident aliens. Export permits or trophy fees are required in addition to the license fee to transport an animal out of Alaska, Northwest Territories, Alberta, and Ontario (Table 3). Currently, no jurisdic- tions require moose hunters to demonstrate shooting proficiency using conventional fire- arms, as described by Buss et al. (1989). Both New Brunswick and Newfoundland had previously required hunters to pass a shooting and written test before qualifying for a big game hunting license (Timmermann and Buss 1995). Alaska however, requires all archery and black powder hunters to pass a proficiency test (Wayne Regelin, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, per- sonal communication 2002). Seasons Season length and timing are used to control the amount of hunting opportunity available, hunter success due to moose vul- nerability based on behavior, and seasonal access. Seasons are generally specific to ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 137 Fig. 2. Moose (Alces alces) harvest strategies employed by 28 North American jurisdictions (circa 2000-2001). Numbers of management areas or subdivisions under each harvest strategy in each jurisdiction are indicated. 20 00 - 0 1 H A R V E S T S T R A T E G IE S O P E N LI M IT E D U N LI M IT E D S E LE C T IV E S E X /A G E S E X A N T LE R E D A N T LE R LE S S A D U LT / C A LF C A LF A B 1 0 9 P Q 1 8: 17 1 0 M B 2 5 B C 5 5 A K 7 7 Y T 3 65 __ __ P Q 3 1 1 M B 1 0 S K 1 8 2 B C 10 7 4 A B 8 B C 2 6 O N 68 S E LE C T IV E S E X /A G E S E X M I W I C T M A N Y 12 A N T LE R E D A N T LE R LE S S N D 1 C O 1 1 U T 1 2 7 P Q 1 3 2 M B 1 5 A K 1 8 W Y 2 8 N F 5 3 M T 5 9 Y K 6 0 ID 9 2 B C 1 16 A B 1 45 V T 2 N H 4 N F 4 N D 5 U T 5 6 A K 6 C O 9 M E 9 ID 1 6 W Y 2 1 M T 2 9 B C 4 4 A B 5 7 A D U LT / C A LF C A LF N O N - S E LE C T IV E B C 2 1 M B 5 N F 4 6 O N 6 8 3 A B 7 N S 1 P Q 4 5 A K 5 M B 6 N D 7 W A 8 W Y 9 V T 1 0 N H 1 8 M E 1 8 13 S K 1 9 N B 2 5 M T 2 6 M N 2 9 N F 6 0 C LO S E D N D 1 M N 2 W A 2 P Q 3 O N 3 M B 3 W Y 4 U T 4 A K 7 C O 1 0 M E 1 2 V T 1 5 U T 2 0 S K 2 0 Y K 2 0 B C 2 5 ID 3 5 A B 3 6 N O N - S E LE C T IV E P Q 3 1 1 N W T 6 M B 8 A K 9 A B 1 5 8 S K 3 1 8 1 2 1 . c ow o r ca lf or s pi ke b ul l 2. bu ll or c al f 3. bu ll or c al f - / c ow o r ca lf, p re gu n ar ch er y - 26 W M U ’s 4. tr i p al m b ul l - 2 7, 2 pt . b ul l - 1 07 5. w ild lif e pr es er ve s 6. pl us 2 C o- O p W M U ’s 7. pl us 1 7 C o- O p W M U ’s 8. pr eg un a rc he ry o nl y 9. pl us 7 8 W M U ’s - - pr eg un a rc he ry o nl y 10 . a lte rn at e yr . 1 - - bu lls & c al ve s, y r. 2 - - bu lls , c ow s & c al ve s 11 . a lte rn at e yr . 1 - - bu lls o nl y, y r. 2 - - bu lls , c ow s, & c al ve s 12 . e nt ire S ta te c lo se d 13 . a nt le rle ss p er m its is su ed in 9 W M U ’s STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 138 firearm type (e.g., conventional firearms, black powder, or archery). In addition, seasons tend to be longer in more remote areas and shorter in roaded areas closer to population centers. Alaska provides the most liberal season length (243 days), ex- tending from August to March in some Game Management Areas (Table 2). Sea- son lengths for all hunts in parts of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Mani- toba, Ontario, Québec, and Newfoundland equal or exceed 3 months, while New Bruns- wick, Vermont, and New Hampshire re- strict season length to 3, 4, and 9 days, respectively. Special early archery sea- sons are offered by 9 agencies (Table 2), while most offer firearm seasons beginning during the latter portion of the rut period (Wilton 1995) and extending into November or December. Split seasons (early vs late fall) occur in at least 8 jurisdictions. Management Areas and Harvest Strategies All agencies have subdivided their moose range into various sized areas (Wildlife, Game, or Moose Management Units) to facilitate specific harvest control measures. Moose management areas vary in size from 53 km2 (Vermont) to 1,629,049 km2 in the Northwest Territories, and number 4 in Washington State to 445 in the Yukon (Ta- ble 2). All jurisdictions except the North- west Territories continue to employ either a selective or non-selective limited hunter participation strategy, or a combination of both (Fig. 2). Most favor some form of limited selective or limited non-selective strategy to control sex and/or age related harvests. Alaska alone continues to employ registration hunts which require mandatory kill registration and season termination once a prescribed harvest is achieved. A selective harvest strategy allowing control of harvest size and composition was introduced in Saskatchewan in 1977 fol- lowed by British Columbia, Ontario, New- foundland, and Québec between 1980 and 1994 (Timmermann and Buss 1995). This strategy’s objective is to promote herd growth by reducing the adult female harvest while maintaining or increasing adult bull and calf harvest (Stewart 1978). A selec- tive bull harvest strategy based on antler architecture is used in Alaska and British Columbia (Child and Aitken 1989, Schwartz et al. 1992, Timmermann and Buss 1995, Hatter 1999). The objective is to increase the number of bulls in areas where low bull numbers are a concern because of low reproduction, by diverting harvest pressure to young (spike and forked antlered bulls) and old bulls (antlers with >3 brow tines on 1 antler, or larger than 106 cm spread), and away from prime (6-10 year-old) bulls. Québec introduced an alternating hunting strategy in 1994 by offering combinations of bull-only, bull/calf, female draw, and either sex depending on year and location (Courtois and Lamontagne 1997, 1999; Lamoureux 1999; Sigouin et al. 1999). Sharing a moose between >2 hunters optimizes hunting opportunities and accom- modates hunters who wish to hunt with friends. Some agencies, such as Minnesota since 1971, require all