ABSTRACT: At the turn of the century 2000, the North American moose population was estimated at about 1 million distributed in 28 jurisdictions. Populations occur in 11 Canadian provinces or territories, and in at least 17 U.S. States. Densities are believed to be increasing in 12, stable to increasing

in 14, and stable to decreasing in only 2. Moose continue to expand their range in New England and several western U.S. States. In 2000-01, an estimated 385,569 licensed moose hunters harvested 82,466 moose in 23 jurisdictions, down from 417,072 and 89,100 a decade earlier. Additional harvests by Native and subsistence users although largely unquantified, are believed substantial in Alaska, Minnesota, and all 11 Canadian jurisdictions. A wide variety of active and passive harvest strategies used to manage moose are discussed. Population estimates are presented for 28 of 35 National Parks where moose occur, but where licensed hunting is prohibited.

Keywords: distribution, First Nations, harvest, harvest strategies, hunter numbers, license qualifications, moose population status, National Parks, seasons, subsistence

**********

The status and management of North American moose (Alces alces) circa 2000-2001 is updated from that reported by Timmermann and Buss (1995). A comprehensive 10-page questionnaire similar to that used by Timmermann (1987) and Timmermann and Buss (1995) was used to update the current status, population estimates, as well as harvest and non-harvest strategies used by 23 jurisdictions that manage an annual licensed moose harvest. An additional 5 jurisdictions where hunting is currently prohibited were contacted to determine population status. Tabulated data were returned for final perusal and changes or corrections solicited. This paper reports on current (year 2000-2001) population status and strategies used to manage hunting harvest and non-harvest management.

HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION AND CURRENT STATUS

The distribution of moose in North America during the latter half of the 20th century has been described by several authors including: Peterson (1955), Telfer (1984), Kelsall (1987), Karns (1998), Franzmann (2000), and Rodgers (2001). Four subspecies are recognized, namely A. a. gigas, andersoni, americana, and shirasi (Peterson 1955). During the past 30 years, Kelsall and Telfer (1974), Karns (1998), and Peek and Morris (1998), detailed expanding distributions in both western and eastern states. Currently, moose (A. a. americana) appear to still be expanding and re-establishing on their former range in the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut (Hicks 1986, Alexander 1993, Bontaites and Guftason 1993, Morris and Elowe 1993, Vecellio et al. 1993, Al Hicks, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, personal communication 2002, Howard Kilpatrick, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, personal communication 2002, Bill Woytek, Massachusetts Wildlife, personal communication 2002; Fig. 1). Moose in Vermont have re-occupied all suitable habitat and are currently believed to be increasing (Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 2001). Current moose populations in Maine are considered unacceptably high and need to be reduced according to Karen Morris (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, personal communication 2002). Likewise, populations of A. a. shirasi continue to increase and expand in the western states of Washington (Donny Martorello, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State, personal communication 2002), as well as Idaho (Compton and Oldenburg 1994), Utah (Jim Karpowitz, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication 2002), Wyoming (Hnilicka and Zornes 1994), and Colorado (Kufeld 1994, Kufeld and Bowden 1996, John Ellenberger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, personal communication 2002). Low predator densities, reduced deer populations, reversion of farmland to forest, increased logging and fire disturbance, legal protection, and conservative harvests are believed responsible (Karns 1998, Peek and Morris 1998).

Minnesota closed their northwestern moose range to harvest in 1997 due to a dramatic population decline from unknown causes (Mike Schrage, Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, and Gretchen Mehmel, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, personal communications 2002). The estimated population declined from 4,264 in 1983 to 1,486 in 1995 to approximately 900 in 2001. A research study is currently underway in an effort to determine the causes of this decline.

Mainland Michigan population estimates are controversial and believed to be somewhere between 600 and 1,100, while those on Isle Royale were estimated at 900 (Aho et al. 1996, Dodge et al. 2001, Mary Hindelang, Michigan Technological University, personal communication 2002). Moose regularly move in and out of northern Michigan and Minnesota into northern Wisconsin and Adrian Wydeven (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal communication 2002) estimates the current Wisconsin population at 20-40.

Periodic winter aerial surveys based on the Gasaway method are used by most agencies to estimate populations and trends (Gasaway et al. 1986, Peterson and Page 1993, Timmermann 1993, Smits et al. 1994, Lynch and Shumaker 1995, Bisset 1996, Lenarz 1998, Timmermann and Buss 1998, Bisset and McLaren 1999, Bontaities et al. 2000, Ward et al. 2000). Most agencies estimate total jurisdictional populations based on the cumulative total of specific management areas sampled every 3 or more years. Such jurisdictional estimates are considered relatively crude and are primarily used to compare population trends over time. New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont rely heavily on deer hunter reported moose observations and vehicle collision incidents to estimate moose trends. New Hampshire and Vermont also use annual deer hunter observations and a regression formula developed from concurrent infrared aerial surveys obtained over a 3-year New Hampshire study to estimate regional moose populations (Bontaites et al. 2000). Continental moose populations in 28 jurisdictions (circa 2000-2001) are estimated at 938,350 to 1,064,130 (Fig. 1). Population estimates from 23 of 28 agencies which manage an annual licensed harvest are similar to those given in 1991 (Table 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In summary, current moose densities in 23 jurisdictions are believed to be stable to decreasing in Minnesota, decreasing in Alaska, and relatively stable or increasing in the balance (Table 1). Five states where hunting is prohibited report expanding populations in four (Michigan, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York) while those in Wisconsin are considered stable (Fig. 1).

MANAGING A HARVEST

Economic Impact

Moose hunting provides a significant annual economic impact in some jurisdictions. The value of resident moose hunting in British Columbia, for example was estimated to be Canadian (CAN) $15.8 M in 1995 (Reid 1997), while Legg (1995) estimated CAN $134.7 M in Ontario for all hunters in 1993. Legg and Kennedy (2000) estimated moose hunting in Ontario contributed CAN $77.0 M to the gross provincial income and sustained 1,645.8 person years of employment in 1996. Regelin and Franzmann (1998) estimated the economic impact of 33,000 resident and 1,000 nonresident Alaskan hunters to represent US $32.6 M in the late 1990s. Bisset (1987) reported a gross value of CAN $464 M generated in 19 North American jurisdictions in 1982.

Harvest Control Objectives

Two territories and 9 provinces in Canada, and 12 states in the USA, administered a moose hunt in 2000 (Table 1). Collectively, 385,569 licensed moose hunters harvested an estimated 82,466 moose in 2000-2001. A decade earlier, 417,072 licensed hunters killed 89,100 (Table 1). Hunting regulations continue to become more restrictive and complex as the demand on moose populations and corresponding success rates increase due in part to increased road access and use of mechanized equipment (Timmermann and Buss 1998). Control of hunting is required to affect the desired allocation of moose harvest among licensed hunters, to secure the sustainability of moose populations, and achieve other specified management objectives for a particular area. British Columbia, for example, has recently suggested future management objectives focus on maintaining appropriate adult sex ratios, provide diverse hunting opportunities, and optimize recreational days per harvested moose. This would replace traditional objectives associated with population size, harvest, hunter numbers, and hunter days, which are difficult to achieve or measure (Hatter 1999).

