December 5, 2021

Is IDFG Placating Idaho Sportsmen?

It’s disgusting that I even need to ask such a question, but how are sportsmen supposed to feel and react when they’ve been lied to, abused verbally, demonized, ignored, laughed at, had tax money stolen from them and basically treated like a piece of worm-infested porcupine scat?

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is sending out “kits” to moose hunters and asking them to:

1. Take a blood sample,
2. Saw off a slab of moose liver, and
3. Pluck some hair.
BTW – In looking at this letter (posted below), I don’t see anywhere in that letter any instructions on safety precautions needed for when hunters do IDFG’s dirty work. Perhaps it is contained in the kit itself somewhere. If there are readers privy to this information, could you please let me and readers know? It is very important.)

Each hunter then must make a mandatory stop at an IDFG office where each hunter will complete a “MANDATORY” check of the moose. This in addition to the request sent out recently to Idaho sportsmen asking that they report wolf and grizzly bear activity. Really? Why not report polar bear movements or those of penguins? Why now? Why are fish and game officials all of a sudden interested, or seemingly so, in what sportsmen think, see or do?

According to what is written on a letter sent to moose hunters by IDFG, the reason for this action is to: “improve moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations.

Isn’t it just a little bit too late? Where were these concerned wildlife managers when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were lying to the American people telling them that wolves would have no significant impact on game herds or the spread of disease? (Please find this in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the (re)introduction of wolves to the Northern Rockies.)

The wolf recovery team decided that it would not even bother to offer any kind of investigation into diseases that are carried and spread by wolves because any existing information was: “limited,” “poorly documented” and “can never be scientifically confirmed or denied.” These claims came at a time when there existed no fewer than 300 scientific studies worldwide just about the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus.

And today the World Health Organization includes on the “Fact Page” that: “More than 1 million people are affected with echinococcosis at any one time.”

When an individual, at least one who has the capacity to think independently, considers how government officials lied to them, and then how they have been treated before, during and after this crime of wolf (re)introduction was forced down their throats, why would they be eager to help these isolated by choice from the global scientific community elites with their fake task of “improve[ing] moose management through a better understanding of disease in wildlife populations”? It sure stinks of mollification to me.

For years these clowns were offered technical and scientific evident to help them “better understand wildlife diseases” and they plugged their ears, closed their eyes and shouted out loud, like a small child.

For crying out loud, back in 1971 wildlife biologists in Minnesota didn’t “discover” that Echinococcus granulosus tapeworms existed. They were out LOOKING FOR IT in moose.

That 1971 study result showed some of us, but evidently nobody at IDFG or USFWS, two distinct things:
1. “The incidence of E. granulosus and Taenia spp. in the northeast is evidence of a higher timber wolf (Canis lupus) population in this part of the state.”
2. “Data from the aerial census and classification counts indicate a net productivity of 30-35% in the northwest and 9-15% in the northeast. This indicates a difference is occurring in the survival rate of calves in their first six months of life between the two areas. Area differences in nutrition, predation and parasitism may be responsible for these observed differences in net productivity.”

Patrick Karns, in 1971, had a “better understanding” of wildlife diseases. It’s 2014, time for some TRUTH for a change!

This and the 600-plus studies in existence in 2001, when the World Health Organization published their latest scientific data on Echinococcus granulosis and Echinococcus multilocularis, evidently isn’t good enough for Idaho wildlife officials, or any others in this here United States of America. But NOW they want to ask Idaho moose hunters for help in better understanding wildlife diseases.

I’m not a resident of Idaho, nor do I buy a hunting license there, but if I did, my inclination would be to tell IDFG to STICK IT! You didn’t listen then and you won’t listen now. You are just trying to pacify the hunters and cover your own asses. No thanks!

A tip of the hat to reader “Chandie” for sending me a copy of the letter.


Vermont’s Moose Permits Drop From 1,225 to 285

And officials don’t understand why the number of people applying for a permit has also decreased? Give me a break!

From the Burlington Free Press:

“The decline in permit applications has not been entirely unexpected and has followed a sharp decrease in permit numbers, from 1,225 in 2009 to 285 this year. Yet late last month, state Fish and Wildlife Department officials were alarmed to discover they had received only about as third as many applications as anticipated.”