eligible hunters to apply together in groups of up to 4 individu- als for the chance to harvest 1 animal (Judd 1972). More recently, several agencies have introduced additional limiting or shar- ing mechanisms. British Columbia offers a “Group Hunt” whereby up to 4 persons can combine their applications and have them entered as 1 application. If drawn, each hunter within the group receives an authori- zation to shoot 1 moose (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2001). In addition, British Columbia intro- duced new Limited Entry Shared hunts in 2001. If drawn, a group of 2 is allowed to take 1 moose and a group of 3 or 4 can take ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 139 Table 2. Characteristics of moose hunting seasons in North America, 2000-2001. Number of management areas Season length/timing With Size (km2) With open Agency moose Min. Max. Season Max days Earliest Latest Yukon Territory 445 64 2,919 431 92 Aug. 01 Oct. 31 Northwest Territories 6 57,379 1,629,049 6 153 Sept. 01 Jan. 31 British Columbia 193 465 18,980 1691 1182 Aug. 15 Nov. 30 Alberta 148 210 33,700 1481,4 912 Aug. 25 Nov. 30 Saskatchewan 60 2,000 120,000 401,4 642 Aug. 26 Nov. 30 Manitoba 46 585 139,214 431,4 1172 Aug. 27 Dec. 22 Ontario 68 1,700 85,800 681,4 88 Sept. 15 Dec. 15 Quebec 24 2,150 225,200 211 92 Sept. 01 Dec. 01 New Brunswick 25 826 6,402 254 3 Sept. 27 Sept. 29 Nova Scotia 25 3,000 4,400 14 12 Sept. 24 Oct. 13 Newfoundland 64 116 4,500 641,4 1206,7 Sept. 09 Jan. 06 Alaska 94 290 5,300 831 2432 Aug. 01 Mar. 31 Washington 10 680 700 10 61 Oct. 01 Nov. 30 Idaho 88 246 6,480 53 86 Aug. 30 Nov. 23 Utah 13 1,200 8,000 9 412 Sept. 09 Oct. 29 Wyoming 41 450 4,100 371 76 Sept. 01 Nov. 20 Montana 80 250 2,500 80 87 Sept. 01 Nov. 26 North Dakota 9 1,350 17,000 81 792 Sept. 01 Dec. 17 Colorado 21 130 1,540 11 25 Sept. 08 Oct. 09 Minnesota 31 202 772 293 16 Sept. 28 Oct. 20 Maine 30 4,000 13,800 184 122 Sept. 23 Oct. 12 Vermont 21 53 203 10 4 Oct. 20 Oct. 23 New Hampshire 22 490 1,810 22 9 Oct. 15 Oct. 24 1 Special archery seasons in some areas. 2 Split seasons. 3 NW Region closed since 1997. 4 Closed Sundays in some or all areas. 5 Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia mainland. 6 Special winter season in one area. 7 Labrador 197 days- Sep 08-Mar 16. 2 moose only. All members must hunt together and those who apply for these special Limited Entry Shared Hunts will have an advantage in the draw over a single applicant. Alberta introduced a Special Antlered Moose Partner license to increase resident hunting opportunities in 2000. Resi- dents who did not apply or were unsuccess- ful in the license draw could partner with a resident holder of an Antlered Moose Spe- cial license. Residents who were success- ful could also designate a non-resident (in an area that offered a non-resident hunt) and a resident as a partner. Nova Scotia allows residents who have drawn a license to designate up to 2 companions who may fully participate in the hunt; provided the designated licensee is within hailing dis- STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 140 tance of the license holder at all times and possesses a Companion Moose Hunting Stamp. Manitoba issues some moose li- censes on the basis of 1 tag for 2 hunters and each must sign the other’s license. If hunting alone, the licensee must be in pos- session of the game tag and may not sign up with another party. Manitoba resident hunt- ers may also purchase a Conservation Moose License together (2 licenses / 1 tag) allowing for a shared harvest of 1 moose. Québec authorizes a bag limit of 1 moose per 2 hunters in most areas and 1 moose per 3 hunters in some ZECs (organizations that manage specific areas). In addition, the limit is 1 moose per group composed of 3 or 4 hunters in limited access wildlife reserves. Yukon hunters who wish to hunt together may apply jointly and if the application is drawn, both applicants receive a permit for the same subzone. The voluntary “Hunt with a Partner” slogan encourages Yukoners to share 1 moose. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont all manage a short season, whereby each successful permittee may select a subpermittee to hunt with them and harvest 1 moose. Several agencies have developed mechanisms to grant hunters a higher suc- cess rate in a limited random draw. Wyo- ming hunters are given 1 Moose Preference Point every year in which they are unsuc- cessful in the draw. Alternatively appli- cants may purchase a preference point for US $7.00 instead of applying for a license. Successful applicants are generally those who have the highest preference points. Both Ontario and Newfoundland either en- courage or give preference to a party over individual draw applicants. Newfoundland restricts party size to 2 individuals who may hunt for 1 moose provided they are within sight of each other when both are hunting. Members of a party license may hunt alone provided they carry the license and tag. In addition, Newfoundland gives party appli- cants preference over individuals and to those who were unsuccessful in previous years in each of 5 pools, thereby maximizing hunter opportunity. Ontario has offered a voluntary Group Application System for adult moose since 1991 (Timmermann et al. 2003). This system was designed to allow a more equitable allocation of harvest op- portunities among more hunters. A 2-pool preference system gives hunters who were unsuccessful in obtaining a tag the previous year a preference over those who received a tag when re-applying the following year. In 2000, for example, 42% of Ontario hunt- ers applied in groups of 2 or more. The average group size was 4.43 hunters per group and 63% of groups received a moose tag compared to only 18% of individual applicants (OMNR 2001:35). In addition, a tag is guaranteed to a group of hunters when the number of Pool 1 hunters in the group meets a pre-determined size. Harvest Assessment All sources of mortality must be as- sessed to monitor the effectiveness of vari- ous harvest strategies. Hunters are re- quired to report their hunting activity in 9 of 23 jurisdictions, whether successful or not, while kill registration is compulsory in the majority (16 of 23, Table 3). Thirteen of these 16 agencies apply a non-compliance penalty to hunters failing to report, although enforcement of these requirements varies among agencies. New Brunswick has ex- perimented with interactive voice response technology (Redmond et al. 1997) and Al- berta has used a telephone questionnaire (Lynch and Birkholz 2000) to help assess moose harvests. Modeling is also used to predict population changes resulting from various harvest strategies (Heydon et al. 1992, Schwartz 1993, McKenney et al. 1998). Timmermann and Buss (1998) pro- vide a more detailed description of this subject. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 141 Harvest by Native and Subsistence U s e r s Kay (1997) suggested that historically moose were extremely vulnerable to preda- tion by Natives in western North America and that Native peoples had no effective conservation practices. Reeves and McCabe (1998) estimated annual consump- tion of moose for North American Indians living in moose range to be 0.142 moose per person. Currently, most North American moose management agencies give primary consideration to subsistence use by Cana- dian First Nation peoples and Native Ameri- can peoples in recognition of obligations made under historical Treaties signed by both Federal governments (Crichton et al. 1998). In many areas, they have unfettered access to moose year round and current regulations are considered liberal and unre- strictive given the widespread use of mod- ern technology (Courtois and Beaumont 1999). The harvest by Natives is difficult to quantify and unfortunately little effort has been made to measure the magnitude of this harvest, which some managers believe ap- proaches or exceeds the licensed harvest. In the USA, 4 of 12 agencies reported formal agreements governing moose har- vests have been signed with some tribal bands. They include Montana, Utah, Maine, and Minnesota. The latter state has signed agreements with 2 Ojibwe bands, another is being negotiated and 2 Minnesota bands have closed seasons on their reserves due to low populations. Schrage (2001) re- ported 80 moose taken by Minnesota Na- tives compared to 125 by all non-natives in 2001. Bands in Montana, Utah, and Maine regulate harvests on tribal lands. In Canada, First Nations have signed a few formal agreements with 5 of 11 juris- dictions. They include the Yukon and North- west Territories, British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec. In the Yukon, those agree- ments have yet to be implemented and managers currently estimate harvest levels to equal or exceed those of the licensed harvest based on limited data. The North- west Territories Land Claims Agreement governs subsistence harvesting by First Na- tions in the Inuvialuit, Gwich’in, and Sahtu areas (Marshal 1999). British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec have signed several agreements, while others are being negoti- ated, and many jurisdictions have no agree- ments in place. However all current har- vests by First Nation peoples are poorly documented. In Ontario, the only formal agreement was a 10-year history of annual agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake to take moose in Algonquin Provincial Park from 1990-2000. No agreement was signed in 2001 and documentation of kill magnitude was difficult to obtain under pre- vious agreements. The annual moose harvest by First Na- tion peoples is “substantial” in specific local areas of British Columbia and Ontario. Moose managers in Ontario estimate the harvest by First Nation and Metis peoples may approach the licensed hunting harvest for some Wildlife Management Units in northwestern and northeastern Ontario in areas adjacent to First Nations communities (Ted Armstrong and Peter Davis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, personal communications 2002). First Nation moose harvests are believed to equal or exceed the total licensed harvest in Alberta (7,971 +), at least 50% of the licensed harvest in Saskatchewan (1,706+), equal to double in Manitoba (1,000-2,000), slightly more than half in New Brunswick (1,300+), at least double in Nova Scotia (360+), at least 1,000 in the Northwest Territories, and is thought to equal or exceed harvests by non-First- Nation peoples in the Yukon (743). There are no reliable statistics on harvests by First Nations in Québec, except in the James Bay region where their harvests are considered STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 142 Table. 3. Moose harvest assessment strategies used in North America, 2000-2001. Hunt activity report Kill registration Non-compliance Agency Compulsory Voluntary Compulsory Voluntary penalty4 Yukon Territory X X Fine Northwest Territories X X2,3 Fine British Columbia X X1 Fine Alberta X X2 None Saskatchewan X X N/A Manitoba X X N/A Ontario X X2,3 N/A Quebec X X Fine & loss of license New Brunswick X X Fine & loss of license Nova Scotia X X Fine & jail & 7 yr. Wait-out Newfoundland X X Fine Alaska X1 X1,2 None Washington X X None Idaho X X Fine, jail & loss of license Utah X X N/A Wyoming X X None Montana X X N/A North Dakota X X None Colorado X X Ineligible for draw Minnesota X X Fine & loss of license Maine X X Fine & jail & loss of license Vermont X X Fine & loss of license New Hampshire X X Fine, jail & loss of license 1 Limited draw hunts only (British Columbia – Regions 3,4,5,6,7A,8-incisor and kill information). 2 Export permit/trophy fee. 3 Non-resident hunter only. 4 Variable enforcement. of the same order or greater than that of licensed hunting (St.-Pierre 2001, Réhaume Courtois, Québec Ministère de l’Environ- ment et de la Faune, personal communica- tion 2002). Newfoundland has only 1 First Nation reserve and currently no allowances are made for harvesting of moose by their people. First Nation use of moose in Labra- dor is limited due to the low moose popula- tion (Paul Saunders, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, personal communication ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 143 2002). Moose managers generally presume that First Nation peoples take a higher pro- portion of cows than bulls, although such data are speculative and poorly documented. Both Metis and non-status Indians are testing their perceived rights in court. Metis are considered as any persons of mixed Indian and white ancestry not considered an Indian (Swail 1996). In Ontario, self-iden- tified Metis are considered to be members of and accepted by their local Metis com- munity and organization, which retain a historic Metis community connection in ar- eas where moose hunting is considered a historic activity (Richard Stankiewicz, On- tario Ministry of Natural Resources, per- sonal communication 2002). On February 23, 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal de- cided the case of R. V. Powley et al. (2001), 53 O.R. (3rd) 35, ruling in favor of 2 Metis who claimed moose hunting was an “inte- gral practice, custom or tradition of that Metis community”. This case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (OMNR 2002). Another judge in an Al- berta case (the Crown vs Fergeson) ruled that Metis have the right to hunt anywhere where they have right of access at any time without a license, provided they were raised in the Indian culture (could speak “Indian”, grew up hunting and trapping, etc.), accord- ing to Lynch (Alberta Wildlife Management Consulting, personal communication 2002). In Canada, First Nation peoples are re- stricted to their Treaty areas with respect to unlicensed harvest. Harvest of wildlife by First Nation peo- ples and Metis, including moose, remains a controversial subject and is considered a substantial undocumented kill in most juris- dictions (Crichton 1981, Feit 1987, Kay 1997, Hatter 1999). Co-management be- tween government agencies, First Nations, and Metis is believed by some managers to offer the potential for local control of the moose resource, as long as hunting rights are balanced with conservation efforts (Feit 1987, Nepinak and Payne 1988, Graf 1992, Messier 1996, Crichton et al. 1998, Marshal 1999, Arsenault 2000, Crichton 2001). Crichton (2001) offers 4 ingredients for successful co-management. First Nations must have: a decision making role in devel- opment of management programs; be sup- portive of partnerships; there be recognition of traditional cultural and economic values, including a removal of cultural and linguistic barriers to facilitate use; and, a dispute resolution process to resolve disagreements. Regelin and Franzmann (1998) reported that new laws in Alaska, primarily the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, have dic- tated a priority for harvest by rural citizens, using subsistence regulations to redistribute harvest among users. This law also shifted management responsibility from the state to the federal government. Under this law, all Alaskan residents are potentially qualified as subsistence hunters. As such, there is potential for subsistence use to increase significantly (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2001). Alaska estimated a sub- sistence harvest of 2,000 compared to 5,000 for the 2001 licensed harvest. Regional managers in British Columbia may issue a possession permit for the purpose of suste- nance, while local Fish and Wildlife offices in Alberta report issuing about 100 subsist- ence licenses for “those on the land” (Ian Hatter, British Columbia Wildlife Branch, and Gerry Lynch, Alberta Wildlife Man- agement Consulting, personal communica- tions 2001). Future sustainable harvests and population goals will largely remain elusive until the total harvest, including har- vests by First Nation and Metis peoples and subsistence users, are agreed to and are verifiable. Illegal hunting losses (Timmermann and Buss 1998) appear to be significant in some jurisdictions, including Colorado (Kufeld 1994), Utah (Anonymous 2000b), and On- STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 144 tario (Harnish 2000). Most agencies en- courage all hunters to report illegal infrac- tions using a toll-free telephone number. Ontario has recently introduced a “Moose Watch” Program to help reduce moose poaching (Harnish 2000). MANAGING A NON- HARVEST Parks, Refuges, and Special Areas Most North American jurisdictions where moose occur, provide for areas where hunting is not a primary management objec- tive. Currently 5 U.S. States do not have an open moose hunting season and 19 of 23 jurisdictions provide closed seasons in any- where from 1 to 36 management areas (Fig. 2). The assumed common objective of closed areas including game or wildlife re- serves, national, provincial, territorial, or state parks, or nature reserves, is the pres- ervation of moose in representative natural habitats for education and recreational en- j o y m e n t . F u r t h e r m a i n t e n a n c e o f biodiversity and ecosystem function is often a stated objective. Only 6 of 23 responding jurisdictions indicated management consid- erations or special objectives had been de- veloped for pro-active management in such protected areas. The provision of viewing opportunities and natural history interpreta- tions were commonly integrated in their park’s programs. A review of moose man- agement objectives and programs in parks, refuges and special areas is detailed by Timmermann and Buss (1995). Moose are native to at least 35 North American Na- tional Parks in 16 jurisdictions (Table 4). Isle Royale is perhaps the most famous, boasting a 43-year continuous ecological study of wolves and moose beginning in 1959 (Peterson 2002). Jordan et al. (2000) summarized moose related studies and pro- vided an extensive list (150+) of research papers. A sampling includes a report on osteoporosis and other skeletal pathologies by Hindelang et al. (1992), studies on tooth wear and perodontal disease by Hindelang and Peterson (1993, 2001), and the impact of wolves and moose on vegetative succes- sion by McLaren and Peterson (1994, 1995). Several other National Parks have also yielded moose related research. They in- clude: data on 151 moose (A. a. andersoni) weights and measurements from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, following a herd reduction program (Lynch et al. 1995); eco- logical status of moose and white-tailed deer in Voyageurs National Park, Minne- sota (Gogan et al. 1997); and, a description of extreme moose demographics in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland (McLaren et al. 2000). Population esti- mates vary from unknown in several Al- berta and Alaskan National Parks to as high as 7,738 in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland. Bisset (1987) estimated that the value associated with wildlife ap- preciation (non-consumptive use, vicarious recreation, etc.) could have been as much as CAN $1,623 M in the early 1980s. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation is extended to the follow- ing individuals who provided unpublished information in response to a 10-page ques- tionnaire survey: Wayne Regelin, Doug Larsen, and Kris Hundertmark, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Anchorage, and Soldotna, AK; Donny Martorello, Department of Fish and Wild- life, Washington State, Olympia, WA; Bradley Compton, Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho Falls, ID; Jim Karpowitz, Utah Divi- sion of Wildlife Resources, Price, UT; Kerry Olson, Justin Binfet, and Tim Thomas, Wyoming Game and Fish, Cheyenne and Sheridan, WY; Jerry Brown, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Libby, MT; William Jensen, North Dakota Game and Fish De- partment, Bismark, ND; John Ellenberger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junc- tion, CO; Mike Schrage, Fond Du Lac Band ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 145 of Lake Superior Chippewa, Conservation Department, Cloquet, MN; Gretchen Mehmel, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Roosevelt, MN; Karen Morris, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bangor, ME; Kristine Bontaites, New Hampshire Fish and Game, New Hamp- ton, NH; Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, St. Johnsbury, VT; Howard Kilpatrick, North Franklin, CT; Bill Woytek, Massachusetts Wildlife, Westborough, MA; Rick Ward, Yukon Department of Renew- able Resources, Whitehorse, YK; Alasdair Veitch, Wildlife Management Division, Department of Renewable Resources, Yellowknife, NWT; Ian Hatter, British Co- Table 4. Moose population status in North American National Parks (N.P.). Location Population Year of Estimated Jurisdiction/Park State/Province estimate survey by Acadia N.P. Maine 6 2000 Guess Banff N.P. Alberta — — — Beringland Bridge Preserve Alberta — — — Cape Breton Highlands N.P. Nova Scotia 2,500 2001 Aerial survey Denali N.P. & Preserve Alaska 2,000 1990 Aerial survey Elk Island N.P. Alberta 400 2002 Guess Forillion N.P. Quebec 122 1997 Aerial survey Fundy N.P. New Brunswick 123 1993 Aerial & ground Gates of Arctic N.P. & Preserve Alaska — — — Glacier N.P. Montana 100 1985 — Grand Teton N.P. Wyoming 120 1988 — Gros Morne N.P. Newfoundland 7,738 1995 Aerial survey Isle Royale N.P. Michigan 900 2001 Aerial survey Ivvavik N.P. Yukon Territory 300 — Guess Jasper N.P. Alberta 100-150 1992 Ground survey Kenai National Wildl. Refuge Alaska — — — Kejimkujik N.P. Nova Scotia 0-5 2001 Guess Kluane N.P. Yukon Territory 700 1997 Aerial survey Kootenay N.P. British Columbia 75 1985 CWS biologists Kouchibouguac N.P. New Brunswick 110 1995 Aerial survey Lac Mauricie N.P. Quebec 212 1989 — Lake Clark N.P. & Preserve Alaska — — — Mt. Revelstoke & Glacier N.P. British Columbia 15-20 1991 Ground survey Nahanni N.P. Northwest Territories 300 1979 Aerial survey Noatak Preserve Alaska — — — Prince Albert N.P. Saskatchewan 950+ 1997 Aerial survey Pukaskwa N.P. Ontario 411±143 1999 Aerial survey Riding Mountain N.P. Manitoba 5,000 2000 Aerial survey Terra Nova N.P. Newfoundland 150-200 2002 Guess Voyageur N.P. Minnesota 80-100 1998 Aerial survey Vuntut N.P. Yukon Territory 875 — Guess Waterton Lakes N.P. Alberta 50 1988 Aerial & ground Wood Buffalo N.P. Alberta 1,300 1989 — Wrangell St. Elias N.P. Alaska — — — Yellowstone N.P. Montana 200 1990 Aerial survey STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 146 lumbia, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC; Gerry Lynch, Alberta Wildlife Management Con- sulting, Sherwood Park, AB; Rhys Beaulieu, Saskatchewan Environment and Resources Management, Meadow Lake, SK; Vince Crichton, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protec- tion Branch, Manitoba Conservation, Win- nipeg, MB; Rick Stankiewicz, Jim Saunders, and Howard Smith, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Section, Peter- borough, ON; Gilles Lamontagne and Réhaume Courtois, Québec Ministère de l’Environment et de la Faune, Québec City, PQ; Gerry Redmond, New Brunswick Maritime Forest Ranger School, Fredericton, NB; Tony Nette, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Kentville, NS; Paul Saunders and Brian McLaren, Newfound- land and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Inland Fish and Wildlife Division, Corner Brook, NF. In addition, the following provided writ- ten and verbal information on moose status in non hunted jurisdictions, clarification on specific