# Moose Population Explodes on Isle Royale



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

The least expensive way to handle this situation is to allow hunters on the island. A limited cow hunt would be a huge success in terms of saving tax payer dollars and tons of meat to go unwasted. 
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/outdoors/2017/04/18/moose-population-isle-royale/100592498/


----------



## Duckhunter66 (Nov 24, 2013)

Never going to happen....


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Least expensive would probably be to have yoopers volunteer to trap 25 wolves. Throw them on a boat and set them free. Catching wolves just south of the Keweenaw should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

I always hear that sportsmen groups volunteer to pay to move wolves from the UP to the lower. Maybe they will extend their service to the island just to get rid of them.


----------



## BearAce (Feb 23, 2002)

A controlled hunt would make so much more sense. The same thing is going to happen to these new wolves that they relocate. The wolves will eventually die out.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

BearAce said:


> A controlled hunt would make so much more sense. The same thing is going to happen to these new wolves that they relocate. The wolves will eventually die out.


Not necasarrily. They did fine with multiple packs for decades. Then a resident of the island brought a dog with parvo on the island and the wolf pack was severely wiped out. The numbers went down to less than 10. They recovered eventually but they were all inbred from those same few wolves. That caused their issue.

They have wolves that visit the island on occasion when there is ice. The last couple wolves that visited left without staying.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

DirtySteve said:


> Least expensive would probably be to have yoopers volunteer to trap 25 wolves. Throw them on a boat and set them free. Catching wolves just south of the Keweenaw should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
> 
> I always hear that sportsmen groups volunteer to pay to move wolves from the UP to the lower. Maybe they will extend their service to the island just to get rid of them.


All that's doing is relocating wolves from one part of the UP to another. Now if wolves were treated like Cubans and allowed to drown in route that would be s different story.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

DirtySteve said:


> Not necasarrily. They did fine with multiple packs for decades. Then a resident of the island brought a dog with parvo on the island and the wolf pack was severely wiped out. The numbers went down to less than 10. They recovered eventually but they were all inbred from those same few wolves. That caused their issue.
> 
> They have wolves that visit the island on occasion when there is ice. The last couple wolves that visited left without staying.


Adding wolves to Isle Royale: _In 1944, conservationist Aldo Leopold made such a recommendation in a letter to the acting director of the park service — and foresaw the study that was to begin 14 years later. “Isle Royale must present a wonderful opportunity for long-time records on the interaction of moose and browse,” Leopold wrote, “and if wolves are added, on the interaction of all three. I hope the Park Service will not overlook this opportunity.”_

Not so sure new wolves would stick around. The last few that came across literally cleared out in short order. After thinking long about this, I'd have to cast my vote for a hunt. A quick reduction in the moose population would do a lot more to relieve the plant depredation. Not to mention over crowding of a population leads to less desirable ends for many of that species. I know scientists are not concerned with this factor.

I've visited Isle Royale twice. Once in 1992 when the Moose numbers were high, and in 2007 when they were very low. There were three know wolf packs in 1992, they crashed shortly after my visit and had regained their numbers and nearly eaten themselves out of house and home by 2007. One thing this study seems to be telling us is that introducing predators does not work as well as regulated hunting to even out fluctuations in animal populations.

If they open a draw I'll put in.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Nostromo said:


> Adding wolves to Isle Royale: _In 1944, conservationist Aldo Leopold made such a recommendation in a letter to the acting director of the park service — and foresaw the study that was to begin 14 years later. “Isle Royale must present a wonderful opportunity for long-time records on the interaction of moose and browse,” Leopold wrote, “and if wolves are added, on the interaction of all three. I hope the Park Service will not overlook this opportunity.”_
> 
> Not so sure new wolves would stick around. The last few that came across literally cleared out in short order. After thinking long about this, I'd have to cast my vote for a hunt. A quick reduction in the moose population would do a lot more to relieve the plant depredation. Not to mention over crowding of a population leads to less desirable ends for many of that species. I know scientists are not concerned with this factor.
> 
> ...


I would be all for it. It would be the top of my list for a dream hunt. Unfortunately I just don't think it will ever happen.


----------



## mattawanhunter (Oct 30, 2011)

Sure wish the Main Land Moose population would increase enough for a hunt, sure would hate to hit one in a car!


