By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR’s or APMG entities’ programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.

DULUTH — Minnesota’s moose population has remained stable for another year, though it remains about half the size as two decades ago.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources said its annual aerial survey, conducted with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the 1854 Treaty Authority,

estimated

that approximately 4,470 moose remain in St. Louis, Lake and Cook counties, the animal’s typical range in the state.

That’s up about 400 from last year’s estimate.“Despite recent estimates suggesting relative stability in the population and reproductive success, Minnesota DNR researchers point out that Minnesota moose remain at risk,” the DNR said in a news release. “Climate change, parasites, habitat loss and predator impacts on calf survival all play a part in the long-term survival of the moose population.”

Northeastern Minnesota’s moose numbers crashed rapidly nearly two decades ago, from a modern high of 8,840 moose estimated in 2006 to just 2,700 by 2013. Their numbers have remained low but fairly stable since.

That rapid decline spurred an effort to reestablish moose habitat in the region. Now in its 15th year, there are promising signs that it is working.

Moose thrive in young forests where they can reach and eat deciduous trees and brush while also having access to a few larger trees to shade under.

But most of Northeastern Minnesota is covered in mature forest that hasn’t been touched by processes that can produce such environments in a long time, namely, wildfires and logging.

“Across Minnesota over the past few decades, the forest is getting older, and so seeing this older forest and these lower moose numbers kind of get you thinking more critically about what needs to happen with habitat,” said Alyssa Roberts, forest wildlife specialist at the Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society.

So, over the last 15 years, a collaborative of government agencies, Indigenous tribes and conservation groups has been allocated nearly $9 million from Minnesota’s Outdoor Heritage Fund through the Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council to restore some 24,000 acres of moose habitat. Another 3,000 acres or so will be restored through an America the Beautiful grant over the next two years.

The Ruffed Grouse Society and American Woodcock Society has served as sponsor of the collaborative since 2021.

“Historically, routine medium- or variable-intensity fires would have maintained this deciduous browse available on the landscape,” said Scott Johnson, the group’s forest conservation coordinator for Minnesota. “But with that lacking, mechanical treatments need to come in.”

When fire suppression snuffed out the naturally occurring fires, commercial logging operations could still leave landscapes in ways that benefit moose.

But with the decline in the region’s wood products industry over the last 15 to 20 years, there are fewer places that need timber from Northeastern Minnesota.

Still, the collaborative can “piggyback” off wildfires and timber harvests that do occur, and begin to maintain those areas as moose habitat going forward, Johnson said.

“In a sustainable fashion for this to persist over a long period, ultimately, what we’re looking at is following up disturbances, or creating disturbances on purpose — prescribed fire, timber harvest, mechanical site preparation, brush sawing — to maintain and produce on these disturbed sites a mosaic of new conifers growing in, through planting or seeding, with a mix of accessible, high-quality browse,” Johnson said.

It seems to be working, said Chris Dunhum, associate director of resilience forestry at the Nature Conservancy, which is also part of the collaborative.

Moose are showing up and eating their way through the areas, as are juvenile moose, some of which were collared this winter and could offer researchers more insight into how the sites are used, he added.

In a long list of factors negatively affecting moose, Dunham said it is nice to have something that helps.

“If we think about climate change impacts, that’s really concerning and we can kind of feel sort of helpless at times … but then when we’re talking about moose habitat, we’ve seen that we can go out there and we can manipulate the habitat, and we know how to do that,” Dunham said. “And we’ve seen from the early monitoring that moose are actually using those sites.”

Mike Schrage, the wildlife program manager for the Fond du Lac Band, said he’s of the camp that most of the moose decline is due to habitat loss now that there’s less logging and wildfires are suppressed.

But, he said, climate change represents “a long-term threat to our moose population” in a number of ways.

For one, moose are designed for cold climates and deep snow, making them ill-adapted for warmer climates and likely to face more heat stress, he said.

Additionally, climate change can boost parasites.

Thousands of winter ticks can latch onto a moose, causing it to scratch off its protective coat of hair in an attempt to rid itself of the ticks. “Certainly longer, warmer falls and earlier springs make for better conditions for winter tick survival and transmission to a moose host,” Schrage said. “So that’s not helpful.”

And then there’s brainworm, called P. tenuis, which is spread through white-tailed deer and snails, and, while harmless to deer, is usually fatal to moose. Moose in areas of higher deer densities are more likely to pick up the disease. It’s considered one of the major factors in Minnesota’s severe moose population decline over the past 20 years.

And milder winters can lead to more deer, Schrage said, boosting chances of brainworm transmission. Milder winters also mean more wolves, which, along with parasites, are known to kill moose calves needed to rebuild the population, Schrage said.

Research by the DNR, 1854 Treaty Authority, Grand Portage Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the National Parks of Lake Superior kicked off this winter to further understand survival rates of juvenile moose and determine causes of mortality.

But among all the factors stressing moose, reestablishing habitat might be the most tangible solution so far.

“There are a lot of things that affected that precipitous decline in our moose population back in the early 2000s … habitat is the thing we knew that we could start affecting positively immediately,” Johnson said.