Bull/cow or calf?

With the new tagging system for calf it would be interesting to know what most hunters think they will be applying for.
I am personally thinking to apply for a calf, as with my 7 points I don’t think I have any chances to get a bull tag. And we only hunt two or three of us.
But for those in big parties I think it would be a hard decision...If a party, let’s say, of 10 people would all apply for a bull they still could not get any tag and as such they all have to miss the moose season at all. On the other hand, if they all apply for a calf, then no bull tag forever… It’s kinda even more complicated and probably frustrating than it was before.
It is interesting to know what strategies people would choose.
Any insights?

We have two guys with 8 points. They will apply, one for a bull, one for cow/calf. The others will apply calf. If we luck out, we will accept only one adult tag. If the others get calf tags, the guy with the least points will accept a calf tag.... that’s what we are thinking anyway.

That's seems like a wise strategy....

It would be really nice if people left the calves and maybe setup a bear bait or two, potentially turned it into a week long pike/walleye trip for a year or two along with the bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It would be really nice if people left the calves and maybe setup a bear bait or two, potentially turned it into a week long pike/walleye trip for a year or two along with the bear.

---

I would rather call it for cow... Isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

We have two guys with 8 points. They will apply, one for a bull, one for cow/calf. The others will apply calf. If we luck out, we will accept only one adult tag. If the others get calf tags, the guy with the least points will accept a calf tag.... that’s what we are thinking anyway.

---

I couldn’t agree more. Our group is similar and that’s the plan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

I would rather call it for cow... Isn't it?

---

I would rather it be bulls only and limited. I think it is stupid that we are talking about killing cows and calves in areas where the population is in trouble.

Well, I think you should be aware that hunting calves is more conservationally justified than hunting any adults, including bulls.
Your position seems to be more emotional rather than rational, and more suitable for those from the veggie and animal rights side.
I think if we choose to hunt then we should take a strictly conservation approach. If someone is too emotional and feels very bad killing animals (either male or female) then hunting is not an option here.
To be honest with you it is never easy for me to kill these magnificent creatures, either it to be a moose, deer, bear or ducks. But this is food for me and the family. I once told my wife: I know that I’m killing those I love. But we were born to eat meat and I made my choice and put emotions aside. After that only ethics and conservation matter.

I'd have to agree with fox. Given the low numbers, there is absolutely zero logic in allowing any cow harvest. Some bio in policy branch needs a smack in the back of the head ! Moose are not like deer that can breed at 6 months of age, and usually have a high twinning rate on good range. Maternal cow moose do not have good calf survival rates until they are 5 or 6yrs of age. Harvest a cow and it's going to take 5-6 years for another cow to replace that breeder, and you are almost surely eliminating it's current calf from potentially being a reproductive unit in 5 years time. The most recent aerial moose data that I saw for northern and north
western wmus all had low cow/calf to bull ratios. Makes zero sense to be harvesting any cows or calves if the desire is to allow the population to increase. I'd like to see bull tags only, with tag numbers based on maintaining healthy adult bull to adult cow ratios.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

Well, I think you should be aware that hunting calves is more conservationally justified than hunting any adults, including bulls.
Your position seems to be more emotional rather than rational, and more suitable for those from the veggie and animal rights side.
I think if we choose to hunt then we should take a strictly conservation approach. If someone is too emotional and feels very bad killing animals (either male or female) then hunting is not an option here.
To be honest with you it is never easy for me to kill these magnificent creatures, either it to be a moose, deer, bear or ducks. But this is food for me and the family. I once told my wife: I know that I’m killing those I love. But we were born to eat meat and I made my choice and put emotions aside. After that only ethics and conservation matter.

---

Please explain why you think targeting breeding stock makes sense. All we've been doing is killing next year's hunt,IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

Well, I think you should be aware that hunting calves is more conservationally justified than hunting any adults, including bulls.
Your position seems to be more emotional rather than rational, and more suitable for those from the veggie and animal rights side.
I think if we choose to hunt then we should take a strictly conservation approach. If someone is too emotional and feels very bad killing animals (either male or female) then hunting is not an option here.
To be honest with you it is never easy for me to kill these magnificent creatures, either it to be a moose, deer, bear or ducks. But this is food for me and the family. I once told my wife: I know that I’m killing those I love. But we were born to eat meat and I made my choice and put emotions aside. After that only ethics and conservation matter.

---

I think they should close the moose hunt entirely and allow the numbers to get back, but a limited bull season would at least help out the outfitters in northern Ontario.

You want to keep killing the cows and calves you will not have moose to hunt down the road, it is pretty cut and dry.

Sorry to say it but you are listed as living in Mississauga, you are not going hunting so you can eat, you are going hunting so you can kill something and then eat it.

Why not start hunting black bears, you will help out the moose population and fill your freezer with delicious meat, plus the bear population has been rising.

You can also spend a bunch of time to fill your freezer with Canada geese, if filling the freezer with wild game is key, they are cheap to shoot and easy to find in SW Ontario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Sorry to say it but you are listed as living in Mississauga, you are not going hunting so you can eat, you are going hunting so you can kill something and then eat it.

---

Well now, that’s funny right there....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dilly

Well now, that’s funny right there....

---

There is a difference between sustenance hunting and hunting for sport, the vast majority hunt for sport, the meat is a bonus.

Closing the Moose Hunting for say 2 years might help it grow very quickly.

