Ticks + mild winters = Moose In Trouble

[OCDave]

Man made global warming is a unproven fairytale. So many false claims and predictions that haven't panned out. Contradictory information is abundant but ignored. LA just had it's coldest Feb in 60 years. In it's current state it is a scam. More research and less emotion is needed.

There are people who beleive the Earth is flat because that is what they see; Flat land. While there is overwhelming evidence suggesting the planet roughly spherical, it can be said that the shape of the Earth is still under debate. So, more research less emotion so we can eventually know for sure.

[Slumgum]

My main problem with this climate science is that their predictions are horribly wrong.

Like I have said, if I am wrong, I want to be shown the facts that change my mind.

Fair enough. Scientists have long predicted rising ocean temperatures as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Warmer oceans are predicted to spawn more hurricanes. Among the top 20 or so Atlantic hurricanes of all time (well, at least in the last couple of hundred years or since humans have been recording these events) 10 have occurred in the last two decades: Wilma, Rita, Katrina(2005); Felix, Dean(2007); Harvey, Marie, Irma(2017); Michael(2018) and Sandy(2012,technically a superstorm, not a hurricane.) Coincidence? Simply a matter of normal cyclical planetary changes? Scientists say not. A rise in global temperature of 0.7 or 1.0 degrees over 100 years may seem inconsequential to our feeble minds. I agree that seems like nothing. But with respect to "Deep Time" that is lightning speed and scientists who work in this field are scared to death. It is interesting (and alarming) to observe the unpredicted changes occurring as a result of climate change, i.e. the crashing moose population in Vermont or the massive die off of coral reefs. Sure, some predictions have failed to materialize. But the overwhelming evidence is conclusive that we are going to see some catastrophic changes though we can curb them to some extent by acting now. Those who think cutting greenhouse emissions will hurt the economy should factor in the costs of future annual mega-hurricanes.

[rdljr]

Now back to the moose. having experienced NH, VT, ME back in the 70's I saw plenty of moose, so many that I did not count them, anything less than 3 at a time was unremarkable. I know I was spoiled. I saw fewer bear and for that I was thankful just because some of the bear sighting cause longer than wanted waits in outhouses till the bear wandered off. ticks have been a increasing problem, but is that because of an increase in population of ticks or an increase in awareness?
If you want to see animals go quietly and to places that the animals like, there are plenty to see if you look and are willing to walk the woods not the path.
As to the climate change I will save that for discussions around the campfire, but I am old enough to have been blasted with the man made ice age to the man made burning of the globe and all points in between.

[stephanD]

According to a recently published pentagon report, dozens of US army stations and radar installations in Alaska and around the country are threatened by climate change. But who believe the pentagon?

[Sarcasm the elf]

According to a recently published pentagon report, dozens of US army stations and radar installations in Alaska and around the country are threatened by climate change. But who believe the pentagon?

The Pentagon? Not those tree hugging hippies again?

[tdoczi]

The Pentagon? Not those tree hugging hippies again?

i have absolutely zero doubt that on a whole variety of subjects there are a great many people who will say "I never believe the pentagon!"

Interesting, many of these kinds of people very likely believe in and support the cause of climate change.

So we have a situation (its not uncommon sort) where a source of information is roundly distrusted and looked down upon EXCEPT for the rare occasions on which it says something you happen to agree with. To make matters worse, we'll never admit thats whats going on.

A curious sort indeed, these humans are.

[peakbagger]

When I moved to northern NH in 1987 the moose population was started to sky rocket. I could make a run around Mt Washington in my car after work and count 20 to 30 moose along the highway for most of the non snow season. There would be a time in the spring when they would move onto the roads to get away from the bugs in the woods plus there were a lot of clueless yearlings wandering around trying to find home territory. I used to joke that moose were a common household pest at my place as they were actively walking around my neighborhood in the evening and morning hours. All the good territory in the woods was full up so they got pushed out to the road in the drainage areas and inevitably got hit. For several years there were tens if not hundreds of car and truck accidents with moose in just a three or four week period in the late spring. The state posted some huge yellow signs warning of moose accidents in prominent spots. Originally they kept a running tally but eventually they couldn't keep up so they changed it to hundreds of accidents. At the end of my street there were two years in row where 7 moose were hit and three human fatalities associated with the accident. Lowes Store in Randolph NH a popular trailhead for the RMS camps also had a towing business and it was routine to see 5 or 10 cars lined up with major damaged from accidents.

Moose were basically extinct in even this area no more than 20 years before so they just moved right in and their density got way too high since they had no predators and the parasites hadn't moved as quickly as the moose. Even in the back woods they were a problem as they were clearing all the browse including the new trees within reach. Just like in areas with an overpopulation of deer they were really impacting the woods. The pulp and paper industry in the region was starting to peak and eventually crash and the only thing that stepped to fill in a bit of void in the economy was tourism. Several areas set up Moose tours and festivals. I think the biologists knew the population density was unsustainable even with a moose hunt. I think they knew there would something to knock them back and the winter tick finally expanded into this area and went to town on the moose especially after a string of warm winters. Most of biologists are now saying the long term goal has to be manage the moose to smaller density, studies are showing that if the density is below a set amount, the winter tick population plummets as there are not enough moose in the woods to allow them to find a new host. Quebec manages their moose more aggressively than the US and I don't think winter tick mortality is as significant.

The hassle is the tourist folks want a high density of moose for their businesses so they blame the moose hunt for the decline. I see all the time folks putting up various photos describing the "docile moose" on the side of the road that didn't appear bothered by people taking selfies. Frequently the docile moose is a "ghost moose" that is starving to death and has rubbed its fur off trying to displace the ticks. Fish and Game will occasionally put them down to put them out of their misery but the moose usually end up wandering in the road and getting hit.

[meat803]

You misquoted NASA. Here are the facts from NASA. Take some time and read them. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"Take some time and read them" as if I'm haven't even bothered to look into it. Did you catch the inflammatory response? That link you provided does show .9 rise but was over 140 years. I stated .7 in 100. I'm still confident in my statement.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I will continue to listen to both sides openly and make my mind up accordingly.

[TexasