|
Current
conditions of increasing
moose/vehicle collisions and
hostile moose encounters on
school grounds will soon begin
to be fixed with the beginning
of relocating surplus moose from
Anchorage to remote locations of
Unit 13 around Eureka, Alaska.
Alaska Moose Federations
Relocation Plan (LINK), prepared
by Chairman Olson and program
director Dr. Del Seeba, AMF
veterinarian, was turned into
Department of Fish & Game on
August 22, 2005. Moose
relocation is only a small part
in a large solution that is
needed across the board for
Alaska’s moose populations.
A vital component of this
program is the significant
benefit of increasing public
safety in urban Alaska while
helping rebuild depleted rural
populations. The ‘Living with
Wildlife’ method of management
that has persisted thus far
misses this entirely. How many
kids are in jeopardy every day
on and around school grounds in
Anchorage? How many drivers play
Russian roulette on our
moose-laden roads? How many
rural Alaskans watch rural herds
decline? How many tourists come
to Alaska that hope to see
healthy moose populations?
Millions of dollars are lost
annually from hundreds of
moose/vehicle collisions in
property damage and the loss of
moose to the state (LINK). We
are turning this around so these
lost millions will represent
tremendous economic gains to
Alaska in the forms of decreased
property damage, increased
public safety, increased ability
for subsistence and increased
tourism. The economic value of
moose to Alaska must be
understood by the state.
Alaska’s fisheries have been
acknowledged as a tremendous
benefit to the state and thus
have had the resources necessary
to enhance the industry.
Alaska’s moose deserve the same
consideration. All state
agencies must understand this so
the critical change can occur.
The following excerpt from the
book Ecology and Management of
the North American Moose by Dr.
Albert W. Franzmann and Dr.
Charles C. Schwartz details the
history of moose and their
populations in North America.
Note translocation efforts that
can be a benefit to moose
populations if they are
performed correctly and placed
into healthy environments.
Translocation
Throughout recorded history,
humans have moved free-ranging
wild animals from one location
to another, mostly for human
benefits. Burris and McKnight
(1973) listed six translocation
objectives: (1) increased
recreational hunting; (2)
additional food supply; (3)
economic gain; (4) population
reestablishment; (5)
preservation of endangered
species; and (6) opportunity to
view a species in a new setting.
Until the mid-1900s, most
translocation attempts in North
America failed and, in some
cases, the introduced species
negatively impacted the
relocation area. Presently, a
few translocations may be
politically motivated and a few
others undertaken without proper
regard to the potential impact,
but most are based on sound
wildlife management.
There were few translocations of
moose in North America than of
other large mammals, such as
elk. From Yellowstone National
Park alone between 1892 and
1967, 15,745 elk were shipped to
various locations (Robbins et
al. 1982) There were only 545
moose known to have been
translocated to establish new
populations in all of North
America from 1784 to 1993.
Others undoubtedly were not
recorded.
A common measure of the success
of a translocation is the
establishment of a reproducing
population. Of the 22 recorded
translocations of moose, 12
resulted in establishing
reproducing populations.
Introduced moose now are legally
hunted in several states and
provinces (Newfoundland/
Labrador, Nova Scotia, Alaska,
Colorado, Michigan). Only two of
the translocations (Colorado
1987, 1991 – 1993, and Michigan
1985, 1987) used chemical
immobilization, the remainder
depended on physical restraint
or hand-reared calves.
The choice of using physical or
chemical restraint for best
results in difficult to make
based on evaluating past
translocations. Many early
translocations using physical
restraint experienced high
mortality rates (Pimlott and
Carberry 1958). Recent
translocation (e.g., Colorado
and Michigan) using both
chemical and physical restraint
had few or no mortalities. The
59 Ontario moose translocated to
Michigan in 1985 and 1987,
captured using chemical
restraint, increased to about
200 animals by 1992 and have
continued to expand in
population size and range since
then to the point where
translocations from this
population to other areas is
being considered. This occurred
despite significant mortalities
from brain worm infestations (S.M.
Schmitt personal communication:
1994). The Colorado operations
used both corral traps and
etorphine immobilization.
Officials concluded that corral
trapping was easier, more
efficient, and less stressful
and taxing on the animals than
was chemical immobilization
(Duvall and Schoonvelt 1988).
Most mortalities in the early
translocations were from
“shock-type disturbances” (Pimlott
and Carberry 1958). Such
disturbances include stress,
true shock, capture myopathy
and/or hypothermia. Better
management during capture and
transport has minimized these
syndromes.
The transport of captive animals
is an operation for which there
is no substitute for experience.
Transport of moose in individual
crates, in trailer trucks, and
as calves in pickup trucks has
been successful. Each situation
will dictate the preferred
method, but the choice should be
the method that stresses the
animal the least. Good planning,
logistics and communications are
necessary. Some general
considerations are
(International Wildlife
Veterinary Service, Inc. 1991)
security, protection from
inclement weather, protection
from trauma, protection from
diseases, protection from
stress, access to animal during
transport and safety.
|