I don't think two year closure would accomplish what's needed. Based on breeding biology, you're not going to see a new breeder cohort of maternal cows for 5-6 years. Mnr somehow needs to get a handle on the native harvest as well. It's only a guess at present with no requirements for reporting. I wonder what percent of the native harvest is comprised of cows and calves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

I don't think two year closure would accomplish what's needed. Based on breeding biology, you're not going to see a new breeder cohort of maternal cows for 5-6 years. Mnr somehow needs to get a handle on the native harvest as well. It's only a guess at present with no requirements for reporting. I wonder what percent of the native harvest is comprised of cows and calves?

---

All that we know is that there will be less cows/calves shot if the general hunting population does not hunt them.

1 year is not going to do it but killing off a chunk of the next generation of animals every year was the dumbest thing that they could have done and they did it for a long time.

Fox, Fenelon

I thought it is well known and I don’t need to repeat that it is at least supposed that about 50% of calf is going to not survive the first winter. As such, if we are allowed to remove some animals from the population it is better to remove calf than adults and at the same time to allow people to hunt and collect the money from licensing which are spent back for conservation.
Again, this strategy is well known and I expected everyone here is aware of it.
Then, if we would choose to only hunt bulls it obviously will be a disaster for the population because (do I need it to repeat as well?) for breeding there is a need for both: male and female.

Now with regards to closing all moose hunting for years in the hope of increasing population… It is also well known that the poor moose population in Ontario is not due to hunting pressure. There are some known and probably unknown reasons for that. In comparison, in Sweden and Russia the moose population right now is enormous . And it’s not declining despite very liberate hunting licensing (and poaching in Russia).
Anyway if MNR chooses not to close moose hunting season then I don’t have any ethical issues to hunt it.

Now about ethics. You say if I live in Mississauga, not up North, then I’m supposed to go to the store and buy their grossy meat and be happy. If it is your choice - I’m glad that you are happy with it. But I personally see it differently. I see it as buying meat in the store much more unethical than ethical hunting. Moose cow in the bush are not any better (ethically thinking) than beef cow in the pen. And emotionally I feel more sadness for the cattle in the stall than for freely living moose. They are all gonna die. The ethical matter is not how they die but how they live.
You think that hunting is sport and enjoyment and meat is just a bonus? I see it differently. I hunt for food and if I don’t need the meat I leave those in the wild in their peaceful world. I do not enjoy killing animals. Yes, I do enjoy hunting, but killing is the saddest part of it. It is necessity, not enjoyment.
Anyway, I didn’t want this topic to go here and I’m done with it. I appreciate everybody’s opinion but I keep mine.
Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

I don't think two year closure would accomplish what's needed. Based on breeding biology, you're not going to see a new breeder cohort of maternal cows for 5-6 years. Mnr somehow needs to get a handle on the native harvest as well. It's only a guess at present with no requirements for reporting. I wonder what percent of the native harvest is comprised of cows and calves?

---

Depends on how many additional moose they have to shoot before they get one to drop near the road so they don't have too much work to get it out.

Maybe we should look at what other provinces do, seems Quebec is quite successful at managing it's Moose Population and I think NB (Not sure don't follow as much there now)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Maybe we should look at what other provinces do, seems Quebec is quite successful at managing it's Moose Population and I think NB (Not sure don't follow as much there now)

---

Ok, still have to come back...
If you are an OFAH member you should know that there are a lot of efforts made by OFAH, MNR and other parties to understand and manage the moose population in Ontario. So far seems like there is no solution or comprehensive understanding of the problem.
Most likely there are a number of factors, including brain worm and aboriginal hunting. Nothing could be done with it as for today’s policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

It would be really nice if people left the calves and maybe setup a bear bait or two, potentially turned it into a week long pike/walleye trip for a year or two along with the bear.

---

That's what we have been doing. Haven't bother trying to get a moose tag in 5+ years. Like bear better anyways.

Going on an outfitter hunting/fishing trip this year. First time ever. Getting old/lazy.

Any one that says the moose hunt needs to close I'm sure glad you don't run things,
I know of a least 2 groups that seen in the excess of 30 moose in a week of hunting, one way north and one east central, got one picture of 12 moose in front of 1 person opening day,
People that don't see animals either A) don't hunt the rut or B) wont go way back to the spots that are hard to get to where the moose live and hope to shoot the easy ones next to logging roads or that stand in clear cuts.
Quebec from my experience there frowns on shooting cows and calves even if the tag says you can, Ontario everyone wants to shoot cows and calf.
so 50 percent calves don't make it in a year,
so what if the 5 calves that get shot were the ones that would have made it,
Shooting calves is wrong for the population and if you think its right you are clueless and your the reason what's wrong with the Ontario moose hunt.

Quote:

---

Shooting calves is wrong for the population and if you think its right you are clueless and your the reason what's wrong with the Ontario moose hunt.

---

Oh, well... Again...
Why do you think that you know better than MNR/OFAH etc staff who spent their lives studying and researching the issue?
I would be glad if they are wrong and you are right.
But really, I got to trust people with education and resources rather than dabbler’s opinion. What do you really think? - that you are smarter than they are or they don’t care about the moose population as much as you do?

I think the laws and regulations surrounding the calf harvest were made long before much of the northern woods was opened up with logging trails.

When I started moose hunting after college (took fish and wildlife tech in college) I was pretty surprised at the contrast between what we were taught about calves and how much success we seemed to have shooting them.

My feeling is that the calf mortality rate of 50% is probably not far from the truth, it's the assumption that calves are so hard to find and shoot that is no longer accurate.