Harvest policy is currently guided by a written approved or draft moose management policy, including goals and objectives in 15 jurisdictions, while 8 employ an unwritten or generalized wildlife policy. Specific moose management plans, guidelines, or statements have been prepared or are being updated in Maine (Morris and Elowe 1993, Anonymous 2000a), Vermont (Alexander et al. 1998, Anonymous 2001), New Hampshire (Anonymous 1997), Utah (Anonymous 2000b), Colorado (Kufeld 1994), Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 1990, Hnilicka and Zornes 1994), Idaho (IDFG 1990, Leege 1990), Ontario (OMNR 1980), Quebec (MLCP 1993), Saskatchewan (Arsenault 2000), British Columbia (British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks 1996), Yukon (Yukon Renewable Resources 1996, 1999), and Alberta (Alberta Natural Resources draft pending). Alaska uses a dated 1980 moose policy (Alaska Department offish and Game 1980) and currently manages 45 distinct populations individually. Examples of specific moose plans include those for Region 1, southeastern Alaska, as well as the Yukon Flats and Koyukuk River (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 1990, 2001). Several agencies have recently attempted to review and evaluate their moose harvest program and policy. These include Ontario (Simmons 1997, Provincial Auditor 1998, OMNR 2001, Timmermann et al. 2002), British Columbia (Hatter 1999), Saskatchewan (Arsenault 2000), Newfoundland (Mercer and McLaren 2002), Quebec (Courtois and Lamontagne 1999, Lamoureux 1999, Sigouin et al. 1999), and Alaska (Schwartz et al. 1992, Hundertmark and Schwartz 1996, Hundertmark et al. 1998, Kovach et al. 1998, Regelin and Franzmann 1998).

Allocation of Hunting Opportunities

Moose are essentially publicly owned and held in trust by provincial, territorial, and state wildlife agencies. The first priority of most agencies is to ensure the long-term conservation of moose populations and their habitats. Harvest allocation is given prime consideration to subsistence use by Native people under Treaty or other legal agreements in at least 10 of 23 jurisdictions that manage a harvest. Resident hunters are typically favored over non-residents and non- resident aliens, in allocating harvest opportunities.

Added controls, such as increased license fees, resident only seasons, guide requirements, and limited permits are commonly placed on non-resident hunters, giving residents priority in allocation of hunting opportunities. In 2000-2001, non-residents were eligible to hunt 17 of 23 jurisdictions (Table 1). A guide was required by 8 of 23 agencies, and at least 2 agencies required non-residents to register with a licensed tourist outfitter to stimulate local economic benefits. Allowances to enable some nonresidents to hunt with resident hunters have been made. For example, a non-resident of British Columbia, who is a resident of Canada or a Canadian citizen, may be accompanied by a resident of British Columbia who holds a $40.00 Permit to Accompany (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2001).

Some agencies restrict or limit moose hunting opportunities. They are limited in all U.S. States except Alaska. Washington, North Dakota, and Minnesota offer 1 moose hunt per lifetime, while Colorado and Utah limit hunters to 1 antlered animal per lifetime. Others require a waiting period between hunts; Idaho and Maine 2 years, New Hampshire and Vermont 3 years, Wyoming 5 years, and Montana 7 years after a moose is taken. Hunters in Alaska and all 11 Canadian jurisdictions may hunt annually within quotas whether they were successful or not the previous year. Ontario has introduced a pilot study in 1 Wildlife Management Unit that offers moose hunting opportunities for physically-challenged hunters only (Armstrong and Simons 1999).

Control Concepts

Agencies employ a variety of strategies to regulate harvests and distribute hunting pressure (Timmermann 1987). Passive strategies used include season length and timing, access restrictions, weapon requirements, and license qualification prerequisites; while active measures include limiting license sales or specifying the sex, age, or number of animals taken by specific area. Objectives often include the harvest of predetermined numbers to sustain, increase, or decrease populations. Both New Hampshire and Vermont have recently applied harvest rates and antlerless quotas aimed at reducing moose densities in some areas to help reduce impacts of browsing on regenerating forests and vehicle collisions (Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 2002). In 2000-01, 10 agencies offered unlimited selective or non-selective harvest opportunities while all (23 of 23) restricted or limited harvests on a selective or non-selective basis in some management areas (Fig. 2). In addition, closed seasons were employed to prevent licensed harvests in specific moose inhabited areas, including some provincial, territorial, state, and National Parks.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Alaska, for example, has eliminated or restricted any-sex seasons and now uses regulations limiting bull harvests to specific antler shape and size in much of the road accessible portions of the state (Schwartz et al. 1992, Hundertmark and Schwartz 1996, Huntertmark et al. 1998, Kovach et al. 1998, Regelin and Franzmann 1998).

License Qualifications and Fees

In 2000, proof of hunting proficiency, including either a previous license or completing a hunter safety education course, was required to obtain a moose hunting license in all jurisdictions. In 2001, resident license fees averaged CAN $35.76 in Canada (range $10.00 Northwest Territories to $57.50 in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick), while non-resident licenses averaged CAN $204.41 (range $20.00 Northwest Territories to $460.00 in New Brunswick). Resident fees in the U.S. averaged US $106.00, (range $20.00 in North Dakota to $ 310.00 in Minnesota), while non-resident fees averaged US $727.70 (range $80.00 in Vermont to $1,643 in Idaho). Some agencies, including Alaska and Maine for example, charged higher fees to non-resident aliens. Export permits or trophy fees are required in addition to the license fee to transport an animal out of Alaska, Northwest Territories, Alberta, and Ontario (Table 3). Currently, no jurisdictions require moose hunters to demonstrate shooting proficiency using conventional firearms, as described by Buss et al. (1989). Both New Brunswick and Newfoundland had previously required hunters to pass a shooting and written test before qualifying for a big game hunting license (Timmermann and Buss 1995). Alaska however, requires all archery and black powder hunters to pass a proficiency test (Wayne Regelin, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication 2002).

Seasons

Season length and timing are used to control the amount of hunting opportunity available, hunter success due to moose vulnerability based on behavior, and seasonal access. Seasons are generally specific to firearm type (e.g., conventional firearms, black powder, or archery). In addition, seasons tend to be longer in more remote areas and shorter in roaded areas closer to population centers. Alaska provides the most liberal season length (243 days), extending from August to March in some Game Management Areas (Table 2). Season lengths for all hunts in parts of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Newfoundland equal or exceed 3 months, while New Brunswick, Vermont, and New Hampshire restrict season length to 3, 4, and 9 days, respectively. Special early archery seasons are offered by 9 agencies (Table 2), while most offer firearm seasons beginning during the latter portion of the rut period (Wilton 1995) and extending into November or December. Split seasons (early vs late fall) occur in at least 8 jurisdictions.

Management Areas and Harvest Strategies

All agencies have subdivided their moose range into various sized areas (Wildlife, Game, or Moose Management Units) to facilitate specific harvest control measures. Moose management areas vary in size from 53 [km.sup.2] (Vermont) to 1,629,049 [km.sup.2] in the Northwest Territories, and number 4 in Washington State to 445 in the Yukon (Table 2). All jurisdictions except the Northwest Territories continue to employ either a selective or non-selective limited hunter participation strategy, or a combination of both (Fig. 2). Most favor some form of limited selective or limited non-selective strategy to control sex and/or age related harvests. Alaska alone continues to employ registration hunts which require mandatory kill registration and season termination once a prescribed harvest is achieved.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

A selective harvest strategy allowing control of harvest size and composition was introduced in Saskatchewan in 1977 followed by British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland, and Quebec between 1980 and 1994 (Timmermann and Buss 1995). This strategy's objective is to promote herd growth by reducing the adult female harvest while maintaining or increasing adult bull and calf harvest (Stewart 1978). A selective bull harvest strategy based on antler architecture is used in Alaska and British Columbia (Child and Aitken 1989, Schwartz et al. 1992, Timmermann and Buss 1995, Hatter 1999). The objective is to increase the number of bulls in areas where low bull numbers are a concern because of low reproduction, by diverting harvest pressure to young (spike and forked antlered bulls) and old bulls (antlers with [greater than or equal to] 3 brow tines on I antler, or larger than 106 cm spread), and away from prime (6-10 year-old) bulls. Quebec introduced an alternating hunting strategy in 1994 by offering combinations of bull-only, bull/calf, female draw, and either sex depending on year and location (Courtois and Lamontagne 1997, 1999; Lamoureux 1999; Sigouin et al. 1999).

