Download the Moose Management Report

P R E PA R E D F O R
Moose Enhancement and
Recovery Strategy
1
TM
TM
Moose Enhancement
and Recovery Strategy
July 2016
|
Project #0356276-0001
CITATION
GOABC. 2016. Moose Enhancement and Recovery Strategy. Prepared for Guide Outfitters
Association of British Columbia.
EX EC U T I VE SU MMARY
The goal of this paper is to raise the profile of moose by demonstrating their integral value across the landscapes of
British Columbia. When the full value of moose is taken into account, decisions made will result in enhanced moose
habitat and recovered moose populations. This will in turn provide social and environmental benefits across large
areas in the province.
Considering the historic management of moose and moose habitat in British Columbia, and the resulting decline
moose populations have experienced is some regions of British Columbia, immediate action is required to recover
moose populations. All available management levers need to be used to enhance and recover moose populations. The
following recommendations should be implemented as soon as possible:
• Establish moose density and composition objectives for each moose game management zone (GMZ) of the
province. The density range should be between 0.75 to 3.0 moose/km2. For example, the Omineca Region has
established a moose density objective of 1.35 moose/km2 and a composition ratio of greater than 30 bulls per
100 cows. A balanced age structure of bulls is also a key composition objective.
• Moose populations are more difficult to estimate than some other species. Wildlife managers should
incorporate hunter harvest questionnaire information and guide outfitter declarations to help estimate moose
populations in combination with standardized aerial inventory.
• While hunting mortality is one of the lowest causes of moose mortality, stricter hunting regulations, including
elimination of the antlerless moose seasons, need to be invoked until the moose population and composition
objectives within each GMZ are met.
• Encourage First Nations to take a leadership role in moose recovery. Collaborative management would include
improving the harvest reporting of their people. Better data on moose harvest will result in a more accurate
annual allowable harvest (AAH).
• The predator prey relationship is out of balance. High predator populations are having a significant impact on
ungulate populations, including moose. Population density objectives need to be established for all predators.
Wolves should be managed to a density of less than 0.003 wolves/km2.
• The expansion of the natural resource sector over the last decade has resulted in the new construction of
thousands of kilometers of resource roads. These roads are having significant and unintended consequences on
the moose population. This access needs to be managed through the development of clear access management
4
objectives and procedures. The maximum road density should be 0.6 km/km2 moose habitat with an objective
of maintaining road density less than this depending upon regional plans.
• Provide incentive for forest companies to enhance moose habitat. This would include relaxing free-to-grow
regulations and limiting liability from habitat burns.
• Conserve and manage sufficient habitat to maintain the moose population at 50% to 75% of carrying capacity
as determined from the quality and quantity of winter habitat, and the productivity associated with nutritional
/biological carrying capacity.
• Complete and release the Cumulative Effects Framework report on moose.
• Each provincial region needs to develop specific moose objectives, within the provincial ranges, to enhance
or recover moose within their region.
Application of these recommendations should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring to ensure that they are
effective and that we learn as much as possible from these actions, so that they can be improved on over time.
The challenge for British Columbian wildlife managers is they do not have enough control over the moose
management levers. The provincial government is encouraged to use all management levers at its disposal to
recover moose populations and set a course where moose (and all wildlife) values are considered when land use
decisions are made. Decisions to support wildlife and their habitat are an important investment that will benefit all
British Columbians.
ACK NO WLEDGE MEN TS
This report was prepared for the Guide Outfitters Association of British Columbia (GOABC) with contributions
from many individuals. The report was prepared by Shaun Freeman (B.Sc., Dipl. T., R.P.Bio.) of ERM Consultants
with technical contributions provided by Olin Albertson, Brian Harris, Doug Heard, Glen Watts and Shane Mahoney
under direction of the GOABC moose committee. The Moose Committee members include Mark Werner (Chair),
Ken Watson (Co-Chair), Marc Hubbard, Ken Robins, Colin Niemeyer, Brian Glaicar, Darwin Cary, Bruce Ambler,
Al Madley, Dave Hooper, Stuart Maitland and Scott Ellis.
5
TAB LE OF CON TE NTS
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1
Moose Management Levers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Causes Of Moose Mortality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3
Historic Moose Management in British Columbia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4
Regions of the Province . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.4.1 Recommendations for Regions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.5
Hunting Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5.1 Recommendations for Hunting Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6
First Nations Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6.1 Recommendations for First Nations Harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Predator Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7.1 Recommendations for Predator Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8 Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8.1 Recommendations for Access Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.9 Habitat Enhancement and Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.9.1 Recommendations for Moose Habitat Enhancement and Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.10
Environmental Assessment And Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.10.1Recommendations for Environmental Assessment and Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
References
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Moose Mortality from a FLNRO Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1.
Ecology and Key Habitat Requirements of Moose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6
1  I NTR ODUC TION
This paper is solely focused on moose (Alces americanus) enhancement and the actions needed to recover moose
in British Columbia. Some areas of the province the moose populations are stable, but it is well documented that in
several areas of the province moose populations have declined between 50% and 70%. The current management is
very limit in scope because the tools needed for the recovery of moose are beyond the authority of wildlife managers.
This paper neither assessed the impacts of the potential changes to the other resource industries nor the political
sensitivities regarding moose recovery. The shortfalls are identified and recommendations are made that should be
taken to recover the moose to benefit all British Columbians.
While acknowledging that a provincial framework for management has been initiated by the ministry of Forest,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations (FLNRO), this paper provides a position on moose management as seen
through a stakeholder lens. While the stakeholders are in general agreement with much of the FLNRO framework and
objectives, there are areas where the stakeholders recommend the use of existing management levers to encourage
additional and/or alternative actions as discussed in FLNRO (2015) to achieve the moose management objectives.
7
2  P R O V INC IA L MA NAGEM ENT
OBJ EC T IV ES
FLNRO has committed to manage moose for the people of British Columbia
and maintains a fiduciary responsibility to ensure healthy moose populations
to accommodate First Nations aboriginal rights. As identified in FLNRO (2015)
the provincial goal for moose management is to ensure moose are maintained as
integral components of natural ecosystems throughout their range, and maintain
sustainable moose populations that meet the needs of First Nations, licensed
hunters and the guiding industry in British Columbia. The objectives for moose
management in British Columbia as established in this framework are to:
• ensure opportunities for consumptive use of moose are sustainable;
• maintain a diversity of hunting opportunities for moose;
• follow provincial policies and procedures (e.g. provincial moose
harvest management procedure) as guidance for regulatory options and
management objectives; and
• foster development of regional moose action plans where appropriate.
Management going forward is to be directed by six moose management levers
identified in the Provincial Framework for Moose Management in British
Columbia which define potential actions the province suggests may be used for
moose management.
2.1  M O O S E MA NAGEM ENT LE V ER S
The province has identified six key levers for moose management in BC.
These include:
• Hunting regulations
• First Nations harvest
• Predator management
• Access management
• Habitat enhancement and Protection
• Environmental assessment and Mitigation
2.2  C AU S ES O F M O O S E M O R TA LIT Y
It is important to understand the causes of moose mortality to know where to
focus moose recovery resources. While the mortality will vary from region to
region, the on-going cow moose study by FLNRO, Determining Factors Affecting
Moose Population Change in BC: Update April, 2016 provides insights into moose
mortality (Figure 1). Similar studies should be conducted in other regions in
future as conditions differ, and this information is important for informing
management recommendations.
8
Proportions of Probable Causes of Mortality
18%
Predation
UnlicensedHunting
2%
LicensedHunting
45%
9%
ApparentStarvation
Natural
2%
Health-Related
5%
UnknownHealth-Related
Unknown
9%
9%
Figure 1. Moose Mortality from a FLNRO Study
2. 3  HISTORIC MOOSE MA NAGEM ENT
IN BRITISH COLU M BIA
Moose are one of the most widely distributed ungulates in British Columbia. Moose populations were likely low
or non-existent in much of the province prior to the late 1800s and have increased significantly since then, moving
from northeastern British Columbia, and Alaska southwards in the last 100 years (Peterson 1955 in Kelsall and
Telfer 1974; Cowan and Guiget 1978). Shackleton (1999) identifies three subspecies occurring in British Columbia:
Alaskan moose (A.a.gigas) in the most northwestern area of the province; northwestern moose (A.a. andersoni)
through the interior and northeast; and Shiras moose (A.a.shiras) in the southeast. While the biology of these species
is similar, differences in their physiology, use of local habitat and behavior occur reflecting the bio-geography of their
distributions.
FLNRO (2015) states that regional and provincial moose population estimates are updated every three to five years,
based on regional surveys, density extrapolations and expert opinion. The most recent compilation (2014) indicates
a provincial estimate of 120,000 to 205,000 moose (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/index.
html#ungulate_pop), and suggests that provincial moose numbers have declined by approximately 27,500 moose
since 2011. From information in FLNRO (2015) this includes population declines of greater than 50% between
inventories in sampled wildlife management units (WMUs) of Region 3 (Thompson-Nicola), Region 5 (Cariboo)
and Region 7A (Omineca).