Maine IFW Reduces Moose Permits

*Editor’s Note* – The below press release states that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has opted to reduce the number of “female moose permits available” due to “the impact of winter tick.” It should be noted that hunters and other outdoor sportsmen have been saying for a few years now that ticks were one of the things killing off moose and yet what we were hearing was that Maine’s moose population had grown to where some estimated it to be approaching 100,000.

MDIFW should be commended for taking action to mitigate the moose losses. However, at the same time I cannot help but question some of the information that we are being given in this press release and other previous media reports. The release says there was a loss of 30% of female moose where normally it would be 10%. We are not told the mortality rate of male moose (assuming this includes calves). If those numbers are accurate, along with estimates of total moose populations at 75,000, combined with an estimated 1:1 ratio of males to females, 11,250 female moose died this winter (again, assuming this is total mortality). If we make the assumption that if 30% of female moose died from all effects of winter, then can we also conclude that male moose died at a rate of 30%, or higher? That would mean total winter mortality on moose stands at around 22,500 creatures. That’s serious!

Hopefully, the ongoing moose study will also provide biologists with more accurate information (that will be shared) on where the calf recruitment stands. If that number is below sustainable levels, Maine has a very serious moose issue, which helps to explain why Lee Kantar and company recommended a reduction in cow moose permits by 1,015.

Let’s not lose track of the fact of the mixed messages that have been coming out of MDIFW during this long, difficult winter. First of note is that Kyle Ravana, MDIFW’s new head deer biologist, said in late March that he estimated the winter mortality on deer to be 12%. Can we even take that estimate seriously considering Kantar’s estimate of 30% moose loss? Granted ticks don’t bother deer like moose but if those numbers are accurate then perhaps Maine’s tick problem is more of a problem than we are being told….or it’s something else.

Second mixed message deals with a claim that was made by Lee Kantar and reported on the WCSHTV website back on May 2, that the Maine population “was holding steady.” That was qualified with a “however” however. The however being that Kantar “suspects” the new and ongoing moose study will reveal a lower than expected calf recruitment. Why and how does this, if at all, contribute to a 30% winter mortality on moose? MDIFW appears to be doing a lousy job of getting information out to the public in any kind of accurate and consistent fashion. Get it? On May 2 we are told the moose population is holding steady but calf recruitment may be a concern. on May 9, we are told the moose population was cut by 30% and a substantial reduction in moose permits is forthcoming. In seven days all this was discovered? It makes little sense.

Who are we then to believe and why?

And on a related note, it appears that this past winter was one of those winters that all the wildlife managers have been asking for to reduce the population of winter ticks. It will be of great interest to me to learn just how much effect it will have. The excuse has always been global warming and with that excuse the lamentation that “what we need are some old fashioned winters with cold temperatures and heavy snow to kill off the ticks,” has bounced around in the echo chamber for years. WE SHALL SEE!

AUGUSTA, Maine — Due to a peak year for winter ticks and their impact on the moose population this winter, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife is reducing the number of moose permits available to hunters this fall.

Earlier today, The IFW’s advisory council accepted the department’s recommendation to reduce the number of moose permits available for the 2014 season. This fall, the department will issue 3,095 permits statewide, down from the 4,110 that were available last year.

“Based upon the research of our biologists, I feel it is prudent to decrease the number of female moose permits available,” said IFW Commissioner Chandler Woodcock. “Decreasing the amount of permits will help lessen the impact of winter tick on the state’s moose population.”

In particular, the department decreased the number of antlerless only permits that are available to hunters. Antlerless only permits were decreased in wildlife management Districts 1-5, 7-9 and 12-13. This is the northern and northwestern part of Maine, including the northern portions of Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Penobscot and Aroostook Counties.

Winter ticks have been documented in Maine since the 1930s. Periodically, there are peak years when the number of ticks increase substantially.

Each year, IFW biologists sample moose for winter tick densities at moose registration stations during the moose hunt. This past fall, biologists noted one of the highest tick counts in the past 10 years.

