Minnesotas Wild Moose Chase
During January and February, Minnesota’s declining moose population was literally chased by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for scientific research. In this process, helicopters pursue a targeted moose until it can be shot with a dart gun. The sedated moose is then probed, teeth may be removed, blood samples taken, and radio collars attached. Some have electronic monitors placed in their guts. It seems ironic that science requires further stressing in order to study an already stressed population.
The DNR estimates a low mortality rate for capture/collaring projects. Any moose that dies within 2 weeks of capture is counted as a capture related mortality. One hundred cows were collared in January and fifty calves will be part of this experiment. As of May 15, twenty five calves have been collared; one died shortly after, and two were abandoned by their mothers. (MPR, “DNR collaring moose calves to study, protect species,” May 15, 2013). DNR biologists say the risks are worth it, because computers track the collared animals, allowing researchers to respond quickly when an animal dies, analyzing for cause of death.
Up until February, the DNR claimed that a moose hunting season would have no impact on the declining moose numbers. On February 1, Minnesota Senate File 242 was introduced to establish a moratorium on moose hunting. This was followed by a February 6th DNR announcement that, due to a 35% decline in the moose population over the past year down to an estimated total of 2,760 animals, the moose hunting season would be closed in 2013 (DNR website).
We do know some reasons for decreasing wildlife numbers in general. According to DNR proposed rules related to the designation of endangered, threatened, and special concern species these include: habitat destruction, encroaching development, forestry and land management practices, use of herbicides and pesticides, expanding recreational use in fragile environments, contamination of water from fertilizers and other chemicals, invasive species movement into disturbed areas, and climate change. Researchers so far suspect some combination of higher temperatures, parasites, disease, contact with deer, and changes in habitat are causing the decline in the moose population (TwinCities.com, “Moose researchers begin collaring calves, seeking answers on decline, May 16, 2013). The inherent conflict of interest within the DNR’s two divisions—Ecological and the Department of Lands and Minerals—has resulted in no mention of the amount of mineral exploration that is taking place within moose habitat, or the legacy mining pollution that is making its way through the water and air.
Nor has there been mention of the Pagami Creek Fire of 2011, which burned 100,000 acres of moose habitat within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Any wildlife caught in the fire were vaporized. Much of the acreage burned so completely that, according to the Pow Wow Trail Hiking Club, new sources of browse will not be available for years, possibly decades. The Pagami Creek Fire, under U.S. Forest Service jurisdiction, was a clear demonstration that 10 year plans and computer models cannot substitute for common sense and on-the-ground knowledge, especially during a time of unpredictable climate conditions.
According to a Minnesota Public Radio report, Ron Moen of the Natural Resource Research Institute at the University of Minnesota Duluth questioned whether it is worth protecting moose if they will become extinct due to climate change (“Why are Minn. moose dying? Answer sought in Voyageurs Park, January 29, 2013). Since climate change is, to some degree or another, being fueled by human practices, is it right to forgo protecting threatened wildlife? If our agencies abrogate responsibility for protecting the moose, they are, in effect, overseeing the extinction of the moose subspecies that has populated northeast Minnesota (Alces alces andersoni).
The Concurrent
Wolf Wars
DNR policy that allowed moose hunting under tenuous circumstances has been extended to the wolf population. With no actual current population numbers, and no tracking of wolf diseases, the DNR enacted an immediate wolf hunting and trapping season following delisting of the wolf from the U.S. Endangered Species list in 2012.
When 70 % of respondents to a DNR questionnaire opposed a wolf season, the DNR claimed the poll results were unscientific. Evidently Minnesota legislators presented a more scientific view when they called for a wolf season to reduce “pent-up demand” for hunting and trapping. (TwinCities.com, “At the Capitol: ‘Pent-up” demand cited for wolf hunt plan,” January 26, 2012) New polls consistently show that 2/3 of respondents favor a moratorium on the wolf season (Lake Research Partners). Bills to establish such a moratorium passed through several 2013 legislative committees, but were stopped at a key committee chaired by Representative David Dill. An attempt to add a weakened amendment to an omnibus bill to put a temporary moratorium on wolf hunting and trapping in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness also failed, although banning hunting and trapping in the Boundary Waters would do little to reduce wolf take, especially considering the impact of the Pagami Creek fire.
The media continues to frame wolves for the decline of the moose population. On March 18, headlines declared “Study: Wolves Contribute to Moose Decline” (MPR), “Researchers Blame Moose Decline on Wolves” (Duluth News Tribune), and “Moose Study Shows Wolves Taking Toll” (Pioneer Press). Yet the scope of the articles stated that of the six recently collared moose that died, four were labeled as capture-related mortality and two the result of wolf kill. The one moose that died in the Grand Portage area was attributed to a wolf kill, but remains showed the moose’s health had been compromised by pneumonia. The moose carcasses also showed less than normal body fat. The moose population is obviously being weakened by health issues.
At the same time, citizens along the North Shore have documented wolves with mange—a disease that at one time was intentionally spread to the wolf population by government agencies as a form of population control.