9
2. 4  R EGIONS OF TH E P R O V INC E
It is important to understand the regional differences that are used to estimate and manage moose throughout the
province. These processes have been developed over time and if the moose population currently meets the regional
moose objective, no changes are needed. Moose mortality will likely vary from regions to region but the causes can
be addressed with the management levers identified.
The key to effective management is to understand the moose environment and develop regional moose objectives.
These should include:
• moose densities (between the provincial range from available inventory of 0.75-3.0 moose/km2).
• sustainable herd composition (i.e. 30 bulls to 100 cows and 25 calves to 100 cows) with a balanced age class
structure within the population.
• As an example, Region 7A (Omineca) established a moose density of 1.35 moose/km2 and a composition
ratio of greater than 30 bulls per 100 cows for most of the region. This density objective was agreed to in a
stakeholder meeting with Government, First Nations, British Columbia Wildlife Federation and the Guide
Outfitters Association of British Columbia on July 25, 2012.
PHOTO FRONT COUNTER BC - MINISTRY OF FOREST LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
2.4.1 Recommendations for Regions
• Develop regional moose objectives that include density and composition.
10
2. 5  HUN TING RE GUL AT IO NS
Annual allowable harvest (AAH) of moose is developed based on the estimated
harvestable surplus of moose a population can sustain each year. Setting harvest
objectives requires knowledge of the population, productivity and influences that
effect annual survival such as predation rates, habitat quality and environmental
conditions. Integrating the subtle differences in physiology, behavior and habitat
selection of the three subspecies of moose that occur in British Columbia is also
an important aspect of setting harvest rates and regulations. FLNRO (2015) states
that the goal of effective management is to ensure opportunities for consumptive
use of moose are sustainable, and maintain a diversity of hunting opportunities
for moose. Managing for this harvest over a long period is represented by the
maximum sustained yield (MSY).
Many regions in British Columbia, as with other jurisdictions, use hunting
regulations based on principles of maximum sustained yield (MSY). Probably
the most controversial aspect of managing for MSY is the harvest of cows and
calves and determining when it is appropriate or not appropriate to include
antlerless harvest in the AAH.
Many wildlife managers implementing liberal antlerless harvests in past decades
have relied on management philosophy in Scandinavia where harvest of cows
and calves were being increased to cope with increasing moose numbers and
reduce nutritional status (Lavsund et al. 2003). However, Scandinavian systems
were largely free of large predators, and experiencing relatively mild winters at
the time, differing substantially from abundant multiple predator systems in
North America (Young and Bojertie 2011).
The prevailing belief by some wildlife biologists is that calf harvest is not
additive but compensatory, i.e. that the calves harvested by hunters would have
died from natural causes prior to being recruited into the population (Euler
1983). However, several North American studies indicate that calf harvest is
likely additive to natural mortality in multiple predator systems. These studies
have documented that calves experience the highest mortality rates (27-82%)
in the first 5 months of life, most (75-96%) of which occurring in the first
4-6 weeks. The data also showed that predators accounted for the majority
of calf mortality, and generally indicated that the lower the calf survival rate,
the higher the predator species richness and density (ADF&G 2015, Ballard et
al. 1991, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et al. 1992, Patterson et al. 2013,
Young and Bojertie 2011, Van Ballenberge and Dart 1982). A recent Ontario
study also found that in an area where calves are hunted, they experienced
the greatest instantaneous mortality risk during the first month of life, and
another pronounced increase in mortality risk during the autumn hunting
season, indicating that many of the calves harvested during calf seasons
may have otherwise survived and been recruited into the breeding cohort in
following years (Patterson 2012). Additionally, calves generally predominate
among moose predated by wolves in winter (Nilsenet al. 2005, Gervasi et al.
2012, Sand et al. 2012). By reducing the proportion of calves in the pre-winter
population of moose, hunting of juveniles may shift predation pressure to
more important segments of the population such as mature cows and bulls
(Patterson 2012).
11
Probably the most
controversial aspect of
managing for MSY is
the harvest of cows and
calves and determining
when it is appropriate
or not appropriate
to include antlerless
harvest in the AAH.
Several studies indicate
that liberal antlerless
harvest is only prudent
in abundant multiple
predator systems when
moose numbers
are increasing.
Furthermore, several studies indicate that liberal antlerless harvest is only prudent
in abundant multiple predator systems when moose numbers are increasing,
and long term low nutritional indices indicate that high moose densities may be
impacting forage availability and quality (Boertje et al. 2007, 2010, Young and
Boertje 2011). Results from recent surveys in British Columbia indicate moose
numbers have declined substantially, as much as 50-70% in parts of the central
interior of the province (FLNRO 2015, Kuzyk et al. 2015). Although studies are
currently underway to determine the causes of the moose declines in British
Columbia, there are no obvious indicators that historic moose densities have
negatively impacted forage availability and quality (Kuzyk et al. 2015). With these
factors in mind, the harvest of cow and calf moose is not reasonable at a time
when populations are substantially reduced (and
probably declining) in many areas of the province.
PHOTO GORDON HUNTER
PHOTO LYNN BYSTROM
In any case, management based on the principle
of maximum sustained yield requires detailed
information on moose population (including
composition), density targets and ongoing
population monitoring to ensure management
involving the setting of harvest rates is successful.
This requires regular inventory and monitoring to
Provincial Resource Inventory Standards Committee
(RISC) standards. Collecting absolute abundance
data at a reliability level 1 (i.e. attaining an error of
± 15% of the count at a 90% confidence interval)
as described by RISC (2002) is accomplished by
sample-based counts (e.g. random stratified block)
or full counts with the use of helicopter aerial survey
techniques. These data are optimal for understanding
moose population, setting moose density targets,
harvest rates and monitoring the results of harvest
strategies employed.
There is substantial local
knowledge that could
provide valuable data for
population inventories.
A review of the provincial Species Inventory
Web Explorer (http://a100.gov.bc.ca/pub/siwe/jsp/
search.jsp) identified relatively few moose inventory
projects that were of appropriate intensity for density
estimates, or which were repeated on a regular
basis to monitor population trends. Of the reports
available, there were also few instances where
inventories were repeated to allow for the monitoring
of populations and/or the assessment of the effectiveness of hunting regulations
on population management. Further, there does not appear to be an attempt
to integrate citizen science in inventory, there is substantial local knowledge
that could provide valuable data for population inventories. This observation
echoes Morris (2015) which recommends that greater inventory is required
to enable effective population management, and to harness the knowledge of
British Columbian wildlife practitioners. A historic lack of inventory very likely
exacerbated the current moose decline by not providing managers information
in a timely fashion, and thus slowed the response.
12
Available data suggests that while there is some moose inventory information
available, it is not consistent across regions or sufficiently complete to support
effective harvest management in British Columbia. The shortfall requires that
the density targets (the assessment of the success of regulation and the impact
hunter harvest has on the moose population) have to be supplemented by
additional data sources such as kill per unit effort (KPUE) from hunter harvest
statistics, or from the professional judgment of senior bureaucrats. From
available reports on the Species Inventory Web Explorer, it appears that neither
of these methods has been adequately indexed to population inventory, or any
measure of carrying capacity/moose density and sustainability of the landbase.
This leaves substantial uncertainty (and risk), as well as a lack of transparency
regarding the effectiveness of management decisions including the harvest of
antlerless moose as a component of MSY.
To further improve moose inventory information, hunter harvest questionnaires
and guide outfitter declarations need to be incorporated. These data are being
effectively utilized in Region 5 (Cariboo) and this methodology should be shared
with other regions.
2.5.1 Recommendations for Hunting Regulations
• Limiting antlerless season until population is in excess of 75% biological
carrying capacity as determined from quantity and quality of habitat and
discussed in the habitat section to follow. Initially 75% of carrying capacity
is recommended, as this is the point where productivity begins to flatten
and quality of the herd and impact to habitat may start to occur, suggesting
population control becomes a management action. The rationale for this
recommendation is discussed with habitat objectives in section 2.9 below.
• Include the resident hunter harvest questionnaires and the guide outfitter
declarations in estimating moose popula–tions in combination with
standardized aerial inventory.
2. 6  F IRST NATIONS H A R V ES T
For indigenous people in northern British Columbia, moose were a key source
of raw material for clothing and tools as well as meat, and some First Nation
communities starved when moose were scarce (Blood, 2000). Where available,
moose were preferred prey because they represented a very high return for the
time and energy invested (Reeves and McCabe, 1998). Moose continue to be
an important part of the diet of many northern British Columbian First Nation
people (Blood, 2000).