In making the recommendation to reduce permits, IFW biologists also used data from the radio collar moose study that is ongoing. Early data from the study shows that there was about a 30 percent mortality rate for adult females, which is above the average 10 percent winter mortality rate for female moose.

IFW wildlife biologists have also documented a number of moose winter kills throughout the state. Many of the moose carcasses are engorged with winter ticks, and some are practically bare of hair as they have tried to rub the ticks off.

“Maine has had winter tick for decades, and Maine’s moose population has encountered peak tick years before, as they happen periodically,” said IFW moose biologist Lee Kantar. “Even with the increase in ticks this year, by decreasing the number of antlerless permits available, we can continue to meet our population objectives for moose.”


Deadline Approaching for Maine Moose Lottery

From the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife:

The deadline to apply for the Maine Moose Lottery is fast approaching, and hunters who want the chance to hunt moose in Maine need to mail or deliver their paper application by April 1, 2014. Online applicants have until 11:59 on May 14, 2014 to apply for the moose lottery.

Online and paper applications are available at Hunters can print and mail their paper application, deliver it to IFW headquarters at 284 State Street in Augusta or can easily apply directly online.

This year, the department intends to issue 4,085 moose permits in 25 different wildlife management districts that encompass over 21,000 square miles.

“Maine’s moose population is healthy and strong,” said Lee Kantar, the department’s moose biologist. The department utilizes several different methods to monitor the moose population, including aerial flights to assess population and the composition of the moose herd. During the moose hunting season, biologists also examine teeth, the number of ticks a moose carries, and in some cases, examine ovaries to determine reproductive rates.

The department also recently began an intensive 5-year radio-collar moose research project that will give department biologists an even greater understanding of the health of the Maine moose population, including such keys as adult and calf survival rates and reproductive rates.

Maine’s moose hunt is segmented into four different seasons, with the first season beginning on September 22, and the final season ending on November 29.

Maine’s moose hunt is extremely popular. Last year, over 55,000 hunters applied for a chance to hunt moose in Maine.

Long-time lottery applicants who continue to apply have a better chance at winning due to changes in the lottery implemented in 2012.

Bonus points are awarded for each consecutive year the applicant has applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected. Each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are now earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond.

Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if you applied in 2012 but not in 2013, you still have your points if you apply in 2014.

This year’s moose permit lottery winners will be announced on June 14 at the Moose lottery festival at the University of Maine Presque Isle.


Minnesota Found E.G. in Moose in 1971 Knew Then Recruitment Non Sustainable

Image3290I must commend our good friend and ever vigilante researcher, Will Graves, for digging up a report containing data and other information from a report filed after the conclusion of a Minnesota moose hunt in 1971. It was reported that this moose hunt was the first allowed in 49 years in that state. The full report can be found at this link.

I suppose the first thing to note is the simple fact Echinococcus granulosus was found in the lungs of moose. As is a terrific way for biologists to collect data, mandatory check-ins by hunters provided opportunity for biologists to retrieve samples for testing. In addition to the taking of samples at the check stations, hunters were required to reveal the location of their moose kills in order that scientists could visit the site and retrieve more information from gut piles.

Over the past 6 or 8 years, there has been much discussion, at least in certain corners of the country, about the fact that wild canines, specifically being discussed are wolves, are the host species of the tapeworm Echinococcus granulosus. Tiny eggs embedded in and deposited all over the landscape through wolf scat, presents a situation in which wild ungulates, such as deer, elk and moose, while grazing, ingest these eggs. As part of the cycle, hydatid cysts can form in organs throughout the body. Perhaps the most common being the lungs, but also found in the liver, heart and brain. This is what was found in Minnesota.

Humans can also ingest these eggs, the result of which could be fatal. Hydatid cysts in humans is difficult, at best to detect, and perhaps even more so to treat. The greatest threat of humans contracting this disease is probably through contact with the domestic dogs, particularly those that live indoor and outdoor. While outdoors, family dogs can eat infected carrion and/or get the eggs onto their fur and in and around the mouths. Family dogs can be part of the cycle and if not properly de-wormed, can pose a very serious threat to members of the family who live with the dog. Imagine what is happening to you or your child, in the home, when the dog licks your hand or your child’s face.