questions, assistance in question- naire mailouts, and preparing tables and figures: Mary Hindelang, Chassell, MI; Rolf Peterson, Michigan Technological Univer- sity, Houghton MI; Adrian Wydeven, Wis- consin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, WI; Al Hicks, New York State; Howard Kilpatrick, North Franklin, CT; Bill W o y t e k , M a s s a c h u s e t t s W i l d l i f e , Westborough, MA; Marty Orwig, North American Moose Foundation, MacKay, ID; Keith Wade, Pukaskwa National Park, Marathon, ON; Al Franzmann, Soldotna, AK; Art Rodgers, Centre for Northern For- est Ecosystem Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, ON; Susan Rodgers, Thunder Bay ON; Bruce Ranta, Ted Armstrong, and Peter Davis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Kenora, Thunder Bay, and Cochrane, ON; and, Brian Hutchinson, Parks Canada, Corn- wall, ON. REFERENCES AHO, R. W., S. M. SCHMITT, J. HENDRICKSON, and T. R. MINZEY. 1996. Michigan’s translocated moose population: 10 years later. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Report Number 3245. Wild- life Division, Lansing, Michigan, USA. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1980. Alaska wildlife management plans. Species Management Policies. Juneau, Alaska, USA. . 1990. Strategic plan for manage- ment of moose in region 1, southeast Alaska. 1990-94. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, USA. . 2001. Koyukuk River moose management plan 2000-2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA. ALEXANDER, C. E. 1993. The status and management of moose in Vermont. Alces 29:187-195. , P. FINK, L. GARLAND, and F. HAMMOND. 1998. Moose management plan for the State of Vermont, 1998- 2007. Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury Vermont, USA. ANONYMOUS. 1997. Managing deer, moose and bear in New Hampshire 1997-2005. Wildlife Division, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire, USA. . 2000a. Maine moose goals and objectives 2000-2010. Maine Depart- ment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Bangor, Maine, USA. . 2000b. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for moose. Utah Department of Natu- ral Resources, Division of Wildlife Re- sources. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. . 2001. Vermont moose hunter’s guide. Vermont Fish and Wildlife De- ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 147 partment, St. Johnsbury, Vermont, USA. ARMSTRONG, E. R., and R. SIMONS. 1999. Moose hunting opportunities for physi- cally- challenged hunters in Ontario: a pilot study. Alces 35:125-134. ARSENAULT, A. A. 2000. Status and man- agement of moose (Alces alces) in Sas- katchewan. Saskatchewan Environ- ment and Resource Management, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 00-1. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada BISSET, A. R. 1987. The economic impor- tance of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:677-698. . 1996. Standards and guidelines for moose population inventory in On- tario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Re- sources, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Pe- terborough, Ontario, Canada. , and M. A. MCLAREN. 1999. Moose population aerial inventory plan for Ontario: 1999-2002. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Sci- ence and Technology. Information Report IR-004. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. BONTAITES, K. M., and K. GUSTAFSON. 1993. The history and status of moose and moose management in New Hampshire. Alces 29:163-167. , , and R. MAKIN. 2000. A Gasaway-type moose survey in New Hampshire using infrared thermal im- agery: preliminary results. Alces 36:69- 75. BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRON- MENT, LANDS AND PARKS. 1996. Wild- life harvest strategy, improving British Columbia’s wildlife harvest regulations. Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Co- lumbia, Canada. BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION. 2001. Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis / 2001-02. Monday Tourism Publica- tions, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. B U S S , M . , R . G O L L A T , a n d H . R . TIMMERMANN. 1989. Moose hunter shooting proficiency in Ontario. Alces 25: 98-103. CHILD, K. N., and D. A. AITKEN. 1989. Selective harvests, hunters and moose in British Columbia. Alces 19:162-177. COMPTON, B. B., and L. E. OLDENBURG. 1994. The status and management of moose in Idaho. Alces 30:57-62. COURTOIS, R., and A. BEAUMONT. 1999. The influence of accessibility on moose hunt- ing in northwestern Québec. Alces 35:41-50. , and G. LAMONTAGNE. 1997. Man- agement system and current status of moose in Québec. Alces 33:97-114. , and . 1999. The protec- tion of cows: its impact on moose hunt- ing and moose populations. Alces 35:11- 29. CRICHTON, V. F. J. 1981. The impact of treaty Indian harvest on a Manitoba moose herd. Alces 17:56-63. . 2001. Co-management - the Manitoba experience. Alces 37:163- 173. , W. L. REGELIN, A. W. FRANZMANN, and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1998. The future of moose management and research. Pages 655-663 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North Ameri- can Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. DODGE, W. B., S. R. WINTERSTEIN, D. E. BEYER, JR., and H. R. CAMPA. 2001. Why aren’t there more moose in Michi- gan’s Upper Peninsula? Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Lansing, Michigan, USA. FEIT, H.A. 1987. North American native hunting and management of moose STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 148 populations. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:25-42. FRANZMANN, A. W. 2000. Moose. Pages 578-600 in S. Demarais and P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and Man- agement of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. GASAWAY, W. C., S. D. DUBOIS, D. J. REED, and S. J. HARBO. 