Moose Habitat Management

logging-16

Better management of moose habitat is often put forward as a way to improve populations of moose. Lately, this aspect of moose management has been getting more attention in Ontario, as well as in other jurisdictions where moose populations have declined. But managing moose habitat isn’t easy.

In forested landscapes, moose thrive best where there is a combination of young and old stands of trees, which in proximity provide moose with food and shelter. Historically, moose populations did best in areas where fires, blowdown or insect infestations occurred. Fire was especially important, as fires were frequent and widespread. However, these days, because of fire suppression efforts, much less of the forest is getting burnt. Data in Ontario suggests that before fire suppression, about 1.54% of the forest burnt every year. These days, it’s closer to .17% – or only about 10% of what it used to be.

Until recently, that didn’t really matter, because of logging. Not too many years ago, about 530,000 acres of forest was cut annually on Crown (public) land in Ontario, and most of that in northern Ontario where moose roam. With the collapse of the pulp and paper industry, which started a little more than 10 years ago, the harvest area is now only about 1/2 of what it used to be. Less area burnt and logged has resulted in less ideal moose habitat (the best feeding areas are forest stands less than 25 years of age).

And that’s not the only problem. These days, the goal of forest management practices is mainly to emulate natural processes, or to make a cut area look as much like a burn as possible. Both legislation and government policies dictate this approach, even though most scientists believe this “cornerstone of sustainable forest management” is probably not valid, because logging is a physical process while fire is a chemical process.

In Ontario, there are provisions to manage for moose habitat, but only through an approved forest management plan and only if specific areas, called “moose emphasis areas” are identified. From what I can gather, there have been few moose emphasis areas identified in recently approved forest management plans. What I’ve been hearing is that the reasons for this are the ‘crisis’ in in the forest products industry (managing for better moose habitat is an added cost that is best avoided) and there are few who have the knowledge and skill set required to implement the approved moose habitat guidelines.

Obviously then, moose habitat management in Ontario is a problem. But even if better moose habitat management was to occur, results (more moose) will be slow to see. It would likely take a number of years to noticeably improve habitat conditions, and better habitat alone won’t result in more moose if mortality, especially from hunting, predation and disease, isn’t reduced.

Advertisements
3 comments
  1. I always cringe when I hear the term ‘management’ used in terms of wildlife and their habitat. How on earth did populations survive before we started interfering with them? I wonder what would happen if we just left things alone, only interfering when homes were threatened by forest fires, for example. I keep thinking that maybe we should let nature manage itself and that we should focus more on managing ourselves and our voracious appetites for natural resources.

  2. If we are going to log in the forest for products we have to have (timber to build houses and toilet paper come to mind), then we have to try to do it in a fashion so as to ensure wildlife habitat for all the creatures that live there continues to exist. Except in very rare cases, no one is going into the forest and cutting down trees to specifically manage wildlife habitat, especially at the landscape scale. Wildlife habitat management in the forest is for the most part a modification of logging practices to benefit, or at least maintain, the forest attributes that wildlife depend on. Some places are not managed (much), like parks. Letting fires burn more often would help, but forest fires are really scary and destructive, and if not actioned, could easily burn through cities and towns. Not too many people want to risk that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: