This commentary is by Nick Fortin, a wildlife biologist and the moose and deer project leader at the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department.
Several points from the recent commentary “Fish & Wildlife continues the public comment charade” raise concerns for me as the biologist leading the Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department’s moose project.
The commentary focuses on public comments opposing Vermont’s 2022 moose hunt without acknowledging the other sources of public opinion data that inform moose management. It also critiques the integrity of moose research in Vermont without recognizing its rigorous design or abundant corroborating science.
These gaps underscore the importance of ensuring all Vermonters understand the scope of, and ecological conditions behind, the 2022 moose hunt.
In 2022, 93% of Vermont will be closed to moose hunting, as it has been since 2018. In closed areas, moose numbers are low and local populations are challenged by a lack of young forest habitat, a changing climate, and parasites like brainworm. The priority in those areas is to maximize moose numbers — and Vermonters’ chances of seeing one.
But in the northeast corner of the state, moose are less impacted by those challenges, more abundant, and heavily impacted by winter ticks. The priority there is a smaller and healthier moose herd. That is why the department issued 100 moose hunting permits in northeastern Vermont in 2021 and will do so again this fall.
At least 90% of permits will be issued to Vermont residents, with a small number set aside for youth with life-threatening illnesses and Vermonters who served on active duty in the armed forces. Every moose harvested will provide hundreds of pounds of local, nutritious moose venison to Vermont families.
With that in mind, I want to stress that the department’s 2022 recommendation to hold a moose hunt in northeastern Vermont does not mean that we dismissed public comments in opposition.
The department received 211 emails during the public comment period on our moose hunt proposal. Each was read and considered by department staff and the Fish & Wildlife Board. The department understands that most people who emailed us about the moose hunt opposed it; their comments can be viewed on our website in the appendices to the recommendation. However, these emails are not the only public opinion data that the department considered.
The department and board also held four public hearings on our moose hunt proposal. More than 80 people attended, and none commented opposing the proposal. A 2019 statewide survey shows 65% public support for a limited moose hunt to improve population health. In 2021, over 5,700 people applied for one of 100 available moose permits. These data suggest greater public support than opposition. And ultimately, any wildlife management recommendation we make prioritizes healthy populations above any other factor.
That is why I want to be clear that the research informing our recommended moose hunt meets high standards of scientific integrity, including in the roles of its funders.
The experimental design for our moose study was reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which provided 75% of the project’s $580,000 budget. Safari Club International provided less than 25% of that sum, and was not involved in study design, execution or analysis of results. The execution and results of the study received rigorous oversight. The project was carried out largely by University of Vermont researchers. And after vetting by independent scientists, the results have been published in peer-reviewed journals including Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, Conservation Physiology, and the Journal of Wildlife Management.
This brings me to a broader point: Vermont’s study on moose and winter ticks is part of a much larger body of scientific research on the relationship between these species.
Vermont’s moose study occurred concurrently with efforts in New Hampshire and Maine, with similar results and conclusions. Our department’s 2022 moose hunt recommendation referenced 15 peer-reviewed publications on moose and winter ticks. Only four of those resulted from our research project in Vermont.
Research from Alberta to Maine establishes that the abundance of winter ticks is directly related to the abundance of moose. And in northeastern Vermont, moose numbers have allowed winter ticks to become so abundant that they are debilitating or killing moose.
Given the current poor health of moose in northeastern Vermont and a clearly identified cause, doing nothing is not an appropriate or responsible course for the department.
However, management options are limited. Treating winter ticks by inoculating moose or the environment is not currently feasible. Research on a fungal agent that might target ticks directly is far from being viable outside of the laboratory. And such treatments do not address the key issue of moose abundance.
As long as the moose population in northeastern Vermont remains at its current level, winter ticks would increase again when treatments stopped or when ticks developed immunity. To achieve a healthy and sustainable moose population, we know we need to reduce moose numbers in northeastern Vermont.
Balancing Vermonters’ diverse wildlife values is a challenge. But keeping Vermont’s moose population healthy for the long haul is a point of common ground. A geographically limited hunt that reduces the population where it is ecologically warranted and provides food for Vermont families is our best option to achieve this goal.