Both sides of this discussion are making fair points. The thinking on calf hunting is antiquated, but assuming hunters will self regulate "because it's wrong to take too many calves" is a problem, because not many people will self regulate if the law allows otherwise.

Sent from my SM-A520W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Sorry to say it but you are listed as living in Mississauga, you are not going hunting so you can eat, you are going hunting so you can kill something and then eat it.

---

Who are you to judge hunters based on where they live?
Sad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

Oh, well... Again...
Why do you think that you know better than MNR/OFAH etc staff who spent their lives studying and researching the issue?
I would be glad if they are wrong and you are right.
But really, I got to trust people with education and resources rather than dabbler’s opinion. What do you really think? - that you are smarter than they are or they don’t care about the moose population as much as you do?

---

Please don’t tell me that you think all these organizations and government bodies do this because it’s the right thing to do. It’s all about the benjamins. Money more often than not dictates policy. Let me repeat, policy is not based on studies entirely! Follow the money.


My personal opinion is that we do need to cut out the calf hunt entirely for a good decade. We also need real numbers of First Nations harvests. Tick control and brainworm control needs to be figured out. And as everyone else has said, hunt more bears. Predator control is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt86

Any one that says the moose hunt needs to close I'm sure glad you don't run things,
I know of a least 2 groups that seen in the excess of 30 moose in a week of hunting, one way north and one east central, got one picture of 12 moose in front of 1 person opening day,
People that don't see animals either A) don't hunt the rut or B) wont go way back to the spots that are hard to get to where the moose live and hope to shoot the easy ones next to logging roads or that stand in clear cuts.
Quebec from my experience there frowns on shooting cows and calves even if the tag says you can, Ontario everyone wants to shoot cows and calf.
so 50 percent calves don't make it in a year,
so what if the 5 calves that get shot were the ones that would have made it,
Shooting calves is wrong for the population and if you think its right you are clueless and your the reason what's wrong with the Ontario moose hunt.

---

Matt- I met a local guy,a metis-from Jellicoe.10 years ago.He lived all his life in Beardmore-Jellicoe and Geralton.
We made good friends.

He told me(10 years ago-NOT recently ,when MNRF allowed and Propagated eradication of Moose in WMU 21-just to name one WMU...) that when he was a kid (like late 1980-ish)he would travel from Geralton to Thunder bay and he would EVERY time see 20-30 moose along the way.ONE way.
2009 -when i met him ,he said-if i Go,i see 1 ,maybe 2.

Another - i was in a moose hunitng club at Elk Lake ,late 1990-ish.
The old boys there hunted the area since 1965.With great success.
They said,the moose was crawling there at the time...now,NO GUARANTEE for Group(if we would still have the old ways)


Last year one of my buddies hunted one WMU ,bow-with12 hunters.One end of the WMU.Never saw a moose.
My other buddy hunted the Same WMU,7 hunters.The other end of the WMU.
They saw-videoed-photographed 9 moose(2 monster bulls)and my buddy shot one reasonable bull moose.Bow hunting.

Both smack dab in the rut-one start to mid-one mid to the end.
Both drive in DIY hunts.Both a great mixture of experienced bow AND moose hunters.



There is absolutely true that in remote pockets one will find moose-but we are talking Ontario moose range versus pockets.
And i am not talking Road hunting access-but overall moose access.

The moose is in big trouble thru most of its range in Ontario, and it is due of mismanagement-Including uncontrolled harvest,bear overabundance,easy road access to far areas,wolf overabundance,changing forest management practices,pushing caribou agenda ,ticks,brainworm....You name it.

Definitely controlling all these aspects is a chore-but if it is not done-DO NOT hope for anythig positive in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Maybe we should look at what other provinces do, seems Quebec is quite successful at managing it's Moose Population and I think NB (Not sure don't follow as much there now)

---

Quebec has less hunters and far more moose to begin with, and nto because of management. Its just a better habitat for moose.

I think the argument that “50% of calves die anyway” is BS. So, why should we shoot them then? Seems counterintuitive to me.

Calves were part of the harvest before because people wanted SOMETHING for the price of their licence. It was about money. Lots of groups would shoot as many calves as they could. They didn’t self regulate.

I also take exception to those who wax poetic about loving the animals. You can have deep respect for the animals you take. In fact, you should have. But, even if you don’t hunt to kill, you have to kill to have hunted. It’s a fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt86

Any one that says the moose hunt needs to close I'm sure glad you don't run things,
I know of a least 2 groups that seen in the excess of 30 moose in a week of hunting, one way north and one east central, got one picture of 12 moose in front of 1 person opening day,
People that don't see animals either A) don't hunt the rut or B) wont go way back to the spots that are hard to get to where the moose live and hope to shoot the easy ones next to logging roads or that stand in clear cuts.
Quebec from my experience there frowns on shooting cows and calves even if the tag says you can, Ontario everyone wants to shoot cows and calf.
so 50 percent calves don't make it in a year,
so what if the 5 calves that get shot were the ones that would have made it,
Shooting calves is wrong for the population and if you think its right you are clueless and your the reason what's wrong with the Ontario moose hunt.

---

Because thats not how statistics works. I can just as easily say "What if the 5 calves that were harvested would have died anyways before breeding?"

And game populations are not managed on an individual level. Theyre managed on a regional level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

And game populations are not managed on an individual level. Theyre managed on a regional level.

---

Nothing truer-especially for moose.
The moose actually CAN BE wiped OUT from and area by overharvesting.
That is why Quebec HIGHLY regulates bull vs cow harvest(what good is an area full of cows if no bull?)

