It’s not fun getting old and realizing that your brain doesn't function like it once did. I recently had that awakening regarding my proposals to create what I believe would be the best moose management program in North America.
I have been working with Dr. Brian McLaren at Lakehead University to help get and interpret moose management data for use by his students. Over the course of our communications, we discussed some of the problems in Ontario and he has provided me with some relatively recent scientific publications. They were based on modelling and quite above my head with jargon (Bayesian inference, quasi-cyclic?) and formulae an arm long. He said that it was valid research, and I trust him.
What concerned me were some of the conclusions, especially that shortening hunting seasons might provide greater control over the harvest. There was also an idea that one jurisdiction was using “dynamic harvest reporting” whereby hunters phoned in when they made a kill, and this was used to control the harvest. Kinda scary, but I didn’t get the details.
My response was that some of the recommendations might be valid for managing big game that are at low populations and without direct and predictable (i.e. poor or no real) harvest control. They would not apply where effective harvest control programs were applied to optimal, ecologically balanced populations.
One of the principal concerns identified in these papers was that the harvest planning process was not responsive to changes affecting the population, like winter severity or the previous fall’s harvest. In Ontario, harvests and tag quotas are planned early in the year, before aerial surveys, winter severity indices, or harvest assessments are finished.
Although mandatory harvest reports are required by the end of December, MNR could not provide them to me until after February because they were not analysed. After a severe winter, the harvest, especially for calves, should be reduced, but the quotas have already been set and cannot be changed without major disruption.
In reality, severe winters should trigger reductions automatically, but biologists, under pressure from hunters, are so averse to change without proof that it just doesn’t happen. Part of the argument is more theoretical than practical since most harvest planning uses surveys that are several years old. Decisions without winter severity and recent harvests are legitimate concerns that can and should be built into the system.
So, here’s the answer and why I’m kicking myself for my stupidity.
I absolutely stand behind a direct and predictable harvest control strategy that uses one tag per moose. Rather than shortening seasons, there should be multiple seasons with individual quotas. Some could even be limited trophy hunts in the middle of the rut without jeopardizing the quality of hunting in seasons that follow.
Demand and allocation of harvests to different seasons should be determined by harvest assessment questions related to different season types and applications for tags. I also stand behind the recommendation for a points-based tag distribution system with group applications. There will be one, relatively short and simple process.
Where I made my mistake was not recognizing that the distribution process does not need to start in April (with so many steps it takes a long time), but could probably start with applications in July and with tags awarded by mid-August. This change moves harvest planning until after population inventories, snow stations and harvest assessment are complete, providing a four-month window.
If harvest reductions are necessary, it does not create any problem and is something that hunters should understand is in their own long-term interest.
This realization should make my proposed management system far more appealing to those managers interested in making the most informed management decisions; to hunters because it will restore the population and create more and better hunting opportunities, and; maybe even to modellers who will have a new system to model. It’s the icing on the cake.
Although most WMUs will still not have a current population estimate, information from adjacent units can inform what should be done, especially if “landscape level” surveys are returned to individual unit surveys that tend to be more uniformly spread across the province and therefore more representative. Of course, if populations are closer to the potential of the land, the risk of making a population-threatening mistake is considerably reduced.
There is another thing that I might change my recommendation on. That is to close the season for a number of years. I have rejected this in the past because nothing can be learned about managing hunting without hunting taking place.
I would support a closed season only if it reopened with a four-per-cent planned harvest, a real (not computer) population estimate in the order of 150,000 moose, greater protection of cows, a commitment to real adaptive management, and a one-tag-per-moose management strategy.
I’m leaning towards complete closure but have no problems with some units staying open if they conform, or are made to conform, to the conditions above at the unit level. The reason I’m suggesting this now, is that it may be the only way to overcome the problems if First Nations are not going to be partners in co-management.
The reason for the population of 150,000 is that MNR is so eager to get hunting that they will open the season as soon as there is one moose that can be killed, thereby stifling further growth. Just look at the elk situation. They were reintroduced to enhance biodiversity, but as soon as they were here, there were efforts to open a season. Let the population get well established and reflect the quality of their habitat, then continue to manage for growth.
The good news is that the idea of using dynamic harvest reporting to control harvest was really misunderstood by me. When I first heard about it, I thought it was the digital version of “quota hunts” once used in Alaska. A harvest of X animals was planned and hunters had two days to report kills. The season was closed when X was achieved.
In fact, it was more like 2X because many animals were killed in the time it took to report the closure. The use of such seasons (or short seasons) necessitates that every hunter who hopes to harvest a moose must be out on opening day. This reduces the quality of hunting and potentially increases the kill because high hunter density forces hunters into areas that might have been refuges for moose.
The even better news is that the system mentioned is an amazing idea. In Alberta, hunters use an app on their cellphones to record when and where they see moose. It has tremendous potential to augment harvest assessment information, population inventories, and research. I would certainly recommend that Ontario adopt this tool. It may take some effort to convince hunters that it isn’t a tool to let Big Brother watch them.
A reader who contacted me through an earlier article and has provided some important information, also recently commented that with my knowledge, experience, and the evidence I have presented, you would think that people (especially MNR, OFAH, and BGMAC) would be knocking down my door to discuss moose management and my recommendations, even if only to challenge my assessments. If I didn’t know better and now have MNR evidence to back my recommendations (not “opinions”), I’d think I was a crank moron out in right field.
I offered to talk at OFAH zone meetings, even at my own expense, if necessary, but that was shut down by their head office.
What I would really like is for someone in moose management or in a position to influence management decisions; to clearly explain why my recommendations are wrong and cannot be adopted. I can think of only two reasons. The first is that it requires a major reduction in tags that will offend the few remaining hunters. The folly of this argument is that it is already happening and nothing is being done to stop it. Inaction threatens the entire moose population. The second is that it will require MNR, BGMAC and the OFAH to recognize and admit that they have been failing the public, and the hunting public, by not having provided effective moose management.
A final point I made to my associate was that I categorically reject the idea of hunting big game without absolute, direct and predictable control on the harvest. Previous systems without direct control have no place in modern game management that has hunter clients with highly effective rifles and bows, all-terrain vehicles and maybe even drones (used illegally). Little wonder moose populations are declining almost everywhere.
Alan Bisset is a retired regional moose biologist and wildlife inventory program leader with the former Ministry of Natural Resources. He has written and published many papers on moose management, both Internally and in scientific journals. Bisset lives in Strathroy, west of London, Ontario. You can find his other submissions by typing “Alan Bisset” into the search bar at Sudbury.com.
