This commentary is by Ryan O’Malley of Barnet, a public school teacher, husband and father. He has no political affiliations. He is active in the hunting and fishing community, has a deep passion for educating young hunters and anglers, and is a proponent of the ethical harvest and utilization of game species.
Recently I read an article titled “Moose Are Suffering and Dying. Vermont’s Strategy? More Hunting.” The article laid out clearly the rationale for Vermont’s 2021 moose hunting season. It featured Nick Fortin (Vermont’s deer and moose project lead), Lee Kantar (Maine’s moose biologist), a Maine guide who has intimate knowledge of the modern moose herd, and Brenna Galdenzi, the executive director of Protect Our Wildlife.
The article was well written and I found it to be reasonably objective, although the title could be potentially viewed as clickbait fodder. With all of this said, the original article could have provided a slightly more clear picture of the hunt, the implications of the harvest, and methodology leading to the department recommendation.
First, let’s look at the proposal.
The proposal made for the moose hunt was to allocate tags that would aid in reducing moose density to 1 animal per square mile. It is imperative that we understand that the targeted reduction is for one region of the state (wildlife management unit E1/E2), the far Northeastern part of Vermont. This region is part of the North Woods (the boreal forest of North America). It is prime moose habitat, and shares much in common with northern New Hampshire and Maine. For this reason, moose management techniques should be akin to our easterly neighbors. It also makes those state agencies excellent research partners.
The rest of the state (93%) is at or below target densities and no reduction is recommended.
Within the target region, the conservatively estimated population is just over 1,200 moose. The anticipated harvest of about 58 animals would represent less than 5% of the total population. At this harvest rate, given the same tick mortality seen in the past four years, it would take nine years to reach current management objectives.
From my vantage point, this approach may be a little too conservative; however, it seems to be a safe place to start. Once the professionals start to collect results, allocation levels could easily be adjusted. At any rate, this hunt falls far short of the “killing off the moose herd” hyperbole.
This commentary is really not the place to drill down into the science but I would be remiss not to give some resources. Starting on page 95 of the April 7 minutes of the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Board meeting, you will find the proposal, public comments and scientific resources that helped to shape the upcoming season. If you would like to watch a video that explains where we are with moose health in the state and how recent research has been conducted, check out this video. If you are further interested in the how and why, the recent publication “Effects of Winter Ticks and Internal Parasites on Moose Survival in Vermont” will explain much of the science that is currently being used by regional biologists.
It is important to note that our regional biologists are the experts on this subject. This specific issue is unique to our corner of the world. I would also encourage readers to watch this segment of the June Fish and Wildlife board meeting, where Kim Royer explains the dangers of myopic, incomplete views on wildlife management science. If time permits, one should watch her entire two-hour presentation.
As with anything wildlife-related you will always find a group that will contradict agency findings. In Vermont, Protect Our Wildlife is often that organization. It maintains that the department’s science is colored by the fact that hunters are a major stakeholder. Due to this, it believes that Fish & Wildlife findings are not to be trusted, at least not at face value. This is evidenced by the fact that it seems to undermine the department every chance it gets.
While I admire the passion that these folks have for our natural resources, I wholeheartedly disagree with their skepticism of all things Fish & Wildlife. While they are not an “anti-hunting group,” they oppose coyote hunting, bear hunting, fox hunting, bobcat hunting and for now, at least, moose. You have to admit, that is a pretty big slice of the pie. When one considers the opposition to this hunt, one must also consider the source.
One last thing I would like to address is the idea that by holding the hunt, the department is ignoring other ideas such as reducing tick loads. There is some promising research that could lead to tick-killing fungal inoculations in high moose-density areas. As of now, it is neither conclusive nor feasible. Perhaps a future solution is a multipronged one.
Lastly, if people are still concerned that reducing our moose herd by about 5 percent in 7 percent of the state is dangerous, I would encourage them to go back to the data. At this point, the best science suggests that a healthy moose herd will be in the neighborhood of 1 moose per square mile. Hunting is currently the best tool in the toolbox to accomplish this objective.
The Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife not only has a mission to protect our moose herd; it also has the mission to keep it healthy. If its findings suggest that herd reduction is what should be done, inaction on its part would be a violation of the public trust.
I will end by saying that I am no expert, just a guy who likes to “get under the hood” to figure things out. You may agree or disagree with my conclusions, and that is OK.