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Nostromo said:


> Adding wolves to Isle Royale: _In 1944, conservationist Aldo Leopold made such a recommendation in a letter to the acting director of the park service — and foresaw the study that was to begin 14 years later. “Isle Royale must present a wonderful opportunity for long-time records on the interaction of moose and browse,” Leopold wrote, “and if wolves are added, on the interaction of all three. I hope the Park Service will not overlook this opportunity.”_
> 
> Not so sure new wolves would stick around. The last few that came across literally cleared out in short order. After thinking long about this, I'd have to cast my vote for a hunt. A quick reduction in the moose population would do a lot more to relieve the plant depredation. Not to mention over crowding of a population leads to less desirable ends for many of that species. I know scientists are not concerned with this factor.
> 
> ...


They also planted wolves in the 1950's on the island. They went back and killed them all.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Richard P Smith held a moose hunt in michigan in 2011 when we had 500 moose. I believe he had a camera contest called it a moose hunt. Offered 1st 2nd and 3rd prize.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

Just let Ma Nature do her thing,she is really good at it.Everytime we humans start messin with things we screw it all up.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

DirtySteve said:


> They have wolves that visit the island on occasion when there is ice. The last couple wolves that visited left without staying.


They looked around and decided it wasn't worth staying. The wolf, smarter than humans.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

WAUB-MUKWA said:


> They also planted wolves in the 1950's on the island. They went back and killed them all.


I get the impression you dislike wolves.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Ranger Ray said:


> They looked around and decided it wasn't worth staying. The wolf, smarter than humans.


Something they didn't like that's for sure.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Nostromo said:


> I get the impression you dislike wolves.


I dislike not being able to control the ones that lose their fear.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

Wait until the moose stomp a few tourists then they will start controlling their numbers.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Martin Looker said:


> Wait until the moose stomp a few tourists then they will start controlling their numbers.


You are probably right. The Fed will let the moose population grow and control or eliminate tourist numbers.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

It is completely asinine there is not a hunt there with 1600 of them. I do not know what the magic number is but that seems like a lot of moose with basically zero predators. Set it up like the elk lotto. The DNR makes money, the herd is kept in check and some hunters get the opportunity to take a fantastic animal. I'll buy the first entry!


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Yes I'm so tired of idiots making stupid decisions. The govt will
1. Let the moose population get too high before they act.
2. The action they take will be the most ineffective and most expensive way.
3. They will continue the action for at least three years.
4. After the Eco-system is destroyed, and disease runs rampant and crashes the moose population, they will transplant moose, and wolf, so they can do a study to see how well both can make a comeback.
5. Will use the island as an example of how much the govt has done for the environment.

Instead of what they should do
1. Hold a limited hunt on the island.
2. Continue to hold hunts every year, regulating the proper population, for the good of the system, and moose.
3. Use some of the moose from the island to transplant to the UP, and other states, to boost and start other sustainable populations.

All the while bringing recreational money into the economy, and DNR. 

Nope, sounds to good, we will go the stupid route.


----------



## old graybeard (Jan 19, 2006)

I suppose there are good reasons not to but why can't they transplant some to the main land?


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Would not be a bad idea, but until we get the wolf population taken care of on the mainland, it's a waste of time, money, and resources.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

Bms said:


> Yes I'm so tired of idiots making stupid decisions. The govt will
> 1. Let the moose population get too high before they act.
> 2. The action they take will be the most ineffective and most expensive way.
> 3. They will continue the action for at least three years.
> ...


Once and for all the DNR cannot manage the island. It is run by the park service and is federal land and not state. The DNR has nothing to do with the island. Isle Royale has failed. We cannot continue to supplement eco systems with artificial environments.


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Yes, I understand, the Dnr does not run the island, the NPS does, however, if we we're ever to do something smart with the island( like have a hunt), the MDNR would receive the money since the island is part of Michigan. And I wound not say it failed, it was successful in proving that the island is not large enough to maintain a healthy wolf population.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Bms said:


> Yes, I understand, the Dnr does not run the island, the NPS does, however, if we we're ever to do something smart with the island( like have a hunt), the MDNR would receive the money since the island is part of Michigan. And I wound not say it failed, it was successful in proving that the island is not large enough to maintain a healthy wolf population.