The point of all this is to state that when some of us, being led by Will Graves, researcher and author of Wolves in Russia: Anxiety Through the Ages and co-author of The Real Wolf, along with George Dovel, editor of the Outdoorsman, Dr. Valerius Geist, professor emeritus University of Calgary, Dr. Delane Kritsky, noted parasitologist at Idaho State University, et. al., took to cyberspace and beyond to get the message out about Echinococcus granulosus, we were all told it didn’t exist and any talk of threats to humans was exaggerated and nothing to be concern with.

And now we discover that biologists in Minnesota over 40 years ago had discovered the presence of E.g. in moose in Minnesota. However, there is much more to this report that Will Graves has unearthed for us.

The moose hunt in Minnesota in 1971 took place in two regions of the state. (Please see map in linked-to report.) The two zones were separated by perhaps 100 miles. One zone located in and identified in the report as the Northeast and one zone in the Northwest. It is here stated that Echinocossus granulosus was “common in the northeast” and not so much in the northwest.

Fascioloides magna was the parasite in the northwest, while Taenia spp. and Echinococcus granulosus were common in the northeast.

I also find it interesting that with today’s prevalence of denial of the presence or risk of threat from Echinococcus granulosus, that biologists in 1971 were, along with other parasites, looking for Echinococcus granulosus. If it was something not of interest, why were they looking for it? Do you suppose over 40 years ago, scientists suspected, with the presence of wolves, moose might be infected?

Field crews investigated as many kill sites as possible. Lungs were examined for the presence of Hydatid cysts (Echinococcus granulosus) and lungworms (Dictyocaulus app.).

The biologists at the time where making the same examinations and taking the same samples from moose harvested in both the Northwest and Northeast hunting zones. What they found when comparing data between the two zones is tell-tale.

The Northeast zone, “carried larger loads of Echinococcus granulosus.” As a matter of fact, a considerably larger load. In the Northeast zone it was found that 60% of the moose carried Echinococcus granulosus. In the Northwest zone, only 10%. There must be an explanation.

The incidence of E. granulosus and Taenia spp. in the northeast is evidence of a higher timber wolf (Canis lupus) population in this part of the state.

43 years ago, wildlife biologists in Minnesota were willing to acknowledge that the higher the concentrations of wolves produced a higher incidence of Echinococcus granulosus in moose. It’s remarkable in a way, when we consider the deliberate roadblocks being constructed by some to prohibit any serious discussions and the educating of the public about this issue of Echinococcus granulosus and the potential threat it can have on humans.

But this isn’t all.

Most of us know that Minnesota is claiming that they don’t have understanding as to why the moose herd in that state is on a serious decline. Some want to blame it all on climate change, the collect-all excuse for everything these days, and a convenient means of covering up incompetence and political agendas. While the distractions and excuses continue to mount, it is my belief that officials in Minnesota pretty much have a distinct reasons and the proof of the beginnings of what has become, or soon will be, a predator pit and an unsustainable moose herd.

This report of 1971 clearly tells anybody interested in truth and facts that in the Northeast zone, where wolves were highly prevalent, the moose recruitment rate stood at such low levels, it would be only a matter of time before the moose would be gone.

Data from the aerial census and classification counts indicate a net productivity of 30-35% in the northwest and 9-15% in the northeast. This indicates a difference is occurring in the survival rate of calves in their first six months of life between the two areas. Area differences in nutrition, predation and parasitism may be responsible for these observed differences in net productivity.

If memory serves me correctly, in 1971 the United States was at the beginning stages of the fake “global cooling” flim-flam, but there was no talk and presentation of excuses as to how a planet, that was going to crumble and crack into millions of pieces due to cold, was responsible for a moose calf recruitment rate in Northeast Minnesota that anyone knew to be unsustainable.

With the environmentalists, which include the ignorant predator protectors and animal rights totalitarians, who want to create what they are attempting to coin as a “new understanding and a paradigm shift” about wolves and other predators, no longer to them are facts, history, real science or common sense anything worth considering. And that is the bottom line truth of what we are dealing with.

Tried and proven wildlife management, even the very basics, tells us that if there is not a high enough survival rate among the new born of any creature, to replace all other mortality, the species will not survive, at least in any sense of healthfulness. Instead, hidden behind other agendas, people want to replace this with “new understandings” and “shifting paradigms.”