Moose are now distributed throughout most of British Columbia, but that is
a relatively recent development. Prior to 1900, there were virtually no moose
south of Hazelton and Prince George (Shackelton, 1999, McTaggart Cowan and
Guiget, 1965) and prior to the 1920s some First Nation languages in south and
central British Columbia did not have a word for moose (Shackleton 1999).
First Nations have a constitutional right to access and harvest moose to meet
their food, social and ceremonial needs. These rights are respected and the
13
future management of the moose resource must be therefore being cooperative
and strive to meet the goals of moose recovery and to maintain a healthy moose
population for all British Columbians.
British Columbia boasts
some of the highest
densities of large predators
in North America.
Management of moose in British Columbia is the responsibility of the ministry
of FLNRO. One of the management principles of the British Columbia Moose
Management Framework is that “First Nations harvest needs are to be considered
and accommodated prior to calculation of the Annual Allowable Harvest (AAH)
for resident and commercially guided hunters in BC.” However, that document
also recognizes that actual First Nation harvest is unknown (FLNRO, 2015). The
ministry annually monitors the regulated harvest of moose by resident hunters
via the hunter sample questionnaire and by non-resident hunters through
the guide declarations. The harvest of moose by resident hunters “although
substantial, is regulated and is not a major conservation concern. However,
uncontrolled harvesting from illegal poaching and legal First Nations hunting is
a major concern in some areas” (Blood, 2000).
Having knowledge of First Nations harvest of moose is critical to ensure
sustainable use of moose for First Nations, recreational hunting and guide
outfitting. To establish sustainable harvest regulations, wildlife managers must
be able to reasonably estimate this harvest.
In order that the cumulative moose harvest by the three consumptive user groups
(First Nations, resident hunters, guide outfitters) is sustainable, it is imperative
that all users participate and cooperate in moose management. A major gap in
information is a reliable estimate for First Nation’s requirements and harvest.
It is also important that all users share in the harvest and abide by sustainable
management practices, including harvest allocations, including sex and age
components, and restrictions when harvest objectives are exceeded.
2.6.1 Recommendations for First Nations Harvest
• Working with First Nations to accurately document and report harvest
and integrating this information to inform the AAH.
• Promote the development of hunting regulations administered by First
Nations for their community members.
2.7  P R EDATO R MA NAGEM ENT
It is imperative that all
users participate and
cooperate in moose
management.
Predators are an important component of a functioning ecosystem. British
Columbia boasts some of the highest densities of large predators in North
America with an estimated 15,000 grizzly bears, 120,000–160,000 black bears,
and 8,500 wolves (FLNRO 2012, MELP 2001, and FLNRO 2014). It has been well
documented that all three species prey on moose. Previous studies of moose have
shown that typical annual survival rates of adult females and bulls are quite high
varying from 85-94% (Bangs et al. 1989, Larsen et al. 1989, Ballard et al. 1991).
Recently Kuzyk et al. (2015) found similar adult survival of collared cow moose
in the interior of British Columbia with rates of 92 ± 8% in 2013/14 and 92 ± 5%
in 2014/15. Predator density and habitat condition are key variables influencing
predation on moose, and increased road density has been identified as reducing
14
habitat quality for moose while enhancing predation on this species as well
as other ungulates (Beazley et al. 2004, Antiouk et al 2007, and Environment
Canada 2014). These interactive factors are discussed in more detail in separate
sections of this position paper.
While adult survival is generally high, numerous studies have shown that
predation on calves can be a major limiting factor on moose population rate
of growth, with calf survival ranging from 18 73% (ADF&G 2015, Ballard et al.
1991, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et al. 1992, Larsen et al. 1989, Patterson
et al. 2013, Young and Boertje 2011, Van Ballenberge and Dart 1982). In multiple
predator systems like British Columbia, grizzly bears, black bears, and wolves
are responsible for the majority of predation on moose (ADF&G 2015, Ballard
et al. 1991, Bergerud and Elliot 1992, Bertram and Vivion 2002, Gasaway et
al. 1992, Larsen et al. 1985, Patterson et al. 2013, Young and Boertje 2011, Van
Ballenberge and Dart 1982). One study in Alaska documented that calves in that
multiple predator (i.e. grizzly, black bear and wolf) system experienced less than
20% survival in their first year of life, with predators accounting for up to 90% of
all mortalities (ADF&G 2015).
In the boreal forest of northern Canada and Alaska where bears (either black,
grizzly or both) and wolves are major predators on moose and have little hunting
pressure, densities of moose are forced to exist well below habitat carrying
capacity (ADF&G 2008, Gasaway et al. 1992). Winter surveys of calf to cow
ratios in many multiple predator systems ranged from 10 to 55 calves per 100
cows (ADF&G 2012, FLNRO 2015). In contrast, on a large predator-free Island
(Kaligan) in Alaska’s Cook Inlet the winter moose calf to cow ratios can be as
high as 89 calves per 100 cows (Alaska 2012). Recent surveys conducted by
Kuzyk et al (2015) in the winter of 2014/15 identified rates of 8 to 37 calves
per 100 cows suggesting high calf mortality in the interior of British Columbia
as well.
Many First Nations and residents of Canada and Alaska consider moose as a
subsistence necessity. In addition, they are a substantial economic driver for
many families and businesses in rural communities who, for a living, guide
and service non-resident hunters (ADF&G 2014, Responsive Management
2013, Pacific Analytics 2002). Not surprisingly, therefore, many jurisdictions
have historically carried out predator reduction programs to increase moose
populations for the benefit of these families and communities (ADF&G 2014,
Bergerud and Elliot 1992, Demarchi and Hartwig 1998, Russell 2010). In British
Columbia and Yukon, certain First Nations have themselves traditionally
located wolf dens and killed pups for this purpose. In Alaska, predator control
programs continue to be carried out by the Department of Fish and Game
which is mandated by the Alaska State Constitution to manage wildlife on a
sustained yield basis “sustained yield.” The Alaska Statute is defined as “the
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level
of human harvest of game, subject to the preferences among beneficial uses…”
(ADF&G 2014.)
In recent times, such programs have been intensively criticized and resisted by
animal rights advocates. When implemented correctly many of these programs
have been successful in increasing ungulate populations (ADF&G 2014,
15
Many jurisdictions have
historically carried out
predator reduction
programs to increase
moose populations
for these families and
communities.
Demarchi and Hartwig 1998, Russell 2010). For example, following a number
of years of wolf removal in the Muskwa area in northern British Columbia the
moose population increased from an estimated 18,500 in 1982 to 26,800 in
1989 (Bergerud and Elliot 1992). In Alaska’s Unit 13 a targeted wolf reduction
program in the recent 2000s was successful in increasing moose populations
from an estimated 12,000 at the low to 17,000 following approximately 8 years
of wolf removal. As a result, the legal harvest of moose eventually doubled
(ADF&G 2014).
In addition to habitat
protection, predator
control was identified as a
step required to maintain
herds, while habitat
recovery took place.
Because of the highly controversial nature of predator reduction programs,
the government in British Columbia has elected to conduct predator removal
only when a threatened or endangered species, such as southern populations
of mountain caribou, are at risk of extirpation (FLNRO 2014). Much of the
recent focus on predator reduction in the province, particularly of wolves, has
been a result of recommendations in the ECCC Caribou Recovery Strategy
(Environment Canada 2014). In addition to habitat protection, predator control
was identified as a step required to maintain herds, while habitat recovery took
place. The ECCC strategy recommends reducing wolf density to 0.003 wolves/
km2 within caribou matrix habitat to allow herds to recover. There are a number
of predator related strategies being implemented for protection of caribou
including wolf reduction and penning of maternal caribou (http://www.westmo.
org/news/klinse-za-caribou-maternal-release). Obviously, efforts to reduce
predators for protection of caribou could lead to increases in moose numbers
as well. Of concern to those with a stake in the moose resource, however, is
the additional ECCC recommendation for implementation of alternate prey
management to help limit predator numbers and predation on caribou.
Environment Canada (2014) states that “This threat (risk of predation) can
be mitigated through coordinated land and/or resource planning, and habitat
restoration and management, in conjunction with predator and alternate prey
management where local population unit conditions warrant such action”.
Section 6.1 of the recovery program also identifies that there are activities
underway that include predator and alternate prey management projects in
some ranges where subpopulations of southern mountain caribou are declining.
The theory of “apparent competition” or “prey subsidy” described in Wilson
(2009) which is the basis of a recommendation for moose reduction, has not
been tested empirically in mountain caribou but has been explored theoretically
by Lessard et al. (2005). Wilson (2009) provided no empirical evidence of success
of this strategy from any study of predator/prey systems in British Columbia or
any other wild predator prey system from any jurisdiction. This suggests there is
no guarantee of success and an unquantifiable risk of not meeting the objectives
of limiting predation on caribou by reducing moose numbers. Currently there
are two small pilot projects (the Parsnip River and Revelstoke) being undertaken
to evaluate the theory in British Columbia.