1986. Estimating moose population parameters from aerial surveys. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Number 22. Fairbanks, Alaska, USA. GOGAN, J. P., K. D. KOZIE, E. M. OLEXA, and N. S. DUNCAN. 1997. Ecological status of moose and white-tailed deer at Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. Alces 33:187-201. GRAF, R. P. 1992. Status and management of moose in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Alces Supplement 1:22-28. HARNISH, D. 2000. Moose Watch reduces illegal hunting in Northeast region. News release, December 8/00. Ontario Min- istry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste Marie Ontario, Canada. HATTER, I. W. 1999. An evaluation of moose harvest management in central and northern British Columbia. Alces 35:91-103. HEYDON, C., D. EULER, H. SMITH, and A. BISSET. 1992. Modeling the selective moose harvest program in Ontario. Alces 28:111-121. HICKS, A. C. 1986. The history and current status of moose in New York. Alces 22:245-252. HINDELANG, M., R. O. PETERSON. 1993. Relationship of mandibular tooth wear to gender, age, and periodontal disease of Isle Royale moose. Alces 29:63-73. , and . 2001. Skeletal integ- rity in moose at Isle Royale National P a r k : b o n e m i n e r a l d e n s i t y a n d osteopathology related to senescence. Alces 36:61-68. , , and A. L. MACLEAN. 1992. Osteoporosis in moose on Isle Royale: a pilot study of bone mineral density using CT scans. Alces 28:35-39. HNILICKA, P., and M. ZORNES. 1994. Status and management of moose in Wyo- ming. Alces 30:101-107. HUNDERTMARK, K. J., and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1996. Considerations for intensive management of moose in Alaska. Alces 32:15-24. , T. H. THELEN, and R. T. BOWYER. 1998. Effects of population density and selective harvest on antler phenotype in simulated moose populations. Alces 34:375-383. (IDFG) IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1990. Species management plan 1991-1995: Moose. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho, USA. JORDAN, P. A., B. E. MCLAREN, and S. M. SELL. 2000. A summary of research on moose and related ecological topics at Isle Royale, USA. Alces 36:233-267. JUDD, S. L. 1972. Minnesota’s 1971 moose season. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 8:240-243. KARNS, P. D. 1998. Population distribution, density and trends. Pages 125-139 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of t h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n M o o s e . Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, D.C., USA. KAY, C. E. 1997. Aboriginal overkill and the biogeography of moose in western North America. Alces 33:141-164. KELSALL, J. P. 1987. The distribution and status of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:1-10. , and E. S. TELFER. 1974. Biogeog- raphy of moose with particular refer- e n c e t o w e s t e r n N o r t h A m e r i c a . ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 149 Naturaliste Canadien 101:117-130. KOVACH, S. D., C. C. SCHWARTZ, R. L. WILLIS, and T. H. SPRAKER. 1998. Modeling moose populations for man- agement decision making in Alaska. Alces 34:125-138. KUFELD, R. C. 1994. Status and manage- ment of moose in Colorado. Alces 30:41-44. , and D. C. BOWDEN. 1996. Survival rates of Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Colorado. Alces 32:9-13. LAMOUREUX, J. 1999. Effects of selective harvest on moose populations of the Bas-Saint-Laurent region, Québec. Alces 35:191-202. LEEGE, T. A. 1990. Moose management plan 1991-1995. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho, USA. LEGG, D. 1995. The economic impact of moose hunting in Ontario, 1993. On- tario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. , and M. KENNEDY. 2000. The economic impact of moose hunting in Ontario, 1996. Analysis and Planning Section, Land Use Planning Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. LENARZ, M. S. 1998. Precision and bias of aerial moose surveys in northeastern Minnesota. Alces 34:117-124. LYNCH, G. M., and S. BIRKHOLZ. 2000. A telephone questionnaire to assess moose harvest. Alces 36:105-109. , B. LAJEUNESSE, J. WILLMAN, and E. S. TELFER. 1995. Moose weights and measurements from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, Canada. Alces 31:199- 207. , and G. E. SHUMAKER. 1995. GPS and GIS assisted moose surveys. Alces 31:145-151. MARSHAL, J. P. 1999. Co-management of moose in the Gwich’in settlement area, Northwest Territories. Alces 35:151- 158. MCKENNEY, D. W., R. S. REMPEL, L. A. VENIER, YONGHE WANG, and A. R. BISSET. 1998. Development and appli- cation of a spatially explicit moose popu- lation model. Canadian Journal of Zo- ology 76:1922-1931. MCLAREN, B. E., C. MCCARTHY, and S. MAHONEY. 2000. Extreme moose demographics in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland. Alces 36:217- 232. , and R. O. P E T E R S O N. 1994. Wolves, moose, and tree rings on Isle Royale. Science 266:1555-1558. , and . 1995. Seeing the f o r e s t w i t h t h e t r e e s : u s i n g dendrochonology to investigate moose- induced changes to a forest understory. Alces 31:77-86. MERCER, W. E., and B. E. MCLAREN. 2002. Evidence of carrying capacity effects in Newfoundland moose. Alces 38:123- 141. MESSIER, F. 1996. Moose co-management in the Trilateral Agreement Territory: principles and recommendations based on scientific knowledge and aboriginal rights. Report to the Algonquins of Barriere Lake- Trilateral Secretariat, Hull, Québec, Canada. MORRIS, K., and K. ELOWE. 1993. The status of moose and their management in Maine. Alces 29:91-97. (MLCP) MINISTERE DU LOISIR, DE LA CHASSE ET DE PÊCHE. 1993. Plan de gestion de l’Orignal, 1994-1998. Objectifs de gestion et scénarios d’exploitation. Éditeur officiel du Québec, Québec, Canada. NEPINAK, H., and H. PAYNE. 