Sharing a moose between [greater than or equal to] 2 hunters optimizes hunting opportunities and accommodates hunters who wish to hunt with friends. Some agencies, such as Minnesota since 1971, require all eligible hunters to apply together in groups of up to 4 individuals for the chance to harvest 1 animal (Judd 1972). More recently, several agencies have introduced additional limiting or sharing mechanisms. British Columbia offers a "Group Hunt" whereby up to 4 persons can combine their applications and have them entered as 1 application. If drawn, each hunter within the group receives an authorization to shoot 1 moose (British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection 2001). In addition, British Columbia introduced new Limited Entry Shared hunts in 2001. If drawn, a group of 2 is allowed to take 1 moose and a group of 3 or 4 can take 2 moose only. All members must hunt together and those who apply for these special Limited Entry Shared Hunts will have an advantage in the draw over a single applicant. Alberta introduced a Special Antlered Moose Partner license to increase resident hunting opportunities in 2000. Residents who did not apply or were unsuccessful in the license draw could partner with a resident holder of an Antlered Moose Special license. Residents who were successful could also designate a non-resident (in an area that offered a non-resident hunt) and a resident as a partner. Nova Scotia allows residents who have drawn a license to designate up to 2 companions who may fully participate in the hunt; provided the designated licensee is within hailing distance of the license holder at all times and possesses a Companion Moose Hunting Stamp. Manitoba issues some moose licenses on the basis of 1 tag for 2 hunters and each must sign the other's license. If hunting alone, the licensee must be in possession of the game tag and may not sign up with another party. Manitoba resident hunters may also purchase a Conservation Moose License together (2 licenses / 1 tag) allowing for a shared harvest of 1 moose. Quebec authorizes a bag limit of 1 moose per 2 hunters in most areas and 1 moose per 3 hunters in some ZECs (organizations that manage specific areas). In addition, the limit is 1 moose per group composed of 3 or 4 hunters in limited access wildlife reserves. Yukon hunters who wish to hunt together may apply jointly and if the application is drawn, both applicants receive a permit for the same subzone. The voluntary "Hunt with a Partner" slogan encourages Yukoners to share 1 moose. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont all manage a short season, whereby each successful permittee may select a subpermittee to hunt with them and harvest 1 moose.

Several agencies have developed mechanisms to grant hunters a higher success rate in a limited random draw. Wyoming hunters are given 1 Moose Preference Point every year in which they are unsuccessful in the draw. Alternatively applicants may purchase a preference point for US $7.00 instead of applying for a license. Successful applicants are generally those who have the highest preference points. Both Ontario and Newfoundland either encourage or give preference to a party over individual draw applicants. Newfoundland restricts party size to 2 individuals who may hunt for 1 moose provided they are within sight of each other when both are hunting. Members of a party license may hunt alone provided they carry the license and tag. In addition, Newfoundland gives party applicants preference over individuals and to those who were unsuccessful in previous years in each of 5 pools, thereby maximizing hunter opportunity. Ontario has offered a voluntary Group Application System for adult moose since 1991 (Timmermann et al. 2002). This system was designed to allow a more equitable allocation of harvest opportunities among more hunters. A 2-pool preference system gives hunters who were unsuccessful in obtaining a tag the previous year a preference over those who received a tag when re-applying the following year. In 2000, for example, 42% of Ontario hunters applied in groups of 2 or more. The average group size was 4.43 hunters per group and 63% of groups received a moose tag compared to only 18% of individual applicants (OMNR 2001:35). In addition, a tag is guaranteed to a group of hunters when the number of Pool 1 hunters in the group meets a pre-determined size.

Harvest Assessment

All sources of mortality must be assessed to monitor the effectiveness of various harvest strategies. Hunters are required to report their hunting activity in 9 of 23 jurisdictions, whether successful or not, while kill registration is compulsory in the majority (16 of 23, Table 3). Thirteen of these 16 agencies apply a non-compliance penalty to hunters failing to report, although enforcement of these requirements varies among agencies. New Brunswick has experimented with interactive voice response technology (Redmond et al. 1997) and Alberta has used a telephone questionnaire (Lynch and Birkholz 2000) to help assess moose harvests. Modeling is also used to predict population changes resulting from various harvest strategies (Heydon et al. 1992, Schwartz 1993, McKenney et al. 1998). Timmermann and Buss (1998) provide a more detailed description of this subject.

Harvest by Native and Subsistence Users

Kay (1997) suggested that historically moose were extremely vulnerable to predation by Natives in western North America and that Native peoples had no effective conservation practices. Reeves and McCabe (1998) estimated annual consumption of moose for North American Indians living in moose range to be 0.142 moose per person. Currently, most North American moose management agencies give primary consideration to subsistence use by Canadian First Nation peoples and Native American peoples in recognition of obligations made under historical Treaties signed by both Federal governments (Crichton et al. 1998). In many areas, they have unfettered access to moose year round and current regulations are considered liberal and unrestrictive given the widespread use of modern technology (Courtois and Beaumont 1999). The harvest by Natives is difficult to quantify and unfortunately little effort has been made to measure the magnitude of this harvest, which some managers believe approaches or exceeds the licensed harvest.

In the USA, 4 of 12 agencies reported formal agreements governing moose harvests have been signed with some tribal bands. They include Montana, Utah, Maine, and Minnesota. The latter state has signed agreements with 2 Ojibwe bands, another is being negotiated and 2 Minnesota bands have closed seasons on their reserves due to low populations. Schrage (2001) reported 80 moose taken by Minnesota Natives compared to 125 by all non-natives in 2001. Bands in Montana, Utah, and Maine regulate harvests on tribal lands.

In Canada, First Nations have signed a few formal agreements with 5 of 11 jurisdictions. They include the Yukon and Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. In the Yukon, those agreements have yet to be implemented and managers currently estimate harvest levels to equal or exceed those of the licensed harvest based on limited data. The Northwest Territories Land Claims Agreement governs subsistence harvesting by First Nations in the Inuvialuit, Gwich'in, and Sahtu areas (Marshal 1999). British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec have signed several agreements, while others are being negotiated, and many jurisdictions have no agreements in place. However all current harvests by First Nation peoples are poorly documented. In Ontario, the only formal agreement was a 10-year history of annual agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake to take moose in Algonquin Provincial Park from 1990-2000. No agreement was signed in 2001 and documentation of kill magnitude was difficult to obtain under previous agreements.