I'm no scientist but if the mortality rate is somewhere around 50% for calves then my mind says if 100 less calves are shot in an area then there are still 50 more calves surviving. I assume the mortality rate isn't including hunters? I don't understand the killing of calves let alone cows with calves never made any sense to me how someone can just kill a cow and the calf with it and not think that affects the future of the species... not to mention groups of hunters with multiple calf tags maybe killing more than one calf on their hunt just because they can. Anyway like I said I am not a scientist or biologist, I'm just some guy that wants to hunt moose for a really long time..

GW11, thanks for your comment. I tend to agree with you.
The both assumption (that calf is hard to shoot and that most people wouldn’t shoot calves even though there is no opportunity for a bull) might be outdated.
For the first one, I still don’t see it from my experience. For 20 years hunting in Canada I only shot two claves. I don’t think it is a lot and I got the impression it is a common situation - calf is hard to get.
But I talked to my friends in Russia recently and they say cows with calves are very easy to see in winter time. And I think this may be the clue. In winter months both moose and deers are changing their behaviour, becoming more credulous.
And that’s probably why in the northern part of Ontario calves are an easy target while I still believe (maybe wrong? - if so I will accept it) in the Southern part it is not.
With regards to the point that much more people hunt calves than was previously expected, then the new licensing rules seems to be an appropriate way to go and hopefully will fix the problem.

However I still would like to point out that conservational matters should not be confused with ethical stuff as it was the case in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Please don’t tell me that you think all these organizations and government bodies do this because it’s the right thing to do. It’s all about the benjamins. Money more often than not dictates policy. Let me repeat, policy is not based on studies entirely! Follow the money.

---

Yes, right. I do not trust eye blinded to government policies in general. But I tend to trust MNR and OFAH policies much more just because I think we have the same views on the problem. I do not say they are 100% right. But I do not have a better opinion either.
And don't forget that moose management is also about money. No money (come from licenses) no management lead to less moose population. I guess and hope they balance it somehow.

Quote:

---

I think the argument that “50% of calves die anyway” is BS. So, why should we shoot them then? Seems counterintuitive to me.

---

It is math. Not very simple but not entirely complicated either. Think about it. To VERY simplify, statistically, if you shoot adult moose you miss 1.5 youngsters in the next year. If you shoot a calf you miss 50% of younger next year compared to the adult. Something like that…
Again, I’m not 100% sure if this is really true, but I guess, this is the best approach they had at the time. Again, I’m not 100% sure if this is really true, but I guess, this is the best approach they had at the time. And all other approaches (expressed here) are based on personal opinions/observation, not on science and statistics.

Wow, sure is some nonsensical posts here. Sorry Dilly and Birdbull but you win the prize on this one to claim its a money grab. Really? There's not enough money generated in moose license sales to keep the lights and heat going in a district office. That thought insults all those bios who've dedicated their careers to doing the best job they can toward managing a very demanding program. MNR's mandate first and foremost is to ensure sustainable moose populations, not ensuring the viability of tourist outfitters. If you do want to point the finger at someone, then look in a mirror because hunters demand they have something to hunt. It now becomes a juggling act between proper management initiatives and satisfying a very demanding and vocal hunter group who often come armed with political backing. On the other end of this thread , MarkD and Blasted Sabers comments are just about as close and accurate as you can get to the current state of affairs.
The demise of once healthy moose populations from the 50's and 60's era isn't that difficult to figure out. I hunted in those years. Loss of habitat, increase in number of access roads, improved access tools, 4x4's, ATV's and side x sides. Smarter hunters, especially calf hunters, thanks to the internet. Ribbon rail--train kills. Those numbers alone would astound you. Unregulated native kill--another issue.
In my humble but honest opinion, the only way to get our moose population back to a sustainable but highly restricted hunt would be to close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Sorry Dilly and Birdbull but you win the prize on this one to claim its a money grab. Really? There's not enough money generated in moose license sales to keep the lights and heat going in a district office.

In my humble but honest opinion, the only way to get our moose population back to a sustainable but highly restricted hunt would be to close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

---

Well Sawbill, I have to admit, you would know better than most about what is actually going on out there. I'm glad you chimed in. I agree with much of your post. The point I was making was not that moose licenses are meant as a revenue generator, but rather that people wanted SOMETHING for the price of their license. That something was a chance at a calf.

"increase in number of access roads, improved access tools, 4x4's, ATV's and side x sides". I have a friend who was an MNR bio back in the Lands and Forests days. He gave me some old internal district reports for northwestern Ontario wmus that were written back in 1968. The topic was the impact on moose hunter success since the advent of the "power toboggan" (snowmobile). They looked at at data from 1960 - 68 and the results were shocking. This would have been back in the days before the 3 wheelers came out. Success rates went through the roof because hunters could now range much farther (more than 15X former "on foot" travel) in the search for an animal. Evan back then, they started to see areas that were getting hunted out. I can only imagine the impact now from modern equipment, esp. ATVs. Back in the 50's-60's hunting occurred on outer fringes of moose habitat. The inaccessible interior areas would have been refugiums for the remaining population. Sadly now, there's rarely a patch of bush that you go to that doesn't have an ATV trail whacked through it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Wow, sure is some nonsensical posts here. Sorry Dilly and Birdbull but you win the prize on this one to claim its a money grab. Really? There's not enough money generated in moose license sales to keep the lights and heat going in a district office. That thought insults all those bios who've dedicated their careers to doing the best job they can toward managing a very demanding program. MNR's mandate first and foremost is to ensure sustainable moose populations, not ensuring the viability of tourist outfitters. If you do want to point the finger at someone, then look in a mirror because hunters demand they have something to hunt. It now becomes a juggling act between proper management initiatives and satisfying a very demanding and vocal hunter group who often come armed with political backing. On the other end of this thread , MarkD and Blasted Sabers comments are just about as close and accurate as you can get to the current state of affairs.
The demise of once healthy moose populations from the 50's and 60's era isn't that difficult to figure out. I hunted in those years. Loss of habitat, increase in number of access roads, improved access tools, 4x4's, ATV's and side x sides. Smarter hunters, especially calf hunters, thanks to the internet. Ribbon rail--train kills. Those numbers alone would astound you. Unregulated native kill--another issue.
In my humble but honest opinion, the only way to get our moose population back to a sustainable but highly restricted hunt would be to close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