It is acknowledged in the ECCC caribou recovery strategy (Environment Canada
2014) that habitat recovery is the long-term objective but predator control is
required in the short term to support recovery.
16
2.7.1 Recommendations for Predator Management
• Initiate and maintain active predator control that reduces wolf population
to densities of 0.003 wolves/km2 in moose winter habitat. This metric
is based on target predator densities within areas identified as caribou
matrix habitat by Environment Canada (2014).
• Management of other predators including cougar, black bear, and
grizzly bear must also be considered as these species also impact moose,
particularly calf survival. This requires density objectives be established
for all predators.
2. 8  ACCESS MAN AGE M ENT
Access to wilderness areas has increased substantially in the past decade;
facilitated by industrial oil and gas development in the northeast, exploration
in the north, and road construction to support the harvest of mountain pine
beetle impacted timber throughout much of the interior of British Columbia.
The linear extent of roads was reported to have doubled between 1988 and 1999,
and as of 2007 there were a reported 110,000 km of seismic lines mostly in the
northeast of British Columbia (Gayton 2007). The province of British Columbia
had mapped road densities confirming that as of 2003 a substantial portion of
the central interior and northeast British Columbia currently had road densities
that exceed 0.7 km/km2 (https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/docs/mr/mr112/
page19.pdf). This was prior to the extensive development that has occurred
in the past decade. Daigle (2010) suggested that resource roads for industrial
activity were between 400,000 km to 550,000 km in cumulative length. Daigle
(2010) also cited studies for forest lands associated with Quesnel (a 2.7 million
ha study area) and Kamloops (a 2.0 million ha study area) that indicted that as
of 2007, 76% and 89% of watersheds in each study area respectively had road
densities that exceeded 0.5 km/km2. These results can be extended to other areas
of the British Columbia interior.
17
Road densities exceeding
1.2 km/km2 have
been found to impact
ungulate habitat value
by promoting wolf access
and movement.
The effects of increased road density on wildlife listed by Daigle (2010) that have
the greatest likely impact on moose populations include:
• Increased wildlife road kills and injuries
• Increased mortality (and injuries) because of expanded hunting pressure
and poaching
• Loss of habitat from clearing of vegetation
• Fragmentation of habitat
• Increased wildlife harassment and human–wildlife conflicts
• Modified wildlife behavior and condition (such as changes to animal
movement, dispersal, or migration; home range shifts; reduced body
mass, reproduction, or survivorship; habituation to human presence; road
avoidance and altered escape responses)
• Altered predator–prey relations, including increased access by wolves
The increase in the number
and use of off road vehicles
in British Columbia is also
facilitated by an increase in
roads and access and this
activity greatly increases
opportunity for disturbance
and morality of moose.
• Contaminant emissions (e.g., road salt, oil, gasoline, metals, or other
chemicals), noise and other disturbances may extend into roadside
vegetation for varying distances, resulting in changes in species
composition and contaminated soil, plants, animals, and water. Road salt
may attract animals, increasing their vulnerability to human or predator
interactions
Road densities exceeding 1.2 km/km2 have been found to impact ungulate
habitat value by promoting wolf access and movement (Antiouk et al. 2007) and
this metric has been used for impact assessment of industrial developments in
British Columbia, as well as directing the caribou recovery strategy (Environment
Canada 2014) in habitat enhancement and predator control initiatives. Moose
have been found to be negatively impacted when road density exceeds 0.6 km/
km2 and this has been identified as a cautionary threshold for degradation to
moose habitat (Beazley et al. 2004). At low road densities (0.16 km/km2) Laurian
et al (2012) found moose both avoided and were attracted to roads dependent
upon season. The increase in the number and use of off road vehicles in British
Columbia is also facilitated by an increase in roads and access and this activity
greatly increases opportunity for disturbance and mortality of moose. Daigle
(2010) cited numerous calls to develop a strategic plan to reduce access but
to date a province-wide plan to reduce road and seismic line access has not
been initiated.
Of additional concern is the increased access with the use of river boats for
accessing moose along river systems. There is no information on the extent of
this harvest but it is important that this method be monitored.
PHOTO RON TECH2000
2.8.1 Recommendations for Access Management
• Develop a provincial access management strategy to provide direction
to decision-makers road density, types of deactivation, screening cover,
where and when to reclaim roads to natural conditions
• Reduce road (including trails, seismic and other linear structures)
densities to below 0.6 km/km2 (lower densities as low as 0.16 km/km2
18
may be required to meet regional objectives) in moose winter habitat and
calving habitat. Only revegetation and obliteration as defined by Daigle
(2010) will be sufficient to reduce predation and human disturbance to a
point where excessive access no longer negatively impact moose.
Strategically manage future access working with industry to maintain road
densities well below the 0.6 km/km2 threshold (targeting densities as low as
0.16 km/km2 may be reflective of some regional objectives). This should include
complete reclamation to natural conditions of “in-block” or spur roads to
enhance moose habitat.
• Monitor the extent of river boat access for facilitating moose harvest.
2. 9  HABITAT E NH AN C EM ENT
AND PR OTEC TION
Habitat is key to sustaining a healthy moose population and moose require
a diversity of forage and cover types throughout the year. Appendix 1 details
moose ecology and key habitat requirements in British Columbia. Kelsall and
Telfer (1974) attribute climate as the most likely general factor limiting moose
distribution, with high winter snowfalls and high summer temperatures
specifically determining the extent of moose range. In general, winter range is
considered to be the most limiting habitat. Winter habitat includes low elevation
areas associated with valley bottoms that receive low snow pack relative to the
rest of the landscape. Good winter range also provides moose abundant woody
browse and include common forage species such as willow (Salix sp.), black
cottonwood (Populus balsamifera sp. trichocarpa), red-osier dogwood (Cornus
stolonifera), Douglas maple (Acer glabrum), birch (Betula sp.), and trembling
aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Ehlers, Bennett, and Corbett 1998; United States
Forest Service 2006). Moose will browse bark off larger aspen, and conifer
regeneration, particularly subalpine-fir (Abies lasiocarpa), may also be browsed
in winter.
While browse availability has been identified as the major factor determining
habitat suitability in winter (Yazvenko et al. 2002), security cover and thermal
(snow) interception are also important, enabling moose to avoid predators,
primarily wolf and wolverine in winter; these species as well as black bears and
19
Habitat is key to
sustaining a healthy
moose population and
moose require a diversity
of forage and cover types
throughout the year.
grizzly bears in spring and summer; and all species, as well as human hunters,
in fall.
Cover and forage are thus important throughout the year. Spring range must
provide abundant, early- greening forage essential for moose recovery after
winter, while security cover and connectivity across the landscape is important
for calving and calf rearing. Higher elevation lakes and wetlands with abundant
emergent and submergant vegetation are key habitat components for moose in
summer, providing thermal relief and nutritious forage.
Moose habitat is currently provided some protection in British Columbia,
however habitat management is not consistent and objectives can change with
industry priorities and land status. While parks, ecological reserves and recreation
areas offer protection for habitat in some specific locations, the majority of the
province is non-protected Crown land, and the most important moose habitat
is associated with lower elevations typically within the timber harvest landbase
(THLB). This suggests that the two provincial Acts that can provide the most
protection for moose habitat are the Forest and Ranges Protection Act, (FRPA;
2004) and the Oil and Gas Activities Act (OGAA; 2008).
FRPA regulates forest development and under Government Act Regulations
(GAR) areas may be designated as an ungulate winter range (UWR) or as a more
general wildlife habitat area (WHA) for a range of wildlife species, including
moose. To be designated a moose UWR the area must be identified as being
necessary for the winter survival of moose. Furthermore, the total area of
habitat designated for all species must not exceed a specified area of the timber
harvesting land base, which the current policy identifies as 1% of mature timber
harvesting land base with the impact tied to Timber Supply Review (TSR).
This includes UWR and WHA for all species not just moose. Within an area
delineated as a UWR there are general wildlife measures (GWMs) identified to
integrate industrial development and habitat management. Areas designated,
as UWR are not necessarily protected, as industrial activities may occur under
GWM constraints.
To date it appears that the 1% THLB “budget” of UWR has not been applied,
and there is little else providing for protection of moose habitat during forest
development. The salvage logging triggered by the mountain pine beetle (MPB)
epidemic brought about large-scale change in forest utilization practices in
British Columbia that had significant consequences across the THLB. This
included a shift to volume-based tenure and the abandonment of the fiveyear development plans, which were replaced by the more generalized forest
stewardship plans (FSPs) managed under professional reliance guidelines by
Registered Professional Foresters (RPFs). The majority of these plans have
little detail or substantial commitment to manage moose habitat, and there
are often no requirements to manage for movement corridors, free-to-grow,
reforestation, or any integrated natural resource management approaches that
would maintain the ecological function of the landbase. During the period of
MPB salvage logging there has not been sufficient oversight from non-industryrelated expertise, as FSPs and development are managed based on the expertise
of RPFs, which have clear shortfalls when integrating the non-timber values into
the forest ecosystem.