The annual moose harvest by First Nation peoples is "substantial" in specific local areas of British Columbia and Ontario. Moose managers in Ontario estimate the harvest by First Nation and Metis peoples may approach the licensed hunting harvest for some Wildlife Management Units in northwestern and northeastern Ontario in areas adjacent to First Nations communities (Ted Armstrong and Peter Davis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, personal communications 2002). First Nation moose harvests are believed to equal or exceed the total licensed harvest in Alberta (7,971+), at least 50% of the licensed harvest in Saskatchewan (1,706+), equal to double in Manitoba (1,000-2,000), slightly more than half in New Brunswick (1,300+), at least double in Nova Scotia (360+), at least 1,000 in the Northwest Territories, and is thought to equal or exceed harvests by non-First-Nation peoples in the Yukon (743). There are no reliable statistics on harvests by First Nations in Quebec, except in the James Bay region where their harvests are considered of the same order or greater than that of licensed hunting (St.-Pierre 2001, Rehaume Courtois, Quebec Ministere de l'Environment et de la Faune, personal communication 2002). Newfoundland has only 1 First Nation reserve and currently no allowances are made for harvesting of moose by their people. First Nation use of moose in Labrador is limited due to the low moose population (Paul Saunders, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, personal communication 2002). Moose managers generally presume that First Nation peoples take a higher proportion of cows than bulls, although such data are speculative and poorly documented.

Both Metis and non-status Indians are testing their perceived rights in court. Metis are considered as any persons of mixed Indian and white ancestry not considered an Indian (Swail 1996). In Ontario, self-identified Metis are considered to be members of and accepted by their local Metis community and organization, which retain a historic Metis community connection in areas where moose hunting is considered a historic activity (Richard Stankiewicz, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, personal communication 2002). On February 23, 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided the case of R. V. Powley et al. (2001), 53 O.R. (3rd) 35, ruling in favor of 2 Metis who claimed moose hunting was an "integral practice, custom or tradition of that Metis community". This case is currently on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (OMNR 2002). Another judge in an Alberta case (the Crown vs Fergeson) ruled that Metis have the right to hunt anywhere where they have right of access at any time without a license, provided they were raised in the Indian culture (could speak "Indian", grew up hunting and trapping, etc.), according to Lynch (Alberta Wildlife Management Consulting, personal communication 2002). In Canada, First Nation peoples are restricted to their Treaty areas with respect to unlicensed harvest.

Harvest of wildlife by First Nation peoples and Metis, including moose, remains a controversial subject and is considered a substantial undocumented kill in most jurisdictions (Crichton 1981, Feit 1987, Kay 1997, Hatter 1999). Co-management between government agencies, First Nations, and Metis is believed by some managers to offer the potential for local control of the moose resource, as long as hunting rights are balanced with conservation efforts (Feit 1987, Nepinak and Payne 1988, Graf 1992, Messier 1996, Crichton et al. 1998, Marshal 1999, Arsenault 2000, Crichton 2001). Crichton (2001) offers 4 ingredients for successful co-management. First Nations must have: a decision making role in development of management programs; be supportive of partnerships; there be recognition of traditional cultural and economic values, including a removal of cultural and linguistic barriers to facilitate use; and, a dispute resolution process to resolve disagreements.

Regelin and Franzmann (1998) reported that new laws in Alaska, primarily the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, have dictated a priority for harvest by rural citizens, using subsistence regulations to redistribute harvest among users. This law also shifted management responsibility from the state to the federal government. Under this law, all Alaskan residents are potentially qualified as subsistence hunters. As such, there is potential for subsistence use to increase significantly (Alaska Department of Fish and Game 2001). Alaska estimated a subsistence harvest of 2,000 compared to 5,000 for the 2001 licensed harvest. Regional managers in British Columbia may issue a possession permit for the purpose of sustenance, while local Fish and Wildlife offices in Alberta report issuing about 100 subsistence licenses for "those on the land" (Ian Hatter, British Columbia Wildlife Branch, and Gerry Lynch, Alberta Wildlife Management Consulting, personal communications 2001). Future sustainable harvests and population goals will largely remain elusive until the total harvest, including harvests by First Nation and Metis peoples and subsistence users, are agreed to and are verifiable.

Illegal hunting losses (Timmermann and Buss 1998) appear to be significant in some jurisdictions, including Colorado (Kufeld 1994), Utah (Anonymous 2000b), and Ontario (Harnish 2000). Most agencies encourage all hunters to report illegal infractions using a toll-free telephone number. Ontario has recently introduced a "Moose Watch" Program to help reduce moose poaching (Harnish 2000).

MANAGING A NON-HARVEST

Parks, Refuges, and Special Areas

Most North American jurisdictions where moose occur, provide for areas where hunting is not a primary management objective. Currently 5 U.S. States do not have an open moose hunting season and 19 of 23 jurisdictions provide closed seasons in anywhere from 1 to 36 management areas (Fig. 2). The assumed common objective of closed areas including game or wildlife reserves, national, provincial, territorial, or state parks, or nature reserves, is the preservation of moose in representative natural habitats for education and recreational enjoyment. Further maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem function is often a stated objective. Only 6 of 23 responding jurisdictions indicated management considerations or special objectives had been developed for pro-active management in such protected areas. The provision of viewing opportunities and natural history interpretations were commonly integrated in their park's programs. A review of moose management objectives and programs in parks, refuges and special areas is detailed by Timmermann and Buss (1995). Moose are native to at least 35 North American National Parks in 16 jurisdictions (Table 4). Isle Royale is perhaps the most famous, boasting a 43-year continuous ecological study of wolves and moose beginning in 1959 (Peterson 2002). Jordan et al. (2000) summarized moose related studies and provided an extensive list (150+) of research papers. A sampling includes a report on osteoporosis and other skeletal pathologies by Hindelang et al. (1992), studies on tooth wear and perodontal disease by Hindelang and Peterson (1993, 2001), and the impact of wolves and moose on vegetative succession by McLaren and Peterson (1994, 1995). Several other National Parks have also yielded moose related research. They include: data on 151 moose (A. a. andersoni) weights and measurements from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, following a herd reduction program (Lynch et al. 1995); ecological status of moose and white-tailed deer in Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota (Gogan et al. 1997); and, a description of extreme moose demographics in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland (McLaren et al. 2000). Population estimates vary from unknown in several Alberta and Alaskan National Parks to as high as 7,738 in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland. Bisset (1987) estimated that the value associated with wildlife appreciation (non-consumptive use, vicarious recreation, etc.) could have been as much as CAN $1,623 M in the early 1980s.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Appreciation is extended to the following individuals who provided unpublished information in response to a 10-page questionnaire survey: Wayne Regelin, Doug Larsen, and Kris Hundertmark, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Anchorage, and Soldotna, AK; Donny Martorello, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State, Olympia, WA; Bradley Compton, Idaho Fish and Game, Idaho Falls, ID; Jim Karpowitz, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Price, UT; Kerry Olson, Justin Binfet, and Tim Thomas, Wyoming Game and Fish, Cheyenne and Sheridan, WY; Jerry Brown, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Libby, MT; William Jensen, North Dakota Game and Fish Department, Bismark, ND; John Ellenberger, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Grand Junction, CO; Mike Schrage, Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Conservation Department, Cloquet, MN; Gretchen Mehmel, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Roosevelt, MN; Karen Morris, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bangor, ME; Kristine Bontaites, New Hampshire Fish and Game, New Hampton, NH; Cedric Alexander, Vermont Fish and Wildlife, St. Johnsbury, VT; Howard Kilpatrick, North Franklin, CT; Bill Woytek, Massachusetts Wildlife, Westborough, MA; Rick Ward, Yukon Department of Renewable Resources, Whitehorse, YK; Alasdair Veitch, Wildlife Management Division, Department of Renewable Resources, Yellowknife, NWT; Ian Hatter, British Columbia, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC; Gerry Lynch, Alberta Wildlife Management Consulting, Sherwood Park, AB; Rhys Beaulieu, Saskatchewan Environment and Resources Management, Meadow Lake, SK; Vince Crichton, Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch, Manitoba Conservation, Winnipeg, MB; Rick Stankiewicz, Jim Saunders, and Howard Smith, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Section, Peterborough, ON; Gilles Lamontagne and Rehaume Courtois, Quebec Ministere de l'Environment et de la Faune, Quebec City, PQ; Gerry Redmond, New Brunswick Maritime Forest Ranger School, Fredericton, NB; Tony Nette, Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, Kentville, NS; Paul Saunders and Brian McLaren, Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, Inland Fish and Wildlife Division, Corner Brook, NF.