---

Great post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

Great post.

---

Times 2.

I'm glad that I'm not alone here.
This is a complicated, multifactor issue and it’s very wrong if we come here just with our emotions and personal experience/observations.

However, even though it seems that Sawbill knows about the topic better than all of us I don’t think that it’s really

Quote:

---

The demise of once healthy moose populations from the 50's and 60's era isn't that difficult to figure out.

---

Again, look at the examples like Sweden and Russia. For example, look here
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho...via_alaska.pdf
In Sweden they hunted (killed) 88k moose in 2009, that's more than estimated total numbers of moose in Ontario. And I'm pretty sure they have much better access to moose habitat than here in Ontario. And Ontario is twice bigger than Sweden. Then note that Sweden is almost entirely populated, with roads and access to the moose habitat while Ontario’s Northern part is relatively wild.
I think

Quote:

---

close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

---

will definitely help to improve the moose population numbers but the reason for low moose numbers lies somewhere else, outside of hunting. Hunting moose removal is just a small part of it.
I also don’t see much loss of habitat in Ontario, especially in the North.

Read it! Some stuff is just astonishing!
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho...via_alaska.pdf

The way moose are hunted and managed in Scandinavia is
quite foreign to us. Moose meat can be sold. Landowners, including
public land agencies, own the moose on their land, and profit from
the harvest.

Almost every acre of moose habitat in Scandinavia isaccessible to hunters. Dense systems of high quality forest roadsare drivable by car or pickup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Wow, sure is some nonsensical posts here. Sorry Dilly and Birdbull but you win the prize on this one to claim its a money grab. Really? There's not enough money generated in moose license sales to keep the lights and heat going in a district office. That thought insults all those bios who've dedicated their careers to doing the best job they can toward managing a very demanding program. MNR's mandate first and foremost is to ensure sustainable moose populations, not ensuring the viability of tourist outfitters. If you do want to point the finger at someone, then look in a mirror because hunters demand they have something to hunt. It now becomes a juggling act between proper management initiatives and satisfying a very demanding and vocal hunter group who often come armed with political backing. On the other end of this thread , MarkD and Blasted Sabers comments are just about as close and accurate as you can get to the current state of affairs.
The demise of once healthy moose populations from the 50's and 60's era isn't that difficult to figure out. I hunted in those years. Loss of habitat, increase in number of access roads, improved access tools, 4x4's, ATV's and side x sides. Smarter hunters, especially calf hunters, thanks to the internet. Ribbon rail--train kills. Those numbers alone would astound you. Unregulated native kill--another issue.
In my humble but honest opinion, the only way to get our moose population back to a sustainable but highly restricted hunt would be to close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

---

Good post Sawbill. What a lot of people see as "the MNR money grab" is actually the MNR trying to keep the hunters happy (and quiet). Lots of hunters are not happy with the reduced opportunities. QC has done a lot of things right and while I like the points system, what they do is simpler. Not sure if they still do it, but it used to be bulls only odd years, cows calves bulls even years. Require multiple tags for a single moose and when your tag is used, you stop hunting. One reason there are so few tags available is that with party hunting, almost all adult tags get used. If you eliminate party hunting you could likely increase the number of tags available by 5X.

Hunters need to adapt their expectations to reality.

Regarding the OP's question about strategies. There's some guesswork involved, but generally, you want the guys with least points to apply for the easiest tags and the guys with the most points work towards the high-value (bull) tags. If I were in a group of 2 hunters with 8 points and your area required 8+ points for a tag, I'd save those point allocations for bull tags and forego the calf hunting. If it's all about the experience, you can go up north for a bird hunt and camping instead of the moose hunt and wait out a bull tag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

Read it! Some stuff is just astonishing!
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/ho...via_alaska.pdf

The way moose are hunted and managed in Scandinavia is
quite foreign to us. Moose meat can be sold. Landowners, including
public land agencies, own the moose on their land, and profit from
the harvest.

Almost every acre of moose habitat in Scandinavia isaccessible to hunters. Dense systems of high quality forest roadsare drivable by car or pickup.

---

Key phrase from that article.

"One of the biggest reasons Scandinavian hunters can take so many moose is because there are very few natural predators."

Ontario has a lot of predators, as well as the native hunting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

Key phrase from that article.

"One of the biggest reasons Scandinavian hunters can take so many moose is because there are very few natural predators."

Ontario has a lot of predators, as well as the native hunting.