20
The result is large swaths of deforested area across many of the most productive
biogeoclimatic zones in the interior of British Columbia, and a substantial
increase in access afforded by new roads used to extract the timber, exceeding the
0.6 km/km2 threshold road density identified as generally detrimental to moose
(Beazley et al 2004). The resulting impact is that much of the forest lands in the
interior no longer function as natural forest ecosystems capable of providing
moose habitat, an observation echoed by Morris (2015) in his report to FLNRO.
The biological carrying capacity of the landbase for moose has decreased as a
result, and there is currently no large-scale program in place to recover habitat
function. While the nutritional carrying capacity of the land for moose based on
the digestible energy intake and energy requirements as calculated by Dungan
et al. (2010) or Crete (1989) may recover as the cutblocks succeed to shrub seral
stage, the lack of cover (and thus availability/accessibility of these food resources
to moose) will have substantial impact for many years.
When managing for ungulate production in other systems, an optimum moose
density for ensuring MSY harvesting has occurred between 50% and 75% of the
nutritional carrying capacity (K). This interval represents the population phase
of greatest productivity and occurs at or above the inflection point of a sigmoidal
numeric growth curve (representing density) and its relationship to K. For some
other ungulates this interval is believed to occur at lower densities, perhaps 50%
of K (Mentis 1977). Most importantly, above 75% of K productivity begins to
flatten and quality of the moose herd can decline and impact to habitat increase.
This clearly suggests that habitat recovery for moose in British Columbia will
need to account for the relationship between moose density and the available
area of suitable habitat.
In areas where the mountain pine beetle epidemic was not a driving influence
in salvage logging, and within some FSPs, management of the forest resource
does include procedures to reforest harvested areas. The reforestation is directed,
however, at rapid growth of conifer to meet free to grow requirements with a
focus on rapidly producing conifer forest for the next rotation, consistent
with objectives mandated by FRPA. As woody deciduous shrubs are seen as
competition for regenerating conifers, this results in silviculture activities
that are not compatible with browse production and the enhancement of the
landbase for recovering moose carrying capacity to historic habitat values. This
21
In areas where the
mountain pine beetle
epidemic was not a driving
influence in salvage
logging, and within some
FSPs, management of
the forest resource does
include procedures to
reforest harvested areas.
approach reduces potential availability of moose browse through herbicide
application, brushing and weeding, and by generally promoting rapid conifer
regeneration is not conducive to moose production and it is contrary to an
approach that integrates the value of all natural resources on the forests lands.
Similar objectives of rapid reforestation and reducing browse production have
also been legislated as general wildlife measures (GWMs) of caribou ungulate
winter ranges (UWRs). Recently (May 24, 2016) legislated northern caribou
UWRs 7-025 and 7-026 affect a combined area over 1.3 million ha with GWMs
directed at limiting moose winter browse in cutblocks on winter range to less
than 8% of the area.
Of additional concern in some regions is the impact of livestock grazing on
moose browse, Lewis (2015) identified grazing pressure by cattle as having
substantial influence on the quality of habitat in the Thompson Okanagan
Region. Access and management of Crown range is FLNRO responsibility and
is regulated by FRPA.
With respect to the oil and gas industry, the OGAA Environmental Protection
and Management Regulation, Section 6, referring to “Wildlife & Wildlife Habitat”,
does differ from the FRPA, but similarly requires UWRs and WHAs GWMs to
approach similar forest development strategies. Thus there are no provisions in
either FRPA or OGAA that manage for consideration of road density or access
management from the perspective of their potential impact on moose.
Mining activity in British Columbia currently has no legislated requirement
to follow the UWR/WHA GWMs, unless such activities require forest cutting
permits, where FRPA regulations apply.
Wildlife burns are
well known to create
habitat for wildlife,
including moose.
Historically the maintenance and promotion of moose habitat has taken a lower
priority to forest and industrial development resulting in decreases in landbase
capability to sustain moose, which has potentially reduced the moose carrying
capacity of provincial lands for decades to come.
Another method to create wildlife habitat is through wildlife burns.
Unfortunately, wildlife burns have reduced in recent years for a variety of
reasons. Wildlife burns are well known to create habitat for wildlife, including
moose. Government needs to reduce the “red-tape” to allow more wildlife burns
and to encourage forest companies to conduct wildlife burns by limiting that
liability of fire escapement.
22
2.9.1 Recommendations for Moose Habitat Enhancement
and Protection
• Replace on professional reliance model with a natural resource practice
board that would bring resource extraction, planning, and harvest
practices back to provincial jurisdiction.
• • Habitat capability (i.e., the carrying capacity (K)) will vary among game
management zones (GMZ) but assuming most will support a density
of between 0.75 and 3.0 moose/km2 then that should be the habitat
management objective. The moose population should then be managed
to maintain moose density at or above 75% of K. Intensive habitat
enhancement will be required to meet those targets. Detailed assessments
of each GMZ will be required to determine what specific sites should be
addressed and how best to modify them to reach and maintain maximum
capability over time.
• Additional areas of UWRs and WHAs must be identified and managed
for moose regardless of impact to THLB and that the GWMs associated
with these areas must be modified to effectively protect and enhance
moose habitat features. The GWMs must involve all industrial activities
that occur on the landscape equally and support protecting moose habitat
as an equivalent objective and not secondary to industrial interests. The
GWMs must be enforceable and contravention must have legal penalty
consequences applied.
• Reducing use of herbicides within moose habitat, and incorporating
silviculture prescriptions that prolong the availability of moose browse
through forest rotation. This may require regionally specific lengthening
of forest rotation, reduced stocking rates and flexibility from free-togrow requirements in sensitive areas, such as area with high winter
range capability.
• Promote wildlife burns by reducing “red-tape” and remove the liability of
forest companies from fire escapement
2. 10  EN VIR ONMEN TA L A S S ES S M ENT
AND MITIGATION
In British Columbia industrial developments may or may not require a review
of their potential environmental impacts before the project is permitted to
proceed. Reviewable projects are determined from criteria identified by the
British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) Environmental
Assessment Act (EAA 2002) Reviewable Projects Regulation. In addition, some
projects may require review by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
(CEAA) based on federal criteria identified in the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act (CEAA 2012). In British Columbia forest harvesting is
exempt from environmental assessment, with the exception of some wood
processing activities.
With respect to moose conservation, if moose occur in areas associated with
a project that is in the environmental assessment process, moose are typically
23
included as a wildlife valued component (VC). This requires collection of
baseline data on population, distribution and habitat use within a study area
affected by the project. The level of intensity of baseline work is variable and
dictated by the EAO and regulators and is laid out in the application information
requirements (AIR) prior to the assessment being conducted. The information
may range in detail, but large projects often include a winter survey to RISC
absolute abundance / level 1 intensity and habitat suitability mapping using
standardized RISC procedures (RIC 1999) for 1:20,000 scale ecosystem
mapping. Small projects may rely on habitat mapping alone for assessment. This
information is used to evaluate the impacts from various effects (disturbance,
habitat loss, human activity, pollution etc.). These effects are then evaluated and
mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts.
The project is generally required to develop a wildlife mitigation and management
plan that identifies how impacts will be reduced and often includes plans for
moose habitat restoration and reclamation of disturbed areas during or after
operation. Mitigating and managing for access and human interactions are also
included in these plans. In area where caribou may be influenced, a caribou
mitigation and management plan (CMMP) is often required. The actions
associated with CMMPs can be contrary to moose management objectives and
effort is needed to ensure objectives for both species are met. In the short term
both species will benefit from active predator control.
No obligation
to mitigate
cumulative effects.
In addition, recommendations for mitigation of impacts and for appropriate
management for moose often provide few details, and there is no obligation
to mitigate cumulative effects. In 2016 the Cumulative Effects Framework
completed a Grizzly Bear — Value Summary. The Moose — Value Summary
needs to be completed and released. As industrial development increases on the
landscape, we need to better balance the resource extraction authorization with
effective moose management.
2.10.1 Recommendations for Environmental Assessment
and Mitigation
• The environmental assessment process must remain robust and effort
directed at defining moose baseline information and mitigation.
• Moose management and mitigation plans need to have quantifiable
objectives that include habitat goals, population objectives and effort
directed at mediating cumulative effects (e.g. access reductions).
Monitoring and adaptive management need to be a consistent and
mandated component of the moose MMP.
• CMMPs that are directed for mitigation of projects where caribou
recovery is an objective must also have mitigation that is compatible with
maintaining moose management objectives. In the short term this will
require an emphasis on active predator control, abandonment of alternate
prey theory as a management objective and on longer-term goals for
recovering both moose and caribou habitat.