In addition, the following provided written and verbal information on moose status in non hunted jurisdictions, clarification on specific questions, assistance in questionnaire mailouts, and preparing tables and figures: Mary Hindelang, Chassell, MI; Rolf Peterson, Michigan Technological University, Houghton MI; Adrian Wydeven, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls, WI; Al Hicks, New York State; Howard Kilpatrick, North Franklin, CT; Bill Woytek, Massachusetts Wildlife, Westborough, MA; Marty Orwig, North American Moose Foundation, MacKay, ID; Keith Wade, Pukaskwa National Park, Marathon, ON; Al Franzmann, Soldotna, AK; Art Rodgers, Centre for Northern Forest Ecosystem Research, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Thunder Bay, ON; Susan Rodgers, Thunder Bay ON; Bruce Ranta, Ted Armstrong, and Peter Davis, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Kenora, Thunder Bay, and Cochrane, ON; and, Brian Hutchinson, Parks Canada, Cornwall, ON.

REFERENCES

AHO, R. W., S. M. SCHMITT, J. HENDRICKSON, and T. R. MINZEY. 1996. Michigan's translocated moose population: 10 years later. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Report Number 3245. Wildlife Division, Lansing, Michigan, USA.

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1980. Alaska wildlife management plans. Species Management Policies. Juneau, Alaska, USA.

--. 1990. Strategic plan for management of moose in region 1, southeast Alaska. 1990-94. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Douglas, Alaska, USA.

--. 2001. Koyukuk River moose management plan 2000-2005. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska, USA.

ALEXANDER, C. E. 1993. The status and management of moose in Vermont. Alces 29: 187-195.

--, P. FINK, L. GARLAND, and F. HAMMOND. 1998. Moose management plan for the State of Vermont, 19982007. Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Waterbury Vermont, USA.

ANONYMOUS. 1997. Managing deer, moose and bear in New Hampshire 1997-2005. Wildlife Division, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, New Hampshire, USA.

--. 2000a. Maine moose goals and objectives 2000-2010. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Bangor, Maine, USA.

--. 2000b. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for moose. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

--. 2001. Vermont moose hunter's guide. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, St. Johnsbury, Vermont, USA.

ARMSTRONG, E. R., and R. SIMONS. 1999. Moose hunting opportunities for physically- challenged hunters in Ontario: a pilot study. Alces 35:125-134.

ARSENAULT, A. A. 2000. Status and management of moose (Alces alces) in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, Fish and Wildlife Branch. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 00-1. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

BISSET, A. R. 1987. The economic importance of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:677-698.

--. 1996. Standards and guidelines for moose population inventory in Ontario. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Branch, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

--, and M. A. McLAREN. 1999. Moose population aerial inventory plan for Ontario: 1999-2002. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Northwest Science and Technology. Information Report IR-004. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada.

BONTAITES, K. M., and K. GUSTAFSON. 1993. The history and status of moose and moose management in New Hampshire. Alces 29:163-167.

--, --, and R. MAKIN. 2000. A Gasaway-type moose survey in New Hampshire using infrared thermal imagery: preliminary results. Alces 36:69-75.

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS. 1996. Wildlife harvest strategy, improving British Columbia' s wildlife harvest regulations. Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION. 2001. Hunting and Trapping Regulations Synopsis/ 2001-02. Monday Tourism Publications, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Buss, M., R. GOLLAT, and H. R. TIMMERMANN. 1989. Moose hunter shooting proficiency in Ontario. Alces 25:98-103.

CHILD, K. N., and D. A. AITKEN. 1989. Selective harvests, hunters and moose in British Columbia. Alces 19:162-177.

COMPTON, B. B., and L. E. OLDENBURG. 1994. The status and management of moose in Idaho. Alces 30:57-62.

COURTOIS, R., and A. BEAUMONT. 1999. The influence of accessibility on moose hunting in northwestern Quebec. Alces 35:41-50.

--, and G. LAMONTAGNE. 1997. Management system and current status of moose in Quebec. Alces 33:97-114.

--, and --. 1999. The protection of cows: its impact on moose hunting and moose populations. Alces 35:11-29.

CRICHTON, V. F. J. 1981. The impact of treaty Indian harvest on a Manitoba moose herd. Alces 17:56-63.

--. 2001. Co-management--the Manitoba experience. Alces 37:163-173.

--, W. L. REGELIN, A. W. FRANZMANN, and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1998. The future of moose management and research. Pages 655-663 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

DODGE, W. B., S. R. WINTERSTEIN, D. E. BEYER, JR., and H. R. CAMPA. 2001. Why aren't there more moose in Michigan' s Upper Peninsula? Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Lansing, Michigan, USA.

FEIT, H.A. 1987. North American native hunting and management of moose populations. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:25-42.

FRANZMANN, A. W. 2000. Moose. Pages 578-600 in S. Demarais and P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and Management of Large Mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

GASAWAY, W. C., S. D. DUBOIS, O. J. REED, and S. J. HARBO. 1986. Estimating moose population parameters from aerial surveys. Biological Papers of the University of Alaska, Number 22. Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

GOGAN, J. P., K. D. KOZIE, E. M. OLEXA, and N. S. DUNCAN. 1997. Ecological status of moose and white-tailed deer at Voyageurs National Park, Minnesota. Alces 33:187-201.

GRAF, R. P. 1992. Status and management of moose in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Alces Supplement 1:22-28.

HARNISH, D. 2000. Moose Watch reduces illegal hunting in Northeast region. News release, December 8/00. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Sault Ste Marie Ontario, Canada.

HATTER, I. W. 1999. An evaluation of moose harvest management in central and northern British Columbia. Alces 35:91-103.

HEYDON, C., D. EULER, H. SMITH, and A. BISSET. 1992. Modeling the selective moose harvest program in Ontario. Alces 28:111-121.

HICKS, A. C. 1986. The history and current status of moose in New York. Alces 22:245-252.

HINDELANG, M., and R. O. PETERSON. 1993. Relationship of mandibular tooth wear to gender, age, and periodontal disease of Isle Royale moose. Alces 29:63-73.

--, and --. 2001. Skeletal integrity in moose at Isle Royale National Park: bone mineral density and osteopathology related to senescence. Alces 36:61-68.

--, --, and A. L. MACLEAN. 1992. Osteoporosis in moose on Isle Royale: a pilot study of bone mineral density using CT scans. Alces 28:35-39.

HNILICKA, P., and M. ZORNES. 1994. Status and management of moose in Wyoming. Alces 30:101-107.

HUNDERTMARK, K. J., and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1996. Considerations for intensive management of moose in Alaska. Alces 32:15-24.

--, T. H. THELEN, and R. T. BOWYER. 1998. Effects of population density and selective harvest on antler phenotype in simulated moose populations. Alces 34:375-383.

(IDFG) IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME. 1990. Species management plan 1991-1995: Moose. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho, USA.

JORDAN, P. A., B. E. MCLAREN, and S. M. SELL. 2000. A summary of research on moose and related ecological topics at Isle Royale, USA. Alces 36:233-267.