---

Pretty much the reason for the success of the Moose in NFLD ,the NFLD wolves were eradicated before the turn of the century.
Compounded by the vey bad decision years ago to end the Spring Bear hunt, bears like calves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Wow, sure is some nonsensical posts here. Sorry Dilly and Birdbull but you win the prize on this one to claim its a money grab. Really? There's not enough money generated in moose license sales to keep the lights and heat going in a district office. That thought insults all those bios who've dedicated their careers to doing the best job they can toward managing a very demanding program. MNR's mandate first and foremost is to ensure sustainable moose populations, not ensuring the viability of tourist outfitters. If you do want to point the finger at someone, then look in a mirror because hunters demand they have something to hunt. It now becomes a juggling act between proper management initiatives and satisfying a very demanding and vocal hunter group who often come armed with political backing. On the other end of this thread , MarkD and Blasted Sabers comments are just about as close and accurate as you can get to the current state of affairs.
The demise of once healthy moose populations from the 50's and 60's era isn't that difficult to figure out. I hunted in those years. Loss of habitat, increase in number of access roads, improved access tools, 4x4's, ATV's and side x sides. Smarter hunters, especially calf hunters, thanks to the internet. Ribbon rail--train kills. Those numbers alone would astound you. Unregulated native kill--another issue.
In my humble but honest opinion, the only way to get our moose population back to a sustainable but highly restricted hunt would be to close a large number of WMU's down completely for nothing short of 5 years.

---

Preach it. Some day,someone may listen.

[QUOTE=MarkD;1149398]G
It is math. Not very simple but not entirely complicated either. Think about it. To VERY simplify, statistically, if you shoot adult moose you miss 1.5 youngsters in the next year. If you shoot a calf you miss 50% of younger next year compared to the adult. Something like that…


Interesting calculation, however up until this Year this calculation was not valid,and had no effect to save the moose population.
Reason is the way the system worked-everyone had a calf tag.So hunters would not have to choose between calf or a cow,but would shoot both(or the whole Family)Most everyone of us heard about that,or know hunters who did that. Fully legally.
Your calculation will(may?)have impact from this year(if one chooses to shoot a calf and forfeit a shootable and legal cow).The group will have ONE moose to shoot versus in the past when everyone was able to shoot a calf in the group(minus the Bull/cow tag holder).Even he could ,If he choose not to harvest a calf when shot presented itself.
Only few years past we gor some(very few)dedicated Calf areas............maybe 10 % of the moose range was"protected"with it.

do we still relocate Ontario moose to USA ?

After some thinking… I would say…
Firstly, there is no simple reason for low moose population in Ontario and as such no simple solution to fix it.
It is a multifactor problem. Some factors we know: hunting (and probably wrong tag allocation (bull vs cow vs calf)); native unregulated harvest; predators (wolf, bear); brain worm. I might miss some… Some factors we might not know at all.
Then, I would think that considering the whole Ontario as a single and/or uniform moose habitat is very wrong.
It seems (after reading that article Alaska vs Scandinavian) that the Northern part population might be just normal and cannot be increased significantly just due to climate and poor nutritional conditions. At the same time the natural predation (wolf, bear) creates the most serious impact.
In the southern part hunting (licensed and native) probably gives the biggest hit along with the brain worm. It is well known that deer population negatively affects moose, probably due to brain worm.
In any case, even though it seems that the new tag system is the right way to go I would not expect significant changes in moose population at least in the coming couple decades or so.
Seems to me we have to live with it...

I have not seen any stats yet regarding any impact the later, and shortened calf season has had on moose numbers.

Quote:

---

Interesting calculation, however up until this Year this calculation was not valid,and had no effect to save the moose population.

---

Again and again and again...
MANY factors affect the moose population. Hunting is only part of them. See the posts above.
As such it is very possible that with any tag allocation system the result would be exactly the same. Even worse, it is possible that even eliminating moose hunting for years entirely would not give the desirable result.
You could see and try to understand that there are many differences between Europe and America's moose situation. Environmental, traditional and social altogether. Not everything that is easily possible to achieve in Sweden has any possibility here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Preach it. Some day,someone may listen.

---

Probably not, this topic has been beaten for a while.

Remember all those claims about hunters being such great conservationists? They are, until you tell them they cannot hunt something because the population is crashing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

Probably not, this topic has been beaten for a while.

Remember all those claims about hunters being such great conservationists? They are, until you tell them they cannot hunt something because the population is crashing.

---

I would suggest to take it easy. The moose population indeed crashed but for now it seems to be stable. It is just not as good as we want and/or not as good as we think it was.
And if we do not know the reason for that and are not sure if hunting elimination would bring the desired result, then, why to stop hunting?
Again you seem to be very emotional on the issue (I’m trying to avoid “hysterical” here).
The moose population is still quite manageable. And I’m pretty sure if - for any reason - we would come to the very bad situation everyone would agree to stop hunting.

Actually, I'm wrong. If it will be really bad, MNR closes the seasons regardless of hunters opinion. But I meant I think everybody would support such a decision.

In many documents that I have read predation by wolves is the elephant in the room. But why in western Ontario are wolves such a huge factor in moose mortality while in Algonquin park wolf numbers are higher but predation on moose is substantially less? The only answer I can come up with is alternative food sources. I do think however that predation by wolves is much more of a factor than once believed.
And I'll suggest this: as long as all the factors that affect moose populations remain the same, the population should stay the same. But those factors are constantly changing, ie, logging continues, access improves, wolves are more protected, maybe even climate change (if you believe in that).

