Managing for Elevated Yield of Moose in Interior Alaska

ABSTRACT Given recent actions to increase sustained yield of moose (Alces alces) in Alaska, USA, we examined factors affecting yield and moose demographics and discussed related management. Prior studies concluded that yield and density of moose remain low in much of Interior Alaska and Yukon, Canada, despite high moose reproductive rates, because of predation from lightly harvested grizzly (Ursus arctos) and black bear (U. americanus) and wolf (Canis lupus) populations. Our study area, Game Management Unit (GMU) 20A, was also in Interior Alaska, but we describe elevated yield and density of moose. Prior to our study, a wolf control program (1976–1982) helped reverse a decline in the moose population. Subsequent to 1975, moose numbers continued a 28-year, 7-fold increase through the initial 8 years of our study (λ_B1 = 1.05 during 1996–2004, peak density = 1,299 moose/1,000 km²). During these initial 8 hunting seasons, reported harvest was composed primarily of males ( = 88%). Total harvest averaged 5% of the prehunt population and 57 moose/1,000 km², the highest sustained harvest-density recorded in Interior Alaska for similar-sized areas. In contrast, sustained total harvests of <10 moose/1,000 km² existed among low-density, predator-limited moose populations in Interior Alaska (≤417 moose/1,000 km²). During the final 3 years of our study (2004–2006), moose numbers declined (λ_B2 = 0.96) as intended using liberal harvests of female and male moose ( = 47%) that averaged 7% of the prehunt population and 97 moose/1,000 km². We intentionally reduced high densities in the central half of GMU 20A (up to 1,741 moose/1,000 km² in Nov) because moose were reproducing at the lowest rate measured among wild, noninsular North American populations. Calf survival was uniquely high in GMU 20A compared with 7 similar radiocollaring studies in Alaska and Yukon. Low predation was the proximate factor that allowed moose in GMU 20A to increase in density and sustain elevated yields. Bears killed only 9% of the modeled postcalving moose population annually in GMU 20A during 1996–2004, in contrast to 18–27% in 3 studies of low-density moose populations. Thus, outside GMU 20A, higher bear predation rates can create challenges for those desiring rapid increases in sustained yield of moose. Wolves killed 8–15% of the 4 postcalving moose populations annually (10% in GMU 20A), hunters killed 2–6%, and other factors killed 1–6%. Annually during the increase phase in GMU 20A, calf moose constituted 75% of the predator-killed moose and predators killed 4 times more moose than hunters killed. Wolf predation on calves remained largely additive at the high moose densities studied in GMU 20A. Sustainable harvest-densities of moose can be increased several-fold in most areas of Interior Alaska where moose density and moose: predator ratios are lower than in GMU 20A and nutritional status is higher. Steps include 1) reducing predation sufficient to allow the moose population to grow, and 2) initiating harvest of female moose to halt population growth and maximize harvest after density-dependent moose nutritional indices reach or approach the thresholds we previously published.     

Acute Thermal and Stress Response in Moose to Chemical Immobilization

Management and research of moose (Alces alces) in Alaska, USA, often require chemical immobilization; however, moose may be prone to capture-induced hyperthermia while immobilized. We chemically immobilized moose with carfentanil citrate and xylazine hydrochloride to measure rump fat depth, collect blood and fecal samples, and to deploy modified vaginal implant transmitters and global positioning system (GPS)-collars for recording body temperature and movement during and after the chemical immobilization. We predicted wild moose pursued and captured from a helicopter would have elevated body temperature at time of capture, whereas body temperature would remain stable in hand-raised captive moose not pursued and only hand-injected for immobilization. Additionally, we expected post-capture body temperature would be a function of activity, time immobilized, and ambient temperature. As predicted, body temperature of wild moose was elevated 1 hour after capture (38.9°C, 95% CI = 38.7–39.1°C) but returned to baseline levels within 3 hours (38.0°C, 95% CI = 37.9–38.1°C); however, body temperatures then rose above baseline levels and remained elevated 12–48 hours post-capture when movement rates were also elevated. Body temperatures in captive moose were not elevated 1-hour post-immobilization (37.9°C, 95% CI = 37.8–38.0°C). Body temperatures of wild moose were positively related to cortisol levels at time of capture. Two moose that died after immobilization had initial body temperatures similar to other immobilized moose; however, their body temperature began to rise at 17 hours and 40 hours post-immobilization. Our study provides evidence that chemical immobilization affects body temperature and movement of wild moose up to 48 hours after capture, possibly as a result of renarcotization from carfentanil citrate. With advancements in technology, we recommend fine-scale GPS data (<1-hr fix rates) and continuous body temperature be evaluated to detect evidence of renarcotization during and after opioid-based captures of northern ungulates. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.