JUDD, S.L. 1972. Minnesota's 1971 moose season. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 8:240-243.

KARNS, P.D. 1998. Population distribution, density and trends. Pages 125-139 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

KAY, C. E. 1997. Aboriginal overkill and the biogeography of moose in western North America. Alces 33:141-164.

KELSALL, J. P. 1987. The distribution and status of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:1-10.

--, and E. S. TELFER. 1974. Biogeography of moose with particular reference to western North America. Naturaliste Canadien 101:117-130.

KOVACH, S. D., C. C. SCHWARTZ, R. L. WILLIS, and T. H. SPRAKER. 1998. Modeling moose populations for management decision making in Alaska. Alces 34:125-138.

KUFELD, R. C. 1994. Status and management of moose in Colorado. Alces 30:41-44.

--, and D. C. BOWDEN. 1996. Survival rates of Shiras moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Colorado. Alces 32:9-13.

LAMOUREUX, J. 1999. Effects of selective harvest on moose populations of the Bas-Saint-Laurent region, Quebec. Alces 35:191-202.

LEEGE, T. A. 1990. Moose management plan 1991-1995. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Boise, Idaho, USA.

LEGG, D. 1995. The economic impact of moose hunting in Ontario, 1993. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

--, and M. KENNEDY. 2000. The economic impact of moose hunting in Ontario, 1996. Analysis and Planning Section, Land Use Planning Branch, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

LENARZ, M. S. 1998. Precision and bias of aerial moose surveys in northeastern Minnesota. Alces 34:117-124.

LYNCH, G. M., and S. BIRKHOLZ. 2000. A telephone questionnaire to assess moose harvest. Alces 36:105-109.

--, B. LAJEUNESSE, J. WILLMAN, and E. S. TELFER. 1995. Moose weights and measurements from Elk Island National Park, Alberta, Canada. Alces 31:199-207.

--, and G. E. SHUMAKER. 1995. GPS and GIS assisted moose surveys. Alces 31:145-151.

MARSHAL, J. P. 1999. Co-management of moose in the Gwich' in settlement area, Northwest Territories. Alces 35:151-158.

MCKENNEY, D. W., R. S. REMPEL, L. A. VENIER, YONGHE WANG, and A. R. BISSET. 1998. Development and application of a spatially explicit moose population model. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:1922-1931.

MCLAREN, B. E., C. MCCARTHY, and S. MAHONEY. 2000. Extreme moose demographics in Gros Morne National Park, Newfoundland. Alces 36:217-232.

--, and R. O. PETERSON. 1994. Wolves, moose, and tree rings on Isle Royale. Science 266:1555-1558.

--, and --. 1995. Seeing the forest with the trees: using dendrochonology to investigate moose-induced changes to a forest understory. Alces 31:77-86.

MERCER, W. E., and B. E. McLAREN. 2002. Evidence of carrying capacity effects in Newfoundland moose. Alces 38:123-141.

MESSIER, F. 1996. Moose co-management in the Trilateral Agreement Territory: principles and recommendations based on scientific knowledge and aboriginal rights. Report to the Algonquins of Barriere Lake- Trilateral Secretariat, Hull, Quebec, Canada.

MORRIS, K., and K. ELOWE. 1993. The status of moose and their management in Maine. Alces 29:91-97.

(MLCP) MINISTERE DU LOISIR, DE LA CHASSE ET DE PECHE. 1993. Plan de gestion de l'Orignal, 1994-1998. Objectifs de gestion et scenarios d'exploitation. Editeur officiel du Quebec, Quebec, Canada.

NEPINAK, H., and H. PAYNE. 1988. The hunting rights of Indian people in Manitoba: an historic overview and a contemporary explication towards enhanced conservation through joint management. Alces 24:195-200.

(OMNR) ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES. 1980. Moose management policy. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

--. 2001. 2000 review of moose population objectives in Ontario. Draft Report of 3 regional workshops. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Wildlife Branch, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

--. 2002. Metis and Non-Status Rights Requests. February 2002 News Release, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada.

PEEK, J. M., and K. I. MORRIS. 1998. Status of moose in the contiguous United States. Alces 34:423-434.

PETERSON, R. L. 1955. North American Moose. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

PETERSON, R. O. 2002. Ecological studies of wolves on Isle Royale. 2001-2002. School of Forestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Michigan, USA.

--, and R. E. PAGE. 1993. Detection of moose in midwinter from fixed-wing aircraft over dense forest cover. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:80-86.

PROVINCIAL AUDITOR. 1998. Audit of the Ministry of Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife Program. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (http://www.gov.on.ca/ opa/english/e98/309.htm).

REDMOND, G. W., A. ARSENEAULT, and C. LANTEIGNE. 1997. Using technology to survey moose hunters in New Brunswick. Alces 33:75-83.

REEVES, H. M., and R. E. McCABE. 1998. Of moose and man. Pages 1-74 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

REGELIN, W. L., and A. W. FRANZMANN. 1998. Past, present, and future moose management and research in Alaska. Alces 34:279-286.

REID, R. 1997. The economic value of resident hunting in British Columbia. 1995. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

RODGERS, A. R. 2001. Moose. Voyageur Press, Stillwater, Minnesota, USA.

SCHRAGE, M. 2001. Status of Minnesota's moose populations, seasons and harvest: 2001. Fond du Lac Resource Management Division, 1720 Big Lake Road, Cloquet, Minnesota, USA.

SCHWARTZ, C. C. 1993. Constructing simple population models for moose management. Alces 29:235-242.

--, K. J. HUNDERTMARK, and T. H. SPRAKER. 1992. An evaluation of selective bull moose harvest on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces 28:1-13.

SIGOUIN, D., S. ST.-ONGE, R. COURTOIS, and J.-P. OUELLET. 1999. Change in hunting activity and hunters' perceptions following the introduction of selective harvest in Quebec. Alces 35:105-123.

SIMMONS, G. 1997. Independent review of the moose and deer tag allocation for Ontario. Recommendations from Ontario's hunters. Queens Printer, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

SMITS, C. M. M., R. M. P. WARD, and D. G. LARSEN. 1994. Helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft; a cost-benefit analysis for moose surveys in Yukon Territory. Alces 30:45-50.

STEWART, R. R. 1978. Introduction of sex and age specific hunting licenses for the moose harvest in Saskatchewan. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 14:194-208.

ST.-PIERRE, D. 2001. Analyse et interpretation des resultats de la saison de chasse 1999 pour la zone 17 et 22. Pages 201-204, 221-225 in C. Daigle, editor. Compte rendu de l'atelier sur la grande faune--2000 et bilan de recolte des grands gibiers 1999-2000. Societe de la faune et des parcs du Quebec, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.

SWAIL, P. J. 1996. Blais vs the Queen. A conviction under the Criminal Code of Canada on August 22, 1996, for hunting big game out of season contrary to Section 26 of the Manitoba Wildlife Act. http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/scc/ 2003/2003Scc44.html.

TELFER, E. S. 1984.Circumpolar distribution and habitat requirements of moose (Alces alces). Pages 145-182 in R. Olson, R. Hastings, and F. Geddes, editors. Northern Ecology and Resource Management. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

TIMMERMANN, H.R. 1987. Moose harvest strategies in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:565-579.

--. 1993. Use of aerial surveys for estimating and monitoring moose populations-a review. Alces 29:35-46.

--, and M. E. Buss. 1995. The status and management of moose in North America- early 1990s. Alces 31:1-14.