Would seem to me like Saw Bill said close it for 5 years. Then maybe there need to be additional regs around it. With modern equipment like ATV, big trucks, Argo's, 2 way radios, etc and logging roads every where it is no longer difficult to get into places that 50 years ago were next to impossible for the average person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

In many documents that I have read predation by wolves is the elephant in the room. But why in western Ontario are wolves such a huge factor in moose mortality while in Algonquin park wolf numbers are higher but predation on moose is substantially less? The only answer I can come up with is alternative food sources. I do think however that predation by wolves is much more of a factor than once believed.
And I'll suggest this: as long as all the factors that affect moose populations remain the same, the population should stay the same. But those factors are constantly changing, ie, logging continues, access improves, wolves are more protected, maybe even climate change (if you believe in that).

---

So should hunters who want to hunt moose in the future not buy some bear and wolf tags and have an impact on predator control? Hmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

I would suggest to take it easy. The moose population indeed crashed but for now it seems to be stable. It is just not as good as we want and/or not as good as we think it was.
And if we do not know the reason for that and are not sure if hunting elimination would bring the desired result, then, why to stop hunting?
Again you seem to be very emotional on the issue (I’m trying to avoid “hysterical” here).
The moose population is still quite manageable. And I’m pretty sure if - for any reason - we would come to the very bad situation everyone would agree to stop hunting.

---

So are you suggesting that the same thing continue because that would allow you to hunt? They are not sure if hunting elimination would bring the desired result but not having all of those animals killed in the fall would mean that those animals would have a better chance to make it through the winter and grow up, allowing them to breed. That is a simple fact that anyone can understand.

Sorry, my mom grew up in Northern Ontario and a place where you would see moose regularly is now a dead zone, it is a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

So should hunters who want to hunt moose in the future not buy some bear and wolf tags and have an impact on predator control? Hmm

---

If the problem is wolf and bears, then the MNRF has a duty to get them reduced and if they can't get that to happen, then they must reduce the available moose tags.... You can't be able to have it both ways if you want to sustain a population...
The burden shouldn't be on the hunters, the burden is on the MNRF which are the game managers, we are just a helpful tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

If the problem is wolf and bears, then the MNRF has a duty to get them reduced and if they can't get that to happen, then they must reduce the available moose tags.... You can't be able to have it both ways if you want to sustain a population...
The burden shouldn't be on the hunters, the burden is on the MNRF which are the game managers, we are just a helpful tool.

---

Sawbill and Fox both have it right and the NFLD experiment tells the tale. They introduced six pair of Moose onto the Rock in the late 1890 BECAUSE hunters had wiped out most of the caribou, which goes to Fox's theory. The wolf on the Rock were already wiped out so the Moose had no problem multiplying. But also of interest is the fact that they have Black bears there
and they take Moose calf's in particular, but off setting that is a Spring and Fall season with two bears on a license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkD

Again and again and again...
MANY factors affect the moose population. Hunting is only part of them. See the posts above.
As such it is very possible that with any tag allocation system the result would be exactly the same. Even worse, it is possible that even eliminating moose hunting for years entirely would not give the desirable result.
You could see and try to understand that there are many differences between Europe and America's moose situation. Environmental, traditional and social altogether. Not everything that is easily possible to achieve in Sweden has any possibility here.

---

Hey MarkD-I know the factors You are referring to ( Your commented-see the posts above)
I think You are referring to the comprehensive descriptions of moose problems-started with post #27.........:ashamed:

I do not claim any of the facts listed in that post to be my discoveries;)but there is really no need for this kind of brushing off ppl.
Advice me? to read my own post? to understand what impacts moose population,which happen to be me posting in this thread in most details first???Not that matters at all, who was first.



I do not claim that i invented any of those observations,and i am the only one knowing or posting about-but if You refer people to items in the thread-maybe helps to know the posts ........just saying.

Peace.

The post from AlaskaDFandG was great.Comparing and analysing Alaska VS Scandinavia.


They actually say in the text what many here want to deny-that killing calves (and)cows brings the population DOWN.
Just read these sentences from the Study(2nd page)-just read them in REVERSE .

Hunters can be effective in maintaining
numbers of moose at levels the habitat can support. In areas with
high moose densities, harvesting more antlerless moose (cows,
yearlings and calves) helps keep an abundant population within
the bounds of its forage base.



As far as Harvesting goes-we shall add into Ontario Harvesting loses the: regulated hunt-non regulated hunt-bear and wolf predation. Performed by any "usual means"(ATV-4x4-fly in etc)
Some posters relying purely on experience and observation already said all this.

For the ones believing only in science and statistics, here is the much desired scientific proof.

Quote:

---

They actually say in the text what many here want to deny-that killing calves (and)cows brings the population DOWN.
Just read these sentences from the Study(2nd page)-just read them in REVERSE .

---

Well, read it reverse, straight forward or upside down, but what very clearly this article "Alaska vs Scandinavian" tells me is that hunting, road access etc. is not the main reason for low moose numbers here.
They are probably: predation, diseases (known or not), low nutrition environment and may be some unknown.

Quote:

---

Peace.

---

Sure, peace. I have no intention to fight with anybody here. My only intention to bring some common sense as I see it.

In the journal 'Moose Hunting, Forestry and Wolves in Sweden' they describe the history of the moose population as being up and down through the decades. No surprise there.
Further to quote, "In the late 60's the hunting of calves was encouraged. This practice later proved to increase the moose population further, rather than reducing it as the hunt focused on the least productive portion of the population. "
The harvest went from 13000 animals in the late 60's to 4 times that in present day. The paper also cites forestry harvesting practices as the other major input to its success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alfoldivandor

I understand your argument and totally agree with you .

But when you hunt rabbit do you shoot male or female rabbit ...?

You see it is little bit more complicated ...