The Nature of the Beast
According to an Internal email that the organization Howling for Wolves commissioned through the Data Practices Act, DNR officials state that, “we owe it to our primary clients, hunters and trappers, and to livestock producers as secondary clients, to do what we can to establish a legitimate harvest opportunity now that the wolf is under our management authority.” (Minnpost, “Are we really leaving the future of Minnesota’s wolves up to trappers/hunters and livestock producers?” April 1, 2013).
In a lawsuit against the DNR, two wolf advocacy groups, Howling for Wolves and the Center for Biological Diversity, argued that the agency violated its own rules when it failed to hold public hearings to respond to the proposed hunt. Assistant Attorney General David Iverson, representing the DNR, told the judges that no person who opposed the hunt should have standing to challenge the methods of organizing it. (MPR,” Minnesota wolf hunt lawsuit gets hearing in appeals court,” April 3, 2013.) He also said that those opposed to a wolf hunt are not likely to be harmed by it. [Although] “They might not see a wolf as a result of the wolf season.” (Star Tribune, “Wolf advocates claim Minnesota neglected their concerns, April 5, 2013.) The decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals regarding the lawsuit is expected to be released on May 28.
The DNR’s newest example of catering to a clientele is its plan to kill part of the cormorant population on Lake Vermilion. The lake’s perch population is falling, and perch are the primary forage fish for walleye. Don Pereira, the DNR fisheries policy and research manager, says “they believe the lake’s growing cormorant population is the reason.” (WDIO, “DNR to cut cormorant population on Lake Vermilion,” April 22, 2013.) With no conclusive evidence, the DNR will kill an unpopular bird species in order to protect a popular game fish for its fishing clientele.
Which leads to the other major clientele of the DNR. The mission of the DNR Lands and Minerals Division includes “managing mineral exploration and mine development on state-owned and tax-forfeited land.” DNR Lands and Minerals is now actively involved in promoting proposed copper-nickel sulfide mining in northern Minnesota. The DNR is granting mineral exploration leases on state lands, including land adjacent to the new Lake Vermilion State Park and bordering the shoreline of Lake Vermilion. How will this impact cormorants, other nesting birds, fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife?
A broader part of the DNR mission statement says the “DNR provides access to enrich public outdoor recreational opportunities, such as hunting, fishing, wildlife-watching, camping, skiing, hiking, biking, motorized recreation, and conservation education.” When the DNR narrows its focus to selected clientele, it does so at the risk of ignoring impending threats to the viability of ecosystems and the character and quality of this land of ten thousand lakes.
Legislators to the
rescue of industry
Legislation that passed through the current state legislature has the potential to further impact wildlife populations. Bill language initiated by the Iron Range delegation and passed in the Omnibus bill mandates the MPCA to ignore secondary sources or fugitive emissions of particulates into the air when granting (mining) companies permits or variances. An increase of particulate emissions will contribute to more respiratory and heart disease in the human population. How will an increase in air emissions affect wildlife?
Iron Range legislators were also responsible for legislation that in statute allows expansion of Magnetation’s scram mining operations to include more than 80 acres of land previously not affected by mining (if the impacts could be shown to be substantially the same as other scram operations) and thus allows the company to open-pit mine. Scram operations are already exempt from environmental review on land that was historically mined for natural ores. This year’s legislation statutorily eliminates environmental review for destruction of unmined lands that will likely include wetlands or other wildlife habitat.
The DNR is also being pressured under the Governor’s streamlining timeline to determine whether sulfates stunt the growth of wild rice and contribute to the methylation of mercury which bio-accumulates in the food chain. Whatever the biochemical reactions, we already know that mining operations are releasing both sulfates and mercury into the environment, that wild rice is declining in areas with high sulfates, and that fish are high in methylmercury. Since moose spend a good part of the year eating aquatic plants, are sulfates and mercury impacting the moose population? For that matter, any wildlife or birds that eat fish or aquatic plants are likely being affected--including our state bird, the loon.
The moose, the wolf, the loon: from icon to extinction?
If Minnesota residents allow our agencies and our legislators to proceed with measures that favor industry over environment at all costs, then we will pay the price. Northeast Minnesota will no longer sustain the landscape and wildlife that we love—whether we hunt and fish, or whether we hike and photograph. We all stand to lose.
We can give up on our iconic species—letting them fall prey to climate change, caused at least in part by our excessive use of hydrocarbon based technologies. We can add to the stress of our wildlife populations with continued degradation of the environment and weakening of state laws. Or we can make responsible choices in our own lives, and demand responsible action from our agencies.
Contact Commissioner Tom Landwehr at commissioner.dnr@state.mn.us or call the central office at 1-888-646-6367. Inform Mr. Landwehr that all citizens, and species, are his clientele. Repeat your message with Governor Dayton at 1-800-657-3717; he appoints the Commissioner of the DNR.
Box:
Bill language that didn’t make the 2013 legislative session but is waiting for 2014 would make changes to the state’s wetland laws. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Conservation (BWSR) is seeking to define Lake Superior, Rainy River, and the Red River as one watershed for mitigation purposes. This would allow for destruction of wetlands in St. Louis for mining expansion if wetlands are reconstructed or preserved in the Red River watershed. The bill would also allow for an in-lieu bank payment for loss of wetlands, rather than replacement. Loss of wetlands in northeast Minnesota means loss of moose territory.