Pretty doubtful that we would make any money. If we did it would likely be insignificant. The elk hunt brings in something like $250k or less with the price of the licenses and the $5 entry fees to the dwg. The man hours put in to manage the hunt over 2-3 hunt periods a year combined with all the information gathering, all the testing they do with the heads,printing guides paying,license retailers etc has to eat up the majority of the proceeds. Head tests alone would account for the $100 license fee they charge per animal. They test for several things. They have a large crew that oversees the elk hunt. I would imagine a moose hunt would the very similar.


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

We have almost twice as many moose as elk in a area that is 1/10 the area the elk are in. The moose population is increasing 22% per year. The state could have 200-300 tags available every year for the next few years to get the population down, then 150-200 per year to maintain. Moose tags in other states go for $400-1000, non residents $800-3000. Draw fees could easily be $20 on up. Your harvest rate would be one one of the highest in the states , because of area vs population. Now I'm not saying to go out and rape people for draws and license, but we could do much better. You could double the rated for elk and still be very fair. I'm not saying to do it but you could even quadruple the price for elk license draws, ( I think that's too much) but you would still be in line with all other states. If you really look at the numbers, it would easily be a profitable hunt.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Bms said:


> We have almost twice as many moose as elk in a area that is 1/10 the area the elk are in. The moose population is increasing 22% per year. The state could have 200-300 tags available every year for the next few years to get the population down, then 150-200 per year to maintain. Moose tags in other states go for $400-1000, non residents $800-3000. Draw fees could easily be $20 on up. Your harvest rate would be one one of the highest in the states , because of area vs population. Now I'm not saying to go out and rape people for draws and license, but we could do much better. You could double the rated for elk and still be very fair. I'm not saying to do it but you could even quadruple the price for elk license draws, ( I think that's too much) but you would still be in line with all other states. If you really look at the numbers, it would easily be a profitable hunt.


Your numbers are a bit off for the amount of tags they can sell. The avg yr the wolves only ate between 40 and 70 moose Depending on the size of the wolf population. They only needed to eat about 45-50 to keep the population in check. There were two really high kill years with something like 150 moose kills. Those 2 years were decades apart.from each other in the study.


We might be able to have one nice cull the first yr but the number of tags would have to go way down. 

Moose cows don't reproduce until after their 2nd birthday. Only about 50% actually give birth.


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Figuring keeping the herd at 1000(from what I read is sustainable), herd growth rate averages 22% over the last few years( basically without predators ) that's a additional 220 animals every year. So issue 150 tags a year, even 100 tags, pricing them at quadruple the price of current elk tags+draw( which would still be cheap for a moose hunt), and the success rate would be very good, only because of the area involved. You would have hunters jumping over backwards to get one. The success rate would be key.


----------



## red wolf (Apr 1, 2014)

Transplant to the northern lower like elk..


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Love it, I think we have as much chance at that as we do transplanting the wolves to Montcolm county


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

The wolves need to target cows, institute MAPRs and that'll fix it.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Bms said:


> Figuring keeping the herd at 1000(from what I read is sustainable), herd growth rate averages 22% over the last few years( basically without predators ) that's a additional 220 animals every year. So issue 150 tags a year, even 100 tags, pricing them at quadruple the price of current elk tags+draw( which would still be cheap for a moose hunt), and the success rate would be very good, only because of the area involved. You would have hunters jumping over backwards to get one. The success rate would be key.


The issue is you aren't looking at things that cull the herd besides predation. And you have to look at growth rates more than just the last few years. When you read through all the yearly reports from the study mother nature claims a lot of moose even when the wolf population was very high. There were periods when the moose population would go up with over 40 wolves on the island.....then issues like severe winter, lack of food or winter ticks would wipe out a bunch at once. Hunters won't only cull only the weak ones. 

I am not against a hunt. I am just pointing out that this scenario is nothing like the elk herd some 400 miles southeast of the island. I don't think you would be harvesting as many as you think after the first year.