---

No offense but you are comparing apples to oranges. The gender is easily identified and moose do not repopulate as easily as rabbits

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tman

No offense but you are comparing apples to oranges. The gender is easily identified and moose do not repopulate as easily as rabbits

---

I think the MNR folk's will disagree with this assertion as they gets scores of Moose killed every year that are misidentified.
They charge folk's for taking the animal, generally issue a out of court fine and PRESTO allow another Moose to be killed on the same license, does not make sense and reduces the herd and other hunters chances of a tag the following year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

In the journal 'Moose Hunting, Forestry and Wolves in Sweden' they describe the history of the moose population as being up and down through the decades. No surprise there.
Further to quote, "In the late 60's the hunting of calves was encouraged. This practice later proved to increase the moose population further, rather than reducing it as the hunt focused on the least productive portion of the population. "
The harvest went from 13000 animals in the late 60's to 4 times that in present day. The paper also cites forestry harvesting practices as the other major input to its success.

---

I do not challenge the paper and what they say-but would need more understanding how shooting calves helps grow the herd.
Unless totally banning adult moose hunt !

This seems a base of much debate here and elsewhere in hunting community.
At the end:
If one wants to increase the water level in the rain barrel can do it only 2 ways: STOP taking water from the barrel or ADD more to it then taking out.
Commons sense.

So far we are allowed to have our cake and eat it too........

The barrel scenario is good, but I like the beef farmer one better. Imagine being a beef farmer and you have a cow/calf operation. Your business plan is to increase your herd, and sell the crop of calfs every year (aka the annual population increase in your herd). Then along comes a brainless MNR biologist in Policy Division who decides to tinker with your business plan. They send all of your cows, heifers, and calfs to slaughter, then can't understand the fundamental logic behind how their decision has caused you to go bankrupt due to lack of product. The saddest thing is that there's a horny bull left standing in the paddock, with a WTF look on his face.........

Getting back to the original post... any thoughts on application strategies for 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

Getting back to the original post... any thoughts on application strategies for 1st, 2nd & 3rd choices?

---

I have posted my thoughts. As far as the second and third draw, I can’t see being successful in those draws, unless you are applying in a WMU that has had excess tags. Those draws are supposed to be in place of the excess tag application. I would think that the excess tag numbers will be close to the numbers and WMUs as last year. I don’t foresee any tags going unclaimed in any of the more popular WMUs. It will be interesting!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

I have posted my thoughts. As far as the second and third draw, I can’t see being successful in those draws, unless you are applying in a WMU that has had excess tags. Those draws are supposed to be in place of the excess tag application. I would think that the excess tag numbers will be close to the numbers and WMUs as last year. I don’t foresee any tags going unclaimed in any of the more popular WMUs. It will be interesting!!

---

This is my understanding as well.

Ok, I took some time and did a little research (thanks to Sawbill) and some calculations.
What I found is:
1.
MNR states:
Over the last decade, Ontario’s moose population, while healthy overall:
- has declined in some parts of the north
- has generally fared better in the southern part of the range
https://www.ontario.ca/page/factors-...ival#section-6

2.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/moose-population-management
There are 6 Zones for Moose management in Ontario. To simplify and generalize a bit for our purposes: in two of these Zones (far North and South-East) the objectives are to keep low to moderate moose density in those areas. In four others (generally South of Timmins to Trent-Seveern vertically and province-wide horizontally) the objective is to keep moderate to high density of moose population.
So in those Zones where the objectives are Moderate to High, indeed, the goals are not met. The population is below Moderate level: 59% (Kenora far West); 79% (Thunder Bay to Dryden); 88% North Bay toTimmins; 96% (Middle of Ontario)
As you could see even though the objectives are not met and the populations are below Moderate, still nothing really tragic happened.

3.
For those of you who believe that higher success rate nowadays (compared to the previous time) means killing more moose I have to clearly tell you: you are wrong.
Success rate has nothing to do with the number of moose removed from the population because of dramatic tag reduction. Moose (bulls, cows, calf altogether and everyone separated) are taking far less now than in previous years.
4.
My personal impression from all this reading is that the opinion that the moose population was far better in previous years and crashed in 1980s and declining now might be just erroneous. I might be wrong and willing to accept it if I would see the data showing otherwise, but it's hard for me to believe that at that time (1980s and earlier) there were any appropriate tools and resources to correctly estimate the moose population. All these opinions about “old good days” might be based only on anecdotal evidence.

So once again, for those of you who are very emotional about the moose situation in Ontario, I would suggest to take it easy. Everything is not so bad.
But, sure, everyone of us could make things better. Apply and buy a tag but do not shoot. “Hunting catch and release”. What could be better?
Thank you and good luck everyone!

Very interesting links-Thank You for it.
One "hidden"or obscure information can raise some eyebrows: first they list all the positive changes in the past 40 years(more roads-ATV availability-radio availability -season lengths and group huntong allowed)
All in favor of moose harvest!
Then they state -even the success rate is higher nowadays(20-30 % in the past versus 40-50 % now)

About same number of moose and hunters then and now.


They issued 47000 tags in 1984(no party hunting)versus 10757 tags in 2018(party hunting)
Now : like avg 25 % success out of 47 K is 11.800 moose harvested then - versus nowadays 45% avg success in 10.7 K tags, is 4840 moose harvested.
With ALL the perks and bells and whistles to help hunters.

I am absolutely not emotional about this ,hovewer it impacts us,so we have a right to be concerned.

Definition of insanity is:

Doing the same thing over and over again ,and expecting a different results.

No change-no improvement.