Searching for “new understandings and paradigms” Minnesota is looking everywhere for the answer that stares them in the face. Wolves spread disease and devastate games herds and all wildlife and yet the “new understanding” is trying to tell us about trophic cascades and how the wolf creates nirvana.

Oh my God! We’ve actually come to this?


Maine’s Moose Permit Allocation Proposals for 2014

The following charts were sent to me by a reader. In discussions that have been ongoing in Maine about the condition of the moose herd, some, including myself, wondered what, if any, adjustments would be made to next year’s allocation of moose permits.

Some in Maine have been stating that for at least the past 2 or 3 years, there are not as many moose that can be seen as some have come to expect, even though there doesn’t appear to be any noticeable indications of this in the 2013 moose harvest data.

For the 2013 moose hunting season, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) authorities issued a total of 4,110 moose permits, most of which were doled out by lottery drawing.

The proposal sent to me, suggests lowering the number of permits by 25 (twenty-five), so essentially no change in number of permits. The differences in permit allocation can be found in a decrease in moose permits for Wildlife Management Districts (WMD) 1, 2, 3 and bigger increases for WMD 7 and 9.

*Note: Due to the passage of LD738/S304, which became law by default because Governor LePage would not sign nor veto the legislation, 94/95 moose permits will be taken away from the proposed 4,085 because the law states that 10% of moose permit allocations above 3,140 will be sold to special interest groups, cheating Maine residents out of opportunity to bag a moose.





2014 Maine Moose Permit Lottery: Apply Now


The deadline for online applications is May 14, 2014. Moose lottery drawing to be held in June.

If you applied for a moose permit last year or the year before, all of your information is pre-filled into this year’s online application. To start, type in your first name, last name and date of birth the same way as in 2013 or 2012. The computer will look up your information. Please review your personal data and make any necessary changes. It’s easy!

Once you’ve filled out and paid for your application, you’ll be able to print out a confirmation page. An email confirmation will also be sent to you.

Bonus points are awarded for each consecutive year the applicant has applied for the lottery since 1998 without being selected and each bonus point gives the applicant an additional chance in the drawing.

Bonus points are earned at the rate of one per year for years one to five, two per year for years six to 10, three per year for years 11 to 15 and 10 per year for years 16 and beyond.

Since 2011, applicants can skip a year and not lose their bonus points. So if you applied in 2012 but not in 2013, you still have your points if you apply in 2014.

GOOD LUCK and Safe Hunting!

Best wishes,
Your Friends at the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife


Maine Moose Permit Lottery Application Available for 2014 Season

For those wishing to get the early jump on applying for a chance at the moose lottery drawing for Maine, a visit to the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife website will get you started.


Maine 2013 Moose Hunting Harvest Data Available

As quiet as the onward march of the wooly black caterpillar on a warm summer night, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW), posted on their website the 2013 Moose hunting harvest data.

Of the 4,110 moose permits issued, 2,978 hunters successfully took a moose. That’s a 72% success rate according to MDIFW information. In comparison to last season, 3,725 permits were issued, 2,937 moose were harvested, with a success rate of 79%. In simple English language, this means that with an added 385 moose permits over last season, only 41 more moose were harvested.

Over the past 9 moose hunting seasons, the success rate has averaged 74.88% and has varied from a low of 66% to a high of 82%.

2013 – 72%; 2012 – 79%; 2011 – 66%; 2010 – 75%; 2009 – 78%; 2008 – 74%; 2007 – 71%; 2006 – 82%; 2005 – 77%.


Are Maine’s Biologists Ignoring Declining Moose Population?

Cecil Gray, among other colorful adjectives, is a mouthy sort, most of the time out of step with reality, forcing most outdoor sportsmen to basically take on the Maine black fly avoidance method of ignoring hoping they will go away. As I muster up a big gulp (swallowing a bit of pride and realizing I might face some peer ridicule), I wonder if THE Cecil Gray has a legitimate gripe that moose in Maine are on decline?

Based on my personal experiences, the mid-state area and the southern tier of the North Woods have suffered losses for a decade, and that loss has been — and still is — ignored by our state wildlife agency.