• Complete and release the Cumulative Effects Framework report on moose
24
3  CONCLUSION
The challenge for British Columbian wildlife managers is they do not have enough control over all the moose
management levers. Now that the moose declines have received provincial attention, resources are being applied to
recover the moose populations. The provincial government is encouraged to use all management levers at its disposal
to recover moose populations and set a course where moose (and all wildlife) values are considered when land use
decisions are made. Decisions to support wildlife and their habitat are an important investment that will benefit all
British Columbians.
25
 REFEREN CES
2012. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. S.C. C. 19
S. 52
Operations (MFLNRO). 2015. Provincial Framework for
Moose Management in B.C. Victoria, B.C.
2002. Environmental Assessment Act, SBC.C.43
B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations, Victoria, BC. British Columbia Grizzly Bear
Population Estimate for 2012. (Accessed June 2016).
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife/docs/Grizzly_
Bear_Pop_Est_Report_Final_2012.pdf
2004. Forest and Range Practices Act, SBC. C. 69.
2008. Oil and Gas Activities Act, SBS.C. 36
ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2015.
Operational Plan for Intensive Management of Moose
in Game Management Unit 16 During Regulatory Years
2015-2017. http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/
programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/2015_gmu_16_
intensive_management_operational_plan.pdf (Accessed
(June 2016).
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2008.
Overview of the relationships of bears, wolves and
moose in Alaska, Division of Wildlife Conservation.
(Accessed June 2016). http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.
cfm?adfg=intensivemanagement.predatorprey
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Moose
management report of survey-inventory activities
1 July 2009–30 June 2011, P. Harper, editor. Species
Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2012-5,
Juneau, Alaska. (Accessed June 2016). http://www.adfg.
alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/
moose_12.pdf
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2014. Stories of
Success — Alaska’s intensive management programs
incorporate science and action to benefit Alaskans.
Alaska, Division of Wildlife Conservation. (Accessed
June 2016). http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/
programs/intensivemanagement/pdfs/intensive_
management_stories_of_success.pdf
Antoniuk, T., T. Raabis, D. Culling, B Culling, A. Creagh.
2007. Snake-Sahtaneh Boreal Caribou Study: Cumulative
Effect Component. Prepared for Science and Community
Environmental Knowledge Fund. August 2007.
Ballard, W. B., J. S. Whitman, D. J. Reed. 1991. Population
dynamics of moose in South-central Alaska. Wildlife
Monographs 114.
Bangs, E. E., T. N. Bailey, and M. F. Portner. 1989. Survival
rates of adult female moose on the Kenai Peninsula,
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 53: 557-563.
BC Ministry of Forests Lands and Natural Resource
B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations (MFLNRO). 2014. Management Plan for
the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) in British Columbia.
B.C. Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations, Victoria, BC. 48 pp.
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks. 2001.
Black Bears in British Columbia – Ecology, Conservation
and Management. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands,
and Parks, Victoria BC. 6 pp.
Beazley, K., Snaith, T., Mackinnon, F., & Colville, D.
(2004). Road density and potential impacts on wildlife
species such as American moose in mainland Nova Scotia.
Proceedings of the Nova Scotian Institute of Science, 42(2),
339-357.
Bergerud, A.T. and J.P. Elliott. 1992. Wolf predation in a
multiple ungulate system in northern British Columbia.
Can. J. Zool. 76: 1551 – 1569.
Bertram, M. R., and M. T. Vivion. 2002. Moose
mortality in eastern Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife
Management
Blood, D.A. 2000. Moose in British Columbia. Habitat
Conservation Trust Fund publication. BC Ministry of
Environment Lands and Parks. Victoria, B.C.
Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science
and Values influencing predator control for Alaska
moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management
74:917-928.66:747–756.
Boertje, R. D, K. A. Kellie, C. T. Seaton, M. A. Keech, D.
D. Young, B. W. Dale, L. G. Adams, and A. R. Aderman.
2007. Ranking Alaska moose nutrition: signals to begin
liberal antlerless harvest. Journal of Wildlife Management
71:1494-1506.
Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, D. D. Young, K. A. Kellie, C.
T. Seaton. 2009. Managing for Elevated Yield of Moose
in Interior Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management
73(3):314-327.
26
Boertje, R. D, M. A. Keech, T. F. Paragi. 2010. Science
and Values influencing predator control for Alaska
moose management. Journal of Wildlife Management
74:917-928.
Child, K.N. 1983. Selective Harvest of moose in the
Omineca: Some preliminary results. Alces 19: 162-177.
Child, K.N. and D.A. Aitken. 1989. Selective harvests,
hunters and moose in central British Columbia. Alces
25:81-97.
Crete, M. (1989). Approximation of K carrying capacity
for moose in eastern Quebec. Canadian Journal of
Zoology, 67(2), 373-380.
Cowan, I. M. and C. G. Guiget. 1978. The Mammals
of British Columbia Handbook No. 11. 7th printing ed.
Victoria, B.C.: Provincial Museum of British Columbia
Daigle, P. 2010. A summary of the environmental
impacts of roads, management responses, and research
gaps: A literature review. BC Journal of Ecosystems and
Management 10(3):65–89. www.forrex.org/publications/
jem/ISS52/vol10_no3_art8.pdf
Dungan, J., Shipley, L. A., & Wright, G. R. (2010).
Activity patterns, foraging ecology, and summer range
carrying capacity of moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Rocky
Mountain National Park, Colorado. Alces: A Journal
Devoted to the Biology and Management of Moose, 46,
71-87.
Elliot, J. P. 1985. Kechika Enhancement Project of
Northeastern B.C. Annual Report. BC Ministry of
Environment.
Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the
Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada. Species at Risk
Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada,
Ottawa. viii + 103 pp.
Euler, D. 1983. Selective harvest, compensatory mortality
and moose in Ontario. Alces 19:148–161.
Gasaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D.V. Grangaard, D.G.
Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992.
The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities
in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation.
Wildlife Monographs 92.
Gayton, D. 2007. Major impacts to biodiversity in British
Columbia (excluding climate change). Forrex report to
the Biodiversity BC technical subcommittee.
Gervasi, V., E. B. Nilsen, H. Sand, M. Panzacchi, G. R.
Rauset, H. C. Pedersen, J. Kindberg, P. Wabakken, B.
Zimmermann, J. Odden, O. Liberg, J. E. Swenson, and J.
D. C. Linnell. 2012. Predicting the potential demographic
impact of predators on their prey: a comparative analysis
of two carnivore-ungulate systems in Scandinavia.
Journal of Animal Ecology 81:443–454.
Hatter, I. W. 1999. An evaluation of moose harvest
management in central and northern British Columbia.
Alces 35:91-103.
Kelsall, J. P. and E. S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose
with particular reference to western North America.
Naturaliste Canadien 101 117-30.
Kuzyk, G., S. Marshall, M. Klaczek, and M. Gillingham.
2015. Determining factors affecting moose population
change in British Columbia: testing the landscape change
hypothesis. Progress Report: February 2012-July 2015.
B.C. Minist. For., Lands and Nat. Resour. Operations.
Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Report. No. WR-122. 9pp.
Larsen, D. G., D. A. Gauthier, and R. L. Markel. 1989.
Causes and rate of moose mortality in the southwest
Yukon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:548–557.
Larsen, D. G., R. Markel, and R. Hayes. 1985. Management
of Moose and their Predators in Southwest Yukon – A
Summary of Current Information. Government of Yukon.
Lavsun, S., T. Nyrgren, and E. J. Soleburg. 2003.
Status of moose populations and challenges to moose
management in Fennoscandia. Alces 39: 109-130.
Laurian, C., Dussault, C., Ouellet, J. P., Courtois, R., &
Poulin, M. (2012). Interactions between a large herbivore
and a road network. Ecoscience, 19(1), 69-79.
LeBlanc, J.W., McLaren, B.E., Perieral, C., Bell, M., and
Atlookan, S. 2011. First Nations Moose Hunt in Ontario:
a Community’s Perspectives and Reflections. Alces Vol.
47:163-174
Lessard, R. B. 2005. Conservation of woodland caribou
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) in west-central Alberta: a
simulation analysis of multi-species predator–prey systems.
Dissertation, Department of Renewable Resources,
University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Lewis, D. 2015. Cumulative Effects Assessment
Procedure for Moose in the Thompson Okanagan Region.
Presentation to the Moose & Watershed Stewardship
Pilot Tripartite Working Group–March 11th, 2015
Kamloops, BC
27
McTaggart Cowan, I, Guiguet, C. J. 1965. The Mammals
of British Columbia. BC Provincial Museum Handbook
No. 11. Victoria BC. 376-381
Mentis, M. T. (1977). Stocking Rates and Carrying
Capacities for Ungulates on African Rangelands. Natal
Parks Board.
Morris, M. 2015. Getting the Balance Right; Improving
Wildlife Habitat Management In British Columbia
Strategic Advice To The Minister Of Forests Lands And
Natural Resource Operations http://www.env.gov.
bc.ca/fw/wildlife/management-issues/docs/getting_
the_balance_right_improving_wildlife_habitat_
management_in_british_columbia.pdf
Russell, D. 2010. A Review of Wolf Management
Programs in Alaska, Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta,
and Northwest Territories. Shadow Lake Environmental
Consulting.