--, and --. 1998. Population and harvest management. Pages 559-615 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

--, R. GOLLAT, and H. A. WHITLAW. 2002. Reviewing Ontario's moose management policy--1980-2000: targets achieved, lessons learned. Alces 38: 11-45.

VECELLIO, G. M., R. D. DEBLINGER, and E. CARDOZA. 1993. Status and management of moose in Massachusetts. Alces 29:1-7.

WARD, M. P., W. C. GASAWAY, and M. M. DEHN. 2000. Precision of moose density estimates derived from stratification survey data. Alces 36:197-203.

WILTON, M. L. 1995. The case against calling and hunting dominant moose during the main rut period--a viewpoint. Alces 31:173-180.

WYOMING GAME AND FISH COMMISSION. 1990. A strategic plan for the comprehensive management of wildlife in Wyoming 1990-1995. Cheyenne, Wyoming, USA.

YUKON RENEWABLE RESOURCES. 1996. Moose management guidelines. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Department of Renewable Resources, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada.

--. 1999. Yukon Moose. Fish and Wildlife Branch, Department of Renewable Resources, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Canada.

H. R. Timmermann

R. R. # 2, Nolalu, ON, Canada POT 2KO; e-mail: TTimoose@aol.com

Table 1. Numbers of sport hunters, harvest, and post-hunt population
estimates for 23 North American jurisdictions. 1990-91 vs 2000-01.

                             Total            Non-resident
                            hunters             hunters

Agency                    1991      2001      1991     2001

Yukon Territory           2,040     1,410      387      342
Northwest Territories     1,300     1,300       60       65
British Columbia         39,400    31,500    1,860    2,250
Alberta                  50,000    20,429    1,150    1,139
Saskatchewan             12,000    10,000    1,170    5,260
Manitoba                  6,500     5,409      100      100
Ontario                  92,000   100,000    2,700    3,000
Quebec                  150,000   130,000    2,500    2,000
New Brunswick             5,200     4,174       --       97
Nova Scotia (1)             200       200       --       --
Newfoundland             29,200    40,449    1,400    3,044
Alaska                   22,000    30,000    2,410    3,200
Washington (1)                8        69       --       --
Idaho (1)                   500     1,011       --       --
Utah                        299       182      290    7 (2)
Wyoming                   1,713     1,379      218      199
Montana                     675       609       19       16
North Dakota (1)            110       132       --       --
Colorado (1)                  7        74       --       --
Minnesota (1)             1,820       442       --       --
Maine                     2,000     6,000      200      300
Vermont                      --       215       --       22
New Hampshire               100       585       20       76
TOTAL                   417,072   385,569   14,484   16,117

                              Total            Estimated moose
                        estimated harvest         population

Agency                     1991     2001      1991          2001

Yukon Territory             640      716     50,000    70,000 (+)
Northwest Territories     1,400    1,400      9,000    20,000 (+)
British Columbia         13,500    9,200    175,000   165,000 * (4)
Alberta                  12,200    7,971    100,700    92,000 *
Saskatchewan              4,100    3,412     50,000    46,000 *
Manitoba                  1,100    1,000     27,000    35,000 (+)
Ontario                  11,000   11,000    120,000   100,000 * (5)
Quebec                   11,900   14,000     67,500   100,000 (+) (6)
New Brunswick             1,700    2,537     20,000    25,000 (+)
Nova Scotia (1)             113      186      3,000     6,000 (+)
Newfoundland             21,000   19,322    140,000   125,000 * (7)
Alaska                    6,100    5,509    155,000   120,000 (-)
Washington (1)                8       64        200     1,000 (+) (3)
Idaho (1)                   490      774      5,500    15,000 (+)
Utah                        290      175      2,700     3,400 (+)
Wyoming                   1,475    1,215     13,645    13,865 (+)
Montana                     511      596      4,000     4,000 *
North Dakota (1)            107      117        550       700 (+)
Colorado (1)                  7       64        425     1,070 (+)
Minnesota (1)               410      125      6,700     5,100 (-) *
Maine                       960    2,550     23,000    29,000 (+)
Vermont                     --       155      1,300     3,500 (+)
New Hampshire                89      378      4,000     5,000 (+)
TOTAL                    89,100   82,466    979,220   985,635

(+) increase, (-) decrease, * no change.

(1) No non-resident season.

(2) Plus 36 permits available for resident and non-resident hunters.

(3) Range 850-1,000.

(4) Range 130,000-200,000.

(5) Range 100,000-110,000.

(6) Range 95,000-105,000 winter 2002.

(7) Range 115,000-140,000, with 1,000 in Labrador.

Table 2. Characteristics of moose hunting seasons in North
America, 2000-2001.

                            Number of management areas

                           With          Size([km.sup.2])
Agency                     moose         Min.         Max.

Yukon Territory              445            64       2,919
Northwest Territories          6        57,379   1,629,049
British Columbia             193           465      18,980
Alberta                      148           210      33,700
Saskatchewan                  60         2.000     120,000
Manitoba                      46           585     139,214
Ontario                       68         1,700       85.80
Quebec                        24         2,150     225,200
New Brunswick                 25           826       6,402
Nova Scotia                    2         3,000       4,400
Newfoundland                  64           116       4,500
Alaska                        94           290       5,300
Washington                    10           680         700
Idaho                         88           246       6,480
Utah                          13         1,200       8,000
Wyoming                       41           450       4,100
Montana                       80           250       2.500
North Dakota                   9         1,350         170
Colorado                      21           130       1,540
Minnesota                     31           202         772
Maine                         30         4,000      13,800
Vermont                       21            53         203
New Hampshire                 22           490       1,810

                          Number of
                          management         Season length/timing
                            areas

                          With open
Agency                    Season       Max days     Earliest    Latest

Yukon Territory           431            92          Aug. 01   Oct. 31
Northwest Territories       6           153         Sept. 01   Jan. 31
British Columbia          169 (1)       118 (2)      Aug. 15   Nov. 30
Alberta                   148 (1,4)      91 (2)      Aug. 25   Nov. 30
Saskatchewan               40 (1,4)      64 (2)      Aug. 26   Nov. 30
Manitoba                   43 (1,4)     117 (2)      Aug. 27   Dec. 22
Ontario                    68 (1,4)      88         Sept. 15   Dec. 15
Quebec                     21 (1)        92         Sept. 01   Dec. 01
New Brunswick              25 (4)         3         Sept. 27   Sept. 29
Nova Scotia                 1 (4)        12         Sept. 24   Oct. 13
Newfoundland               64 (1,4)     120 (6,7)   Sept. 09   Jan. 06
Alaska                     83 (1)       243 (2)      Aug. 01   Mar. 31
Washington                 10            61          Oct. 01   Nov. 30
Idaho                      53            86          Aug. 30   Nov. 23
Utah                        9            41 (2)     Sept. 09   Oct. 29
Wyoming                    37 (1)        76         Sept. 01   Nov. 20
Montana                    80            87         Sept. 01   Nov. 26
North Dakota                8 (1)        79 (2)     Sept. 01   Dec. 17
Colorado                   11            25         Sept. 08   Oct. 09
Minnesota                  29 (3)        16         Sept. 28   Oct. 20
Maine                      18 (4)        12 (2)     Sept. 23   Oct. 12
Vermont                    10             4          Oct. 20   Oct. 23
New Hampshire              22             9          Oct. 15   Oct. 24

(1) Special archery seasons in some areas.

(2) Split seasons.

(3) NW Region closed since 1997.

(4) Closed Sundays in some or all areas.