1988. The hunting rights of Indian people in Mani- toba: an historic overview and a con- temporary explication towards enhanced conservation through joint management. STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA – TIMMERMANN ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 150 Alces 24:195-200. (OMNR) ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1980. Moose management policy. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. . 2001. 2000 review of moose population objectives in Ontario. Draft Report of 3 regional workshops. On- tario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. . 2002. Metis and Non-Status Rights Requests. Febuary 2002 News Release, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. PEEK, J. M., and K. I. MORRIS. 1998. Status of moose in the contiguous United States. Alces 34:423-434. PETERSON, R. L. 1955. North American Moose. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PETERSON, R. O. 2002. Ecological studies of wolves on Isle Royale. 2001-2002. School of Forestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA. , and R. E. PAGE. 1993. Detection of moose in midwinter from fixed-wing aircraft over dense forest cover. Wild- life Society Bulletin 21:80-86. PROVINCIAL AUDITOR. 1998. Audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Program. Toronto, On- tario, Canada. (http://www.gov.on.ca/ opa/english/e98/309.htm). REDMOND, G. W., A. ARSENEAULT, and C. LANTEIGNE. 1997. Using technology to survey moose hunters in New Bruns- wick. Alces 33:75-83. REEVES, H. M., and R. E. MCCABE. 1998. Of moose and man. Pages 1-74 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of t h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n M o o s e . Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, D.C., USA. REGELIN, W. L., and A. W. FRANZMANN. 1998. Past, present, and future moose management and research in Alaska. Alces 34:279-286. REID, R. 1997. The economic value of resident hunting in British Columbia. 1995. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. RODGERS, A. R. 2001. Moose. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minnesota, USA. SCHRAGE, M. 2001. Status of Minnesota’s moose populations, seasons and har- vest: 2001. Fond du Lac Resource Management Division, 1720 Big Lake Road, Cloquet, Minnesota, USA. SCHWARTZ, C. C. 1993. Constructing sim- ple population models for moose man- agement. Alces 29:235-242. , K. J. HUNDERTMARK, and T. H. SPRAKER. 1992. An evaluation of selec- tive bull moose harvest on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces 28:1-13. SIGOUIN, D., S. ST.-ONGE, R. COURTOIS, and J.-P. OUELLET. 1999. Change in hunt- ing activity and hunters’ perceptions following the introduction of selective harvest in Québec. Alces 35:105-123. SIMMONS, G. 1997. Independent review of the moose and deer tag allocation for Ontario. Recommendations from On- tario’s hunters. Queens Printer, To- ronto, Ontario, Canada. SMITS, C. M. M., R. M. P. WARD, and D. G. LARSEN. 1994. Helicopter or fixed- wing aircraft; a cost-benefit analysis for moose surveys in Yukon Territory. Alces 30:45-50. STEWART, R. R. 1978. Introduction of sex and age specific hunting licenses for the moose harvest in Saskatchewan. Pro- ceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 14:194-208. S T . - P I E R R E , D . 2 0 0 1 . A n a l y s e e t interprétation des résultats de la saison ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 TIMMERMANN – STATUS OF MOOSE IN NORTH AMERICA 151 de chasse 1999 pour la zone 17 et 22. Pages 201-204, 221-225 in C. Daigle, editor. Compte rendu de l’atelier sur la grande faune – 2000 et bilan de récolte des grands gibiers 1999-2000. Société de la faune et des parcs du Québec, Québec City, Québec, Canada. SWAIL, P. J. 1996. Blais vs the Queen. A conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada on August 22, 1996, for hunting big game out of season contrary to Section 26 of the Manitoba Wildlife Act. http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/ 2003/2003Scc44.html. TELFER, E. S. 1984.Circumpolar distribution and habitat requirements of moose (Alces alces). Pages 145-182 in R. Olson, R. Hastings, and F. Geddes, edi- tors. Northern Ecology and Resource Management. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. TIMMERMANN, H. R. 1987. Moose harvest strategies in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:565- 579. . 1993. Use of aerial surveys for estimating and monitoring moose populations- a review. Alces 29:35-46. , and M. E. BUSS. 1995. The status and management of moose in North America- early 1990s. Alces 31:1-14. , and . 1998. Population and harvest management. Pages 559- 615 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Man- agement of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, D.C., USA. , R. GOLLAT, and H. A. WHITLAW. 2003. Reviewing Ontario’s moose management policy— 1980-2000: tar- gets achieved, lessons learned. Alces 38: 11-45. VECELLIO, G. M., R. D. DEBLINGER, and E. CARDOZA. 1993. Status and manage- ment of moose in Massachusetts. Alces 29:1-7. WARD, M. P., W. C. GASAWAY, and M. M. DEHN. 2000. Precision of moose den- sity estimates derived from stratifica- tion survey data. Alces 36:197-203. WILTON, M. L. 1995. The case against calling and hunting dominant moose during the main rut period - a viewpoint. Alces 31:173-180. WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. 1990. A strategic plan for the comprehensive management of wildlife in Wyoming 1990-1995. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA. YUKON RENEWABLE RESOURCES. 1996. Moose management guidelines. Fish and Wild- life Branch, Department of Renewable Resources, Whitehorse, Yukon Terri- tory, Canada. . 1999. Yukon Moose. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Department of Re- newable Resources, Whitehorse, Yu- kon Territory, Canada.