----------



## Bms (Aug 18, 2015)

Dirty, 
I have to agree it's nothing like the Elk herd, someone else used that as a comparison so I continued with it. You are correct that the moose population is not a steady incline and there are other factors involved. I guess my main points are 
1. It's a resource that should not be wasted.
2. A hunt would be a much better way to have a steady population, and actually study what is really happening.
3. It could be a great money maker for the DNR, and the the local economy.
I'm not really trying to argue, or be difficult, it's just frustrating having such great opportunities wasted, I'm all for studies and scientific research, but the study has went on for 60 years, it's the same prey-predator relationship that it's been forever. We have anti-hunting groups/people in charge and influencing OUR resources under the guise of science.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Bms said:


> Dirty,
> I have to agree it's nothing like the Elk herd, someone else used that as a comparison so I continued with it. You are correct that the moose population is not a steady incline and there are other factors involved. I guess my main points are
> 1. It's a resource that should not be wasted.
> 2. A hunt would be a much better way to have a steady population, and actually study what is really happening.
> ...



Yeah I agree. I would like to see the hunt too. On this one we won't be just fighting the antis. There are plenty of people who just want isle royal left alone. There are people thay believe the study should be "played out". I don't understand why they don't think it already has. Many of those people are on the hunting side of the fence. 

Anyway good chatting with you.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

https://www.doi.gov/blog/hunting-and-fishing-national-parks-and-fish-and-wildlife-refuges

I don't have anything to add. So, I thought I would put up a link.


----------



## sourdough44 (Mar 2, 2008)

I would strongly support a moose hunt, taint gonna happen though. The last I heard they were going to transplant wolves out there. What ever happened to 'letting nature take it's course?

There's $$ to be made with wolf study. In years past the wolves killed most of the moose then died or moved on. Even with that they say they only take a modest percentage of U.P. deer. How is that?

Just think of the $$ they could raise with moose hunts at $3000 each?


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

I would recommend one of two options for the island.Option one=let nature do its thing.Two=Wipe out the moose completely and restock the island with woodland caribou like it had before we wiped them out.While this may not be a popular opinion but it is mine.The whole moose & wolf thing has played out.It didn't work.Old ma nature has spoken.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

I keep seeing academic welfare remarks towards the study. I'd have to agree with those statements. An article put out a week ago said Isle Royale was the least visited National park. I did see something over the winter about a new shuttle service going out of Grand Marais or Grand Portage, Minn. Someone bought a couple ferry boats and plan daily trips out to the island. A 30 minute boat ride seems better than the 5 hour one from Copper Harbor. From where I live it's better to drive to Minnesota and takes the same amount of time as it would to Cooper Harbor.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

WAUB-MUKWA said:


> I keep seeing academic welfare remarks towards the study. I'd have to agree with those statements. An article put out a week ago said Isle Royale was the least visited National park. I did see something over the winter about a new shuttle service going out of Grand Marais or Grand Portage, Minn. Someone bought a couple ferry boats and plan daily trips out to the island. A 30 minute boat ride seems better than the 5 hour one from Copper Harbor. From where I live it's better to drive to Minnesota and takes the same amount of time as it would to Cooper Harbor.


It's a unique place and too much visitation would be harmful. If times an issue for you take the plane.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sourdough44 said:


> I would strongly support a moose hunt, taint gonna happen though. The last I heard they were going to transplant wolves out there. What ever happened to 'letting nature take it's course?
> 
> There's $$ to be made with wolf study. In years past the wolves killed most of the moose then died or moved on. Even with that they say they only take a modest percentage of U.P. deer. How is that?
> 
> Just think of the $$ they could raise with moose hunts at $3000 each?


I am all for hunts. I don't see a huge economic gain though. Non resident moose tags in Alaska are $400. Canadien tags are $485 canadien dollars....so that is like $340 US dollars. I don't think you are going to attract many people to spend that kind of money and then have to pay transportation and run their own hunt. Plan their own accommodations and food etc. No place to butcher or store meat etc... I am not saying people wouldnt do it I certainly would. I just don't think you can sell a tag for 6 times the going rate to go there.

