Which land hold more Moose .....
The total wilderness or
the area which vas logged in the past ?
Printable View
Which land hold more Moose .....
The total wilderness or
the area which vas logged in the past ?
Moose are animals that prefer the boundary between mature forests and disturbed areas (cutovers/burned areas). The mature forests provide shelter and security, while the disturbed areas provide an abundance of nutritious food.
If there would be no human in the wilderness no logging there would be less moose in that area ...?
Because less new grow no burn down area .
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Menard
Moose will flock to the cut over areas for about 10 years after the cut, then will abandon it when the regrowth gets too thick to walk through.
I know that .
But that is not my question ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by werner.reiche
Newfoundland should be called Mooseland! :)
Well... your question was vague so I tried to clarify it. Logged how far in the past?Quote:
Originally Posted by alfoldivandor
Almost all of Ontario has been logged at some point - that includes Algonquin Park.
If an area has been logged less than 10 years ago, it will hold more moose. More than that, likely not. This is based on what I'm seeing in the crown land south of the eastern part of Algonquin park.
life went on long before humans made a difference( in most cases for the worst). There has always been forest fires, wind storms, heck even beaver activity will open up the old to make space for the new. Its the cycle of life ,Hakuna matata.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfoldivandor
Forest fires - yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers
Wind storms create a tangled mess that deer/moose cannot navigate through.
Beaver ponds grow back slowly from around the edges, so they don't create a blanket of new growth like cutting or a fire will.
In "the wilderness", there are natural moose pastures - open bush with a lot of heavily browsed soft maple, moose brush (don't know it's real name) and balsam.
In the absence of logging, fire or disasters, these areas (and moose) will still exists. It's not like moose are dependent on these events, but they do take advantage of them.
I would say the total wilderness and it would stand to reason this would be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by alfoldivandor
Logging has no doubt created many areas for the Moose to feed but they come with a heavy price?
Roads that are created allow for more predation by hunters using none traditional means to access a lot of territory that protected the Moose back in the day.
The same roads allow for four legged hunters to travel much more area in search of Moose.
Opening up areas by logging such as in Algonquin Park area and surrounding areas allowed for the northward expansion of Deer with the spread of Brain Worm killing of more Moose.
So I would go the for total wilderness area, they were renewed by much smaller natural forest fires caused by nature, so there has always been feed plots.
There is some talk that aboriginal peoples actually managed the land using fire for various reasons, this could have been one of them.
Truly wilderness areas in this Province where hunters had to go by traditional means without the logging roads, would in my opinion see a dramatic reduction in Moose harvest.
In a total wilderness state I believe even after smaller natural forest fires, more of the dense shelter areas would have been preserved.