Sand, H., C. Wikenros, P. Ahlqvist, T. H. Stromseth,
and P. Wabakken. 2012. Comparing body condition of
moose (Alces alces) selected by wolves (Canis lupus)
and human hunters: consequences for the extent of
compensatory mortality. Canadian Journal of Zoology
90:403–412.
Shackleton, D. 1999. Hoofed Mammals of BC. Royal
BC Museum Handbook. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
120-135
National Research Council. 1997. Wolves, Bears, and
their Prey in Alaska: Biological and Social Challenges in
Wildlife Management. 224 pp.
Stewart, R.R., MacLennan, R. R. 1977. Saskatchewan
Moose Harvesting Program. Department of Tourism and
Renewable Resources, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
Responsive Management. 2013. Expenditures of British
Columbia Resident Hunters.
Telfer, E. S., & Scotter, G. W. (1975). Potential for game
ranching in boreal aspen forests of western Canada.
Journal of Range Management Archives, 28(3), 172-180.
Nilsen, E. B., T. Pettersen, H. Gundersen, J.M. Milner,
A. Mysterud, E. J. Solberg, H. Andreassen, and N.
C. Stenseth. 2005. Moose harvesting strategies in
the presence of wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology
42:389–399.
Pacific Analytics Inc. 2002. The Guide Outfitting Industry
in BC: An Economic Analysis of 2002.
Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history
of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 (9-21):
Reeves, H.M., McCabe, R.E.1998. Of Moose and Man. In:
Ecology and Management of the North American Moose,
Franzmann, and Schwatz, editors. Wildlife Management
Institute. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington
and London. 1-75
RIC. 2002. Aerial-based Inventory Methods for Selected
Ungulates: Bison, Mountain Goat, Mountain Sheep,
Moose, Elk, Deer & Caribou. Standards for Components
of British Columbia’s Biodiversity No. 32. Victoria, BC:
Prepared by Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Resources Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem
Task Force, Resources Inventory Committee (RIC).
RIC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings
Standards. Version 2.0. Victoria, BC: Prepared by
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources
Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force,
Resources Inventory Committee (RIC).
United States Forest Service. 2006. Alces alces. Biological
Data and Habitat Requirements. http://www.fs.fed.us/
database/feis/wildlife/mammal/alal/all.html. (accessed
May 26, 2006)
Van Ballenberge, V., and J. Dart. 1982. Harvest yields
from moose populations subject to wolf and bear
predation. Alces 18:258-275.
Wilson, S.F. 2009. Recommendations for Predator-Prey
Management to Benefit the Recovery of Mountain Caribou
in British Columbia, BC Ministry of Environment, Victoria
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/speciesconservation/mc/
files/Recommendations_Predator-Prey_Management_
Final.pdf
Xu, C. and Boyce, M. 2010. Optimal harvesting of moose
in Alberta. Alces 46: 15-35.
Yazvenko, B. S., G. F. Searing, and M. W. Demarchi.
2002. Wildlife Habitat Assessment in the Nass Wildlife
Area. Smithers, BC: Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management.
Young, D. D., Jr, and R.D. Boertje. 2004. Initial use of
moose calf hunts to increase yield. Alces 40: 1-6.
Young, D. D., Jr, and R.D. Boertje. 2011. Prudent and
imprudent use of antlerless moose harvests in interior
Alaska. Alces 47: 91-100.
28
APPENDIX 1
Ecol ogy a nd Ke y H a bitat R eq u irem ent s o f M o o se
29
APPEND IX 1. ECOLOGY AND K E Y HAB ITAT RE QUIRE M E N TS OF M OOS E
G E N ER AL
Moose utilize a variety of different habitats depending
on the season. Moose are generalist herbivores and
are described as “browsers”, obtaining their food from
aquatic plants, grasses, lichens, bark, twigs, and young
shoots of trees and shrubs. Common browse species
throughout their range include willow (Salix sp.), black
cottonwood (Populus balsamifera sp. trichocarpa), redosier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), Douglas maple
(Acer glabrum), birch (Betula sp.), and trembling aspen
(Populus tremuloides) (Ehlers, Bennett, and Corbett
1998; United States Forest Service 2006). Browse, an
important component of their diet, varies depending on
the availability, palatability and nutritional value of other
available plant species.
Kelsall and Telfer (1974) attribute climate as the most
likely limiting factor to moose expansion, with high
winter snowfalls and high summer temperatures
determining the extent of moose range. Winter is the
critical season for moose and the presence of forest cover
adjacent to foraging areas is essential. In winter, moose
exist on woody, low-quality, difficult to digest browse;
however, when snow cover allows, they may consume
non-woody vegetation and succulent species (LeResche
and Davis 1973). Moose are adapted for high snowfall
areas, having long legs and low foot loads (Coady 1974;
Kelsall and Telfer 1974), and can usually use areas where
snow depths are high (Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady
1974; Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Snow density and crusting
has an effect on the depth of snow that a moose can use,
with higher density snow allowing for deeper snow use
(Kelsall and Prescott 1971; Coady 1974). Moose will also
feed on the bark of deciduous trees, especially aspen in
late winter. The availability of woody food plants and
snow conditions (especially snow depths greater than
1 m), limit moose winter distribution. In winter, moose
move towards valley bottoms and into more mature
stands of Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), western
red cedar (Thuja plicata), and western hemlock (Tsuga
heterophylla). These forest stands provide security,
protection from deep snow, bedding, and adequate
forage in the understory (Halko, Hebert, and Halko
2001; Serrouya and D’Eon 2002). Other habitats utilized
by moose during the winter include: riparian habitats,
floodplains and other shrub dominated habitats such as
shrub lands, wetlands and their edges, burns, cutovers,
and other open areas (Demarchi 1986; Sopuck, Ovaska,
and Jakimchuk 1997).
During the summer, moose may move to higher
elevation ranges to utilize forest stands for cover from
heat and predation, and food resources (Sopuck, Ovaska,
and Jakimchuk 1997). Moose are attracted to cool water
features in the summer months, spreading out along
ponds, lake shores, and swamps. Other summer habitats
utilized by moose consist of the same type of habitat
as the winter range: floodplains, riparian habitats and
adjacent forests. Wetland habitats are used extensively
for spring, summer, and fall foraging. Sedge meadows
are important habitats in spring, as sedges are among the
first plants to emerge from dormancy. Graminoids and
forbs are preferred in spring and early summer as they
become less nutritious in fall and winter (Himmer and
Power 1999). Riparian areas along rivers and lakes are
also favoured habitats but are not used as heavily as the
spruce and shrub wetlands.
Moose are easily heat stressed even at temperatures as
low as -5°C. In the summer, extreme panting occurs at
temperatures from 14°C to 20°C (Renecker and Hudson
1986). Areas with climates having temperatures that
exceed 27°C for long periods and lack of shade do not
support moose (Kelsall and Telfer 1974). Lakes, ponds,
bogs, wetlands and the forests associated with these
habitats are important in the summer to alleviate heat
stress and provide abundant forage (Kelsall and Telfer
1974; Schwab 1985; Renecker and Hudson 1986; M. W.
Demarchi and Bunnell 1993, 1995).
Moose migrate seasonally from high elevations in the
summer, to elevations below 1,300 m in the winter
(Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). The extent of
seasonal migrations may vary depending on topography,
snow fall patterns, and forage availability in certain
areas. Seasonal home ranges average 2 to 10/km2
in size and vary depending on the season, although
further migration occurs between seasons (Stevens and
Lofts 1988).
Moose seasonal habitat use varies depending on the area
studied, sex, age, social status and reproductive status of
the animal. General seasonal use patterns are difficult to
predict and quantify due to the differences in migratory
30
patterns (LeResche, Bishop, and Coady 1974) and food
preferences (Peek 1974) described by various authors.
During the winter, moose are severely restricted in their
movements when snow levels are greater than 90 cm, are
relatively mobile if the snow levels are less than 60 cm,
and prefer areas where snow depths are less than 40 cm
(Coady 1974). In general, more open habitats such as
burns, shrublands, and cutblocks are used during early
winter or when snow levels are low and more closed
canopy coniferous forests are used when snow levels
increase (Coady 1974; Eastman 1974; LeResche, Bishop,
and Coady 1974; Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Eastman
1977; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997).
Spring, summer, and fall habitats tend to be open types
such as cutblocks, burns, shrublands, and wetlands that
have abundant browse species and aquatic habitats such
as ponds, which provide aquatic browse plants (Eastman
1974; Peek 1974; Peek, Urich, and Mackie 1976; Doer
1983; MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997).
The life span of moose is variable but estimated to
last approximately 20 years. Full maturity is reached
at approximately 5 or 6 years of age, and maximum
fecundity occurs at the age of 10 or 11 (Peterson 1974).