On top of that you are only talking about a handful of tags a yr. They would break even or lose money on running a hunt there. The main income will be the $5 applications. They might be able to up those to $10-20 and make some money. Even then you run the risk of pricing people out of the lotttery. You have to think is it better to sell 75k $5 applications or 20k $20 applications.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Nostromo said:


> I don't think that's necessarily true. It seems as though they act when the evidence is conclusive. Deer culls and limited hunting in metro parks is an example of that. If they conclude that their wolf-moose / predator-prey study has run it's course. A hunt or a cull is the logical choice.


Like when the deer yards were depleted in the U.P.?

How about the wolves? goal population was 600, it's double if not triple.

Asian carp in the Great Lakes?

Zebra muscles?

Gobies?
Too many examples to mention.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> Like when the deer yards were depleted in the U.P.?
> 
> How about the wolves? goal population was 600, it's double if not triple.
> 
> ...


It's not up to the MDNR. It's up to the NPS. 

I personally support letting it play out to the end. I guess the question is what is the end. Hopefully that decision is left to Rolf Peterson and crew. He is the guy with the knowledge and experience to make the call.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> It's not up to the MDNR. It's up to the NPS.
> 
> I personally support letting it play out to the end. I guess the question is what is the end. Hopefully that decision is left to Rolf Peterson and crew. He is the guy with the knowledge and experience to make the call.



I would assume when there are no breeding wolves left it is the end. It seems like we are there to me.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

swampbuck said:


> It's not up to the MDNR. It's up to the NPS.
> 
> I personally support letting it play out to the end. I guess the question is what is the end. Hopefully that decision is left to Rolf Peterson and crew. He is the guy with the knowledge and experience to make the call.


As noted earlier, the Feds probably won't handle it if it comes to a hunt, they'll let the state.

So you end up with delays of to government agencies.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

FREEPOP said:


> As noted earlier, the Feds probably won't handle it if it comes to a hunt, they'll let the state.
> 
> So you end up with delays of to government agencies.


I would assume it would be handled similar to the Shiawassee wildlife refuge deer hunts. The state sells the license. The feds sell the access permits and manage the hunt itself. The feds also set the quota. In this case feds would also be handling transportation and lodging they way they do with tourists who visit for recreation. This is why I have argued there wouldn't be a huge profit to the state for a hunt on the island.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

DirtySteve said:


> I would assume it would be handled similar to the Shiawassee wildlife refuge deer hunts. The state sells the license. The feds sell the access permits and manage the hunt itself. The feds also set the quota. In this case feds would also be handling transportation and lodging they way they do with tourists who visit for recreation. This is why I have argued there wouldn't be a huge profit to the state for a hunt on the island.


The feds also wouldn't be allowed to give preference points the way they used to for Shiawassee. One of the acts passed under the obama administration makes it illegal for the federal govt to retain your information like drivers license and address etc... so the Shiawassee federal wildlife refuge had to eliminate their preference point system that year. Now it is a yearly random draw.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

FREEPOP said:


> Like when the deer yards were depleted in the U.P.?
> How about the wolves? goal population was 600, it's double if not triple. Asian carp in the Great Lakes? Zebra muscles?Gobies?
> Too many examples to mention.


Come on FREEPOP. These issues are not exactly comparable.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Nostromo said:


> Come on FREEPOP. These issues are not exactly comparable.


Sure, if you say so 

Start the clock now then and see what happens.

Make sure to get back to me when there's finally some action, if we're still alive.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

FREEPOP said:


> Sure, if you say so
> 
> Start the clock now then and see what happens.
> 
> Make sure to get back to me when there's finally some action, if we're still alive.


So, are you speaking of the Moose again? If so, I'm sure they will reach a decision as soon as they've examined all of the evidence, and possibilities.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Nostromo said:


> So, are you speaking of the Moose again? If so, I'm sure they will reach a decision as soon as they've examined all of the evidence, and possibilities.


My money is that they throw some wolves out there and call it good.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

After a little more thought, they saw the demise of the wolf on the island a couple of years ago.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> It's not up to the MDNR. It's up to the NPS.
> 
> I personally support letting it play out to the end. I guess the question is what is the end. Hopefully that decision is left to Rolf Peterson and crew. He is the guy with the knowledge and experience to make the call.


Rolf isn't the one to go to. That's like asking a dentist to operate on a brain. He's biased against anything hunting.


