Minnesota's Moose Another Casualty of Global Warming

[Gil Dobie]

...at least according to the local newspaper.

Strib Link

The population of the iconic animal in northeastern Minnesota has declined again, based on the latest aerial survey this winter by the Department of Natural Resources.

Wildlife researchers estimate that there are 5,500 moose in that region of the state. With a 23 percent margin of error, the estimate is not statistically different from last year's estimate of 7,600, but it supports other evidence that the moose population is declining.

They missed the article in October about the increased Wolf population
If the moose are affected by 1 or 2 degrees in temperature change, they obviously should be studied closely.

link

Minnesota's wolf population dropped to an all-time low of about 750 by the early 1960s, but since the Endangered Species Act was passed in the late 1970s, the number of gray wolves in Minnesota has grown to nearly 3,000.

[grizzaholic]

...at least according to the local newspaper.

Strib Link

The population of the iconic animal in northeastern Minnesota has declined again, based on the latest aerial survey this winter by the Department of Natural Resources.

Wildlife researchers estimate that there are 5,500 moose in that region of the state. With a 23 percent margin of error, the estimate is not statistically different from last year's estimate of 7,600, but it supports other evidence that the moose population is declining.

They missed the article in October about the increased Wolf population
If the moose are affected by 1 or 2 degrees in temperature change, they obviously should be studied closely.

link

Minnesota's wolf population dropped to an all-time low of about 750 by the early 1960s, but since the Endangered Species Act was passed in the late 1970s, the number of gray wolves in Minnesota has grown to nearly 3,000.[/i]

The Canadians are all laughing at the USA over this. They told everyone about what a pest they were and yet the geniuses did it anyways.

[JohnStOnge]

The author states up front that there's not sufficient evidence in the survey data to say the population size has changed yet they're making a big deal out of the survey results. Plus when they talk about it not being statistically significant they're almost certainly only considering sampling error as though everything worked out according to sampling theory when that probably is not the case. Almost certainly actually.

I mean, think about trying to do a survey of wild animals. I guess it's useful to try to get estimates of population sizes. But there's no way such estimates can be considered to be reliable except in the general sense that it looks like there are a lot or it doesn't look like there are many. Creating the impression that they have some relatively precise idea as to the actual number of wild animals in a particular population is misleading, I think.

I don't know what their survey methods are but I'd bet if we could see them it'd become immediately apparent that there's no way they can ensure that the underlying assumptions are met. Same with any wildlife survey.

[AZGrizFan]

Already in the northwest part of the state the number of moose has fallen from around 4,000 in the mid-1980s to around 100 today.

"There's more and more evidence suggesting it's related to climate," Lenarz said. Higher temperatures can stress moose, making them susceptible to diseases and parasites.

....and wolves. Apparently.

[JohnStOnge]

....and wolves. Apparently.

Well, in the article they say the wildlife management guys don't think it's the wolves because they had collars on animals and among those with tracking collars that died not many were killed by wolves. But the thing is that they're going through all these contortions about what's causing the population to decline and they don't even know the population declined.

[AZGrizFan]

....and wolves. Apparently.

Well, in the article they say the wildlife management guys don't think it's the wolves because they had collars on animals and among those with tracking collars that died not many were killed by wolves. But the thing is that they're going through all these contortions about what's causing the population to decline and they don't even know the population declined.

3,000 wolves and 7,500 moose and they think they can answer that question conclusively?

[JohnStOnge]

3,000 wolves and 7,500 moose and they think they can answer that question conclusively?

I think you make a good point...though I would say they don't know how many wolves there are nor do they know how many moose there are. But back to your point: I think they assume that the proportion of animals killed by wolves among those they put tracking collars on provides an unbiased estimate of the proportion of animals killed by wolves overall. That's probably not known to be a reliable assumption. For it to be known to be a reliable assumption the animals with tracking collars would have to have been a theoretically sound probability sample of the population...like a random sample. Very unlikely that was the case because taking theoretically sound probability samples of motile animals in a wild environment is practically impossible. Which is also why I think the perception of reliability with respect to wildlife estimates probably greatly exceeds the reality.

[AZGrizFan]

3,000 wolves and 7,500 moose and they think they can answer that question conclusively?

I think you make a good point...though I would say they don't know how many wolves there are nor do they know how many moose there are. But back to your point: I think they assume that the proportion of animals killed by wolves among those they put tracking collars on provides an unbiased estimate of the proportion of animals killed by wolves overall. That's probably not known to be a reliable assumption. For it to be known to be a reliable assumption the animals with tracking collars would have to have been a theoretically sound probability sample of the population...like a random sample. Very unlikely that was the case because taking theoretically sound probability samples of motile animals in a wild environment is practically impossible. Which is also why I think the perception of reliability with respect to wildlife estimates probably greatly exceeds the reality.

When you don't even know what percentage of the set your sample set is, all statistical analyses go out the window.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Wolves kill way more animals than any person doing research will admit. This is a designed management plan to take hunting out of the equation.

That is why people kill any wolves they see, its good for elk and deer. We need to keep the wolf populations under control because nobody else will do it.