REPR OD UC TION
Moose mate in late September to early October during
the rutting period, which is a time of intense social
interaction between males and between males and
females (Lent 1974). The rutting period begins in mid
to late September and usually lasts for approximately
three weeks, but may last longer. Habitat requirements
for rutting appear to be varied with respect to vegetation,
topography, and proximity to human disturbance
(Stevens and Lofts 1988; Sopuck, Ovaska, and Jakimchuk
1997). Usually one calf is born in late May and early June
although two calves are not uncommon, especially when
habitat quality is high (Franzmann and Schwartz 1985
in MacCracken, Ballenberghe, and Peek 1997). Calves
stay with the female moose until the next spring and
sometimes on into the fall (Stringham 1974). Female
moose can become sexually mature after the first year but
consistent reproductive success is not usually established
until they are over 2.5 years (Simkin 1974).
The most important habitat requirement in the summer
is security cover for cows with young calves. This is
required in order to minimize predation (Sopuck,
Ovaska, and Jakimchuk 1997). Such sites are often
found in large forest stands with dense cover of shrubs
and forest canopy. The primary predators of moose are
wolves, black bears and grizzly bears.
LIT ER AT U R E C IT ED
Adair, W., P. Jordon, and J. Tillma. 1991. Aquatic forage
ratings according to wetland type: modifications for the
Lake Superior moose HSI. Alces 27 140-49.
BC CDC. 2010. BC Species and Ecosystems Explorer:
Search Criteria — Species Group “Vertebrates” BC
Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC http://a100.gov.
bc.ca/pub/eswp/. (accessed)
Bechtold, J. P. 1996. Chemical characterization of natural
mineral springs in northern British Columbia, Canada.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 24 649-54.
Belovsky, G. E. and P. A. Jordon. 1981. Sodium dynamics
and adaptations of a moose population. Journal of
Mammalogy 62 613-21.
Blood, D. A. 2000. Moose in British Columbia, ecology,
conservation and management. Victoria, BC: British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks,
Wildlife Branch.
Cederlund, G. and H. Sand. 1994. Home-range size in
relation to age and sex in moose. Journal of Mammalogy
74 (4): 1005-12.
Coady, J. W. 1974. Influence of snow on behavior of
moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 417-36.
Cowan, I. M. and C. G. Guiget. 1978. The Mammals
of British Columbia Handbook No. 11. 7th printing ed.
Victoria, B.C.: Provincial Museum of British Columbia.
Darimont, C. T., P. Paquet, T. E. Reimchen, and V.
Crichton. 2005. Range expansion by moose into coastal
temperate rainforests of British Columbia, Canada.
Diversity and Distributions 11:235–39.
Doer, J. G. 1983. Home range size, movements and
habitat use in two moose, Alces alces, populations in
southeastern Alaska. Canadian Field Naturalist 97 (1):
79-88.
Eastman, D. S. 1974. Habitat use by moose of burns,
cutovers and forests in north-central British Columbia.
Transactions of the North American Moose Conference
and Workshop 8 185-207.
31
Eastman, D. S. 1977. Habitat Selection and Use in Winter
by Moose in Sub-Boreal Forests of North-Central British
Columbia, and Relationships to Forestry. Ph.D. thesis
diss., University of British Columbia.
Eastman, D. S. and R. Ritcey. 1987. Moose habitat
relationships and management in British Columbia.
Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1 101-18.
Environment Canada. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the
Woodland Caribou, Southern Mountain population
(Rangifer tarandus caribou) in Canada [Proposed].
Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series.
Environment Canada, Ottawa. viii + 68 pp.
Fraser, D., E. R. Chavez, and J. E. Paloheimo. 1984.
Aquatic feeding by moose: selection of plant species and
feeding areas in relation to plant chemical composition
and characteristics of lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology
62 80-87.
Hatler, D. F. 1988. History and Importance of Wildlife in
Northern British Columbia. In The Wildlife of Northern
British Columbia. Ed. R. J. Fox. p10-11. Smithers, B.C.:
Spatsizi Association for Biological Research.
Karns, P. D. 1998. Population Distribution, Density
and Trends. In Ecology and Management of the
North American Moose. Ed. A. W. Franzmann and
C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Kelsall, J. P. and E. S. Telfer. 1974. Biogeography of moose
with particular reference to western North America.
Naturaliste Canadien 101 117-30.
Klaus, G. and B. Schmid. 1998. Geophagy at natural licks
and mammal ecology: a review. Mammalia 62 481-97.
Lent, P. C. 1974. A review of rutting behavior in moose.
Naturaliste Canadien 101 307-23.
LeResche, R. E., R. H. Bishop, and J. W. Coady. 1974.
Distribution and habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste
Canadien 101 143-78.
LeResche, R. E. and J. L. Davis. 1973. Importance of
nonbrowse foods to moose on the Kenai Peninsula,
Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management 37 (3): 279-87.
MacCracken, J. G., V. V. Ballenberghe, and J. M. Peek.
1997. Habitat relationships of moose on the Copper
river delta in coastal south-central Alaska. Wildlife
Monographs 136 54.
McIntyre, E. G. 1972. Bark stripping — a natural
phenomenon. Journal of the Royal Scottish Forest Society
26 43-50.
McNicol, J. G. and F. F. Gilbert. 1980. Late winter
use of upland cutovers by moose. Journal of Wildlife
Management 44 (2): 363-71.
Miquelle, D. G. and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1989. Impact of
bark stripping by moose on aspen-spruce communities.
Journal of Wildlife Management 53:577-86.
Peek, J. M. 1974. A review of moose food habits studies
in North America. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101:195-215.
Peek, J. M. 1998. Habitat Relationships. In Ecology and
Management of the North American Moose. Ed. A. W.
Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
Peek, J. M., D. L. Urich, and R. J. Mackie. 1976. Moose
habitat selection and relationships to forest management
in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 48 65.
Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history
of moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 (9-21):
Renecker, L. A. and R. J. Hudson. 1986. Seasonal energy
expenditures and thermoregulatory responses of moose.
Canadian Journal of Zoology 64 322-27.
Renecker, L. A. and C. C. Schwartz. 1998. Food Habits
and Feeding Behaviour. In Ecology and Management of
the North American Moose. Ed. A. W. Franzmann and
C. C. Schwartz. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
RIC. 1999. British Columbia Wildlife Habitat Ratings
Standards. Version 2.0. Victoria, BC: Prepared by
Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Resources
Inventory Branch for Terrestrial Ecosystem Task Force,
Resources Inventory Committee (RIC).
Risenhoover, K. L. 1985. Intraspecific Variation in Moose
Preference for Willows. F. D. Provenza, J. T. Flinders, and
E. D. McArthur, ed. Snowbird, Utah: Intermountain
Research Station Forest Service. United States
Department of Agriculture.
Schwab, F. E. 1985. Moose Habitat Selection in Relation
to Forest Cutting Practices in North-Central British
Columbia. Ph.D. thesis diss., University of British
Columbia.
32
Schwab, F. E. and M. D. Pitt. 1991. Moose selection of
canopy cover types relative to operative temperature,
forage and snow depth. Canadian Journal of Zoology
69 3071-77.
Thompson, I. D. and M. F. Vukelich. 1981. Use of
logged habitats in winter by moose cows with calves
in northeastern Ontario. Canadian Journal of Zoology
59 (11): 2103-44.
Schwartz, C. C., M. E. Hubbert, and A. W. Franzmann.
1988. Energy requirements of adult moose for winter
maintenance. Journal of Wildlife Management 52 26-33.
Tomm, H. O., J. A. Beck Jr, and R. J. Hudson. 1981.
Response of wild ungulates to logging practices in
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 11 606-14.
Simkin, D. W. 1974. Reproduction and productivity of
moose. Naturaliste Canadien 101 517-26.
United States Forest Service. 2006. Alces alces. Biological
Data and Habitat Requirements. http://www.fs.fed.us/
database/feis/wildlife/mammal/alal/all.html. (accessed
May 26, 2006).
Stevens, V. 1995. Wildlife Diversity in British Columbia:
Distribution and Habitat Use of Amphibians, Reptiles,
Birds, and Mammals in Biogeoclimatic Zones. Victoria,
B.C.: Research Branch, British Columbia Ministry of
Forests; Wildlife Branch, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment, Lands and Parks.
Stringham, S. F. 1974. Mother-infant relations in moose.
Naturaliste Canadien 101 325-69.
Van Dyke, F., B. L. Probert, and G. M. Van Beek. 1995.
Moose home range fidelity and core area characteristics
in south-central Montana. Alces 31 93-104.
Westworth, D., L. Brusnyk, J. Roberts, and H. Veldhuzien.
1989. Winter habitat use by moose in the vicinity of an
open-pit mine in north-central British Columbia. Alces
25 (156-166):
33
34