----------



## junkman (Jan 14, 2010)

Let them moose eat themselves out of house and home.Once they are gone drop a herd of woodland caribou and some lynx out there.That was the original predator/prey species on the island.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Maybe the Feds are thinking that the experiment hasn't run its complete course yet. They could be waiting to see how many years it takes the moose to over populate, eat themselves out of house and home then become extinct. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## jasonmeekhof (Jan 21, 2012)

first most likely due to the specifics of the establishment of the park it would require an executive order or act of Congress for a hunt to occur. it's not as simple as everyone here seems to think. Even of the Secretary of the Interior could change the parks rules (it would have to be zinke not just the NPS changing their rule) it would require years of impact studies and public comment and then there would be litigation (guarantee this). Minimum it would be a decade if not longer they have been examining a bison hunt in the grand canyon for what seems like ever. yeah a hunt would be great but making it happen is next to impossible and not nearly as simple as "the darn NPS just wants to waste money and not have a hunt". We could play the long game, build a coalition of groups both national and state nwf, bha, the michigan chapter of bha (I'm the chair of the state chapter) mucc etc and work to change this but you have to realize it's a virtually unwinable issue.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

North Rim Bison hunt? I'll put in for a tag.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

jasonmeekhof said:


> first most likely due to the specifics of the establishment of the park it would require an executive order or act of Congress for a hunt to occur. it's not as simple as everyone here seems to think. Even of the Secretary of the Interior could change the parks rules (it would have to be zinke not just the NPS changing their rule) it would require years of impact studies and public comment and then there would be litigation (guarantee this). Minimum it would be a decade if not longer they have been examining a bison hunt in the grand canyon for what seems like ever. yeah a hunt would be great but making it happen is next to impossible and not nearly as simple as "the darn NPS just wants to waste money and not have a hunt". We could play the long game, build a coalition of groups both national and state nwf, bha, the michigan chapter of bha (I'm the chair of the state chapter) mucc etc and work to change this but you have to realize it's a virtually unwinable issue.


Maybe we could get trump to add it to his list of executive orders!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Maybe the Feds are thinking that the experiment hasn't run its complete course yet. They could be waiting to see how many years it takes the moose to over populate, eat themselves out of house and home then become extinct. Stranger things have happened.


I have had this same thought. I also wondered of they weren't hoping for some more wolves to wander onto the island and stay. That has happened in the past. The last couple wolves that made the trip across the ice returned to the mainland.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

DirtySteve said:


> Maybe we could get trump to add it to his list of executive orders!


The DOI manage to put on hunts all of the time. Generally all the trouble comes from the designation of the target species as opposed to any sanctity of the park itself. Moose are game animals so there is no re-designating to deal with.

Thinning the herd has become the go to management tool. We just have to convince them to let hunters do it.


----------



## jasonmeekhof (Jan 21, 2012)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Maybe the Feds are thinking that the experiment hasn't run its complete course yet. They could be waiting to see how many years it takes the moose to over populate, eat themselves out of house and home then become extinct. Stranger things have happened.


"the feds" also known as your congressional representives. maybe you should call them and ask about this.


----------



## jasonmeekhof (Jan 21, 2012)

Nostromo said:


> The DOI manage to put on hunts all of the time. Generally all the trouble comes from the designation of the target species as opposed to any sanctity of the park itself. Moose are game animals so there is no re-designating to deal with.
> 
> Thinning the herd has become the go to management tool. We just have to convince them to let hunters do it.


The parks that do have hunting had fewer restrictions place on them when the were designated national parks. yes some parks have hunts they generally do not however have the same issues as places like isle royal or the grand canyon. it's not as simple as you think.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

jasonmeekhof said:


> The parks that do have hunting had fewer restrictions place on them when the were designated national parks. yes some parks have hunts they generally do not however have the same issues as places like isle royal or the grand canyon. it's not as simple as you think.


Jason, I'm not sure what restrictions you speak of.


----------



## WAUB-MUKWA (Dec 13, 2003)

jasonmeekhof said:


> The parks that do have hunting had fewer restrictions place on them when the were designated national parks. yes some parks have hunts they generally do not however have the same issues as places like isle royal or the grand canyon. it's not as simple as you think.


Not to mention it's a UN park now too.


----------