Gray further goes on to make the following statement, of which I do concur and have cried foul for many years that most all state fish and game departments ignore boots-on-the-ground feedback from outdoor people.

Before people cry “armchair biologist,” let me say that there is no greater experiment than long-term witness. From Calais to Jackman, woodcutters, truckers, fishermen on remote ponds, hunters, guides, tourists, camp owners, people who fly on a daily basis and professional photographers will tell you that they do not see nearly as many moose as they used to.

And for me to be honest, I would have to also state that most outdoors people that I talk with tell me pretty much the same thing – that is that the moose population has shrunk or is shrinking. Most everything that Gray presents for reasons and other rogue “facts” is mostly dishonest moose drool, but he just might have a solid argument when it comes to what the actual population of the moose herd is.

In discussions about moose numbers that I have been a part of, hunters will tell me also that there aren’t as many moose as they used to see. That claim may be very factual. But consider this if you can. To make such a claim, one has to base the difference on something. It’s simple to claim I don’t see as many moose as I used to. But can that same person claim the population guesstimate of 70,000 moose is too high or too low?

If nobody ever knew and will never know exactly how many moose there actually are, then all we can do is presume that what I saw for moose when the population was 50,000, isn’t the same as what it is at 70,000. This conjures up a few questions. If, at the conclusion of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) moose study and further years of aerial moose surveys, the head moose biologist states the moose population at 100,000 or 20,000, or anything in between, who is going to accept that and what will it do to each one of us in our thinking about our own moose observation? Can we then honestly conclude that management practices to date, including the allotment of moose permits, is wrong or right?

Is the moose population in Maine dropping as Gray and other outdoor enthusiasts are claiming? Gray calls for a reduction in the number of moose permits allotted. That would be a good call IF his assertion that moose numbers are shrinking is scientifically substantiated. And therein, might lie the rub.

There are two things (at least) to consider. One is the bastardization of science. It’s gotten so bad in places little trust can be placed with scientists. This has reared its ugly head in Minnesota and other states, particularly those near to the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem where moose numbers present a problem.

The other issue, while I don’t know that it has an official name, I call it the delayed wildlife management conundrum. As I have discovered over the years in this field of work, there is a 3-5 year lapse, where what is happening on the ground, is not substantiated by the scientific management effort for at least a 3-5 years period. I say “at least” because I have seen it last far longer.

Maine is just now undertaking their own moose study in hopes of determining if there is a population decline and if so, what is causing it. Honest and good science will give us that answer. Agenda-driven, greedy and fake science will only give us the same dishonest and unproven drool we’ve heard for years.

Pretending it will be a legitimate study, one has to wonder if there really is a shortage of moose and moose tags aren’t reduced and other things implemented to mitigate losses, what will the condition of the herd be at the end of the moose study? And who will believe it?

Gray claims that aerial counts of moose are, “not the most scientific way possible to determine what’s actually happening on the ground.” That may be true, but for the money it certainly gives us a better idea as to whether game numbers match the numbers achieved from algorithmic formulas used for years. The only gripe I’ve had about aerial flyover counting is the lack of experience in conducting the counts. But with each successive year counting is done, I hope somebody is learning something.

The system in place is far from perfect and I will side with Mr. Gray to say that I wish the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), would open up their lines of communication and put more stock in what boots-on-the-ground are telling them. At the same time, sportsmen can take an extra minute to help answer question MDIFW might be asking to better help them do their job.

To support the idea of taking more seriously what those with years of experience observe in the forest and fields, here is a pictorial essay of what is and has taken place in and around the Bingham, Maine area. This is part of the region of Maine Cecil Gray spoke of in his article; “the mid-state area and the southern tier of the North Woods have suffered losses for a decade.”

The author and photographer of the following photos, had this to say:

I have hunted the Bingham area (Cecil makes a living there) for quite awhile. I think that the Moose population thereabouts peaked a decade, or more, ago. Moose sign has declined by a great deal and we see few Moose on the hoof. We have found lots of Moose dead or Moose parts strewed about as left by poachers. The elevated Moose count may be a lot of bull (as in Moose).