(5) Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia mainland.

(6) Special winter season in one area.

(7) Labrador 197 days-Sep 08-Mar 16.

Table. 3. Moose harvest assessment strategies used in North
America, 2000-2001.

                             Hunt activity report

 Agency                      Compulsory   Voluntary

Yukon Territory                 X
Northwest Territories                        X
British Columbia                             X
Alberta                                      X
Saskatchewan                                 X
Manitoba                                     X
Ontario                                      X
Quebec                                       X
New Brunswick                                X
Nova Scotia                     X
Newfoundland                    X
Alaska                          X (1)
Washington                      X
Idaho                           X
Utah                                         X
Wyoming                                      X
Montana                                      X
North Dakota                                 X
Colorado                        X
Minnesota                                    X
Maine                           X
Vermont                                      X
New Hampshire                   X

                                 Kill registration

 Agency                        Compulsory   Voluntary

Yukon Territory                  X
Northwest Territories            X (2,3)
British Columbia                 X (1)
Alberta                          X (1)
Saskatchewan                                    X
Manitoba                                        X
Ontario                          X (2,3)
Quebec                           X
New Brunswick                    X
Nova Scotia                      X
Newfoundland                     X
Alaska                           X (1,2)
Washington                       X
Idaho                            X
Utah                                            X
Wyoming                                         X
Montana                                         X
North Dakota                                    X
Colorado                                        X
Minnesota                        X
Maine                            X
Vermont                          X
New Hampshire                    X

                               Non-compliance
 Agency                          penalty (4)

Yukon Territory                Fine
Northwest Territories          Fine
British Columbia               Fine
Alberta                        None
Saskatchewan                   N/A
Manitoba                       N/A
Ontario                        N/A
Quebec                         Fine & loss of license
New Brunswick                  Fine & loss of license
Nova Scotia                    Fine &jail & 7 yr. Wait-out
Newfoundland                   Fine
Alaska                         None
Washington                     None
Idaho                          Fine, jail & loss of license
Utah                           N/A
Wyoming                        None
Montana                        N/A
North Dakota                   None
Colorado                       Ineligible for draw
Minnesota                      Fine & loss of license
Maine                          Fine & jail & loss of license
Vermont                        Fine & loss of license
New Hampshire                  Fine, jail & loss of license

(1) Limited draw hunts only (British Columbia--Regions
3,4,5,6,7A,8-incisor and kill information).

(2) Export permit/trophy fee.

(3) Non-resident hunter only.

(4) Variable enforcement.

Table 4. Moose Population status in North American National
Parks (N.P.).

                                       Location
Jurisdiction/Park                      State/Province

Acadia N.P.                            Maine
Banff N.P.                             Alberta
Beringland Bridge Preserve             Alberta
Cape Breton Highlands N.P.             Nova Scotia
Denali N. P. & Preserve                Alaska
Elk Island N.P.                        Alberta
Forillion N.P.                         Quebec
Fundy N.P.                             New Brunswick
Gates of Arctic N.P. & Preserve        Alaska
Glacier N.P.                           Montana
Grand Teton N.P.                       Wyoming
Gros Morne N.P.                        Newfoundland
Isle Royale N.P.                       Michigan
Ivvavik N.P.                           Yukon Territory
Jasper N. P.                           Alberta
Kenai National Wildl. Refuge           Alaska
Kejimkujik N.P.                        Nova Scotia
Kluane N.P.                            Yukon Territory
Kootenay N.P.                          British Columbia
Kouchibouguac N.P.                     New Brunswick
Lac Mauricie N.P.                      Quebec
Lake Clark N.P. & Preserve             Alaska
Mt. Revelstoke & Glacier N.P.          British Columbia
Nahanni N.P.                           Northwest Territories
Noatak Preserve                        Alaska
Prince Albert N.P.                     Saskatchewan
Pukaskwa N.P.                          Ontario
Riding Mountain N.P.                   Manitoba
Terra Nova N. P.                       Newfoundland
Voyageur N.P.                          Minnesota
Vuntut N.P.                            Yukon Territory
Waterton Lakes N.P.                    Alberta
Wood Buffalo N.P.                      Alberta
Wrangell St. Elias N.P.                Alaska
Yellowstone N.P.                       Montana

                                             Population    Year of
Jurisdiction/Park                             estimate     survey

Acadia N.P.                                           6       2000
Banff N.P.                                           --         --
Beringland Bridge Preserve                           --         --
Cape Breton Highlands N.P.                        2,500       2001
Denali N. P. & Preserve                           2,000       1990
Elk Island N.P.                                     400       2002
Forillion N.P.                                      122       1997
Fundy N.P.                                          123       1993
Gates of Arctic N.P. & Preserve                      --         --
Glacier N.P.                                        100       1985
Grand Teton N.P.                                    120       1988
Gros Morne N.P.                                   7,738       1995
Isle Royale N.P.                                    900       2001
Ivvavik N.P.                                        300         --
Jasper N. P.                                    100-150       1992
Kenai National Wildl. Refuge                         --         --
Kejimkujik N.P.                                     0-5       2001
Kluane N.P.                                         700       1997
Kootenay N.P.                                        75       1985
Kouchibouguac N.P.                                  110       1995
Lac Mauricie N.P.                                   212       1989
Lake Clark N.P. & Preserve                           --         --
Mt. Revelstoke & Glacier N.P.                     15-20       1991
Nahanni N.P.                                        300       1979
Noatak Preserve                                      --         --
Prince Albert N.P.                                 950+       1997
Pukaskwa N.P.                          411 [+ or -] 143       1999
Riding Mountain N.P.                              5,000       2000
Terra Nova N. P.                                150-200       2002
Voyageur N.P.                                    80-100       1998
Vuntut N.P.                                         875         --
Waterton Lakes N.P.                                  50       1988
Wood Buffalo N.P.                                 1,300       1989
Wrangell St. Elias N.P.                              --         --
Yellowstone N.P.                                    200       1990

                                       Estimated
Jurisdiction/Park                         by

Acadia N.P.                            Guess
Banff N.P.                             --
Beringland Bridge Preserve             --
Cape Breton Highlands N.P.             Aerial Survey
Denali N. P. & Preserve                Aerial Survey
Elk Island N.P.                        Guess
Forillion N.P.                         Aerial Survey
Fundy N.P.                             Aerial & ground
Gates of Arctic N.P. & Preserve        --
Glacier N.P.                           --
Grand Teton N.P.                       --
Gros Morne N.P.                        Aerial Survey
Isle Royale N.P.                       Aerial Survey
Ivvavik N.P.                           Guess
Jasper N. P.                           Ground Survey
Kenai National Wildl. Refuge           --
Kejimkujik N.P.                        Guess
Kluane N.P.                            Aerial Survey
Kootenay N.P.                          CWS biologists
Kouchibouguac N.P.                     Aerial Survey
Lac Mauricie N.P.                      --
Lake Clark N.P. & Preserve             --
Mt. Revelstoke & Glacier N.P.          Ground Survey
Nahanni N.P.                           Aerial Survey
Noatak Preserve                        --
Prince Albert N.P.                     Aerial Survey
Pukaskwa N.P.                          Aerial Survey
Riding Mountain N.P.                   Aerial Survey
Terra Nova N. P.                       Guess
Voyageur N.P.                          Aerial Survey]
Vuntut N.P.                            Guess
Waterton Lakes N.P.                    Aerial & ground
Wood Buffalo N.P.                      --
Wrangell St. Elias N.P.                --
Yellowstone N.P.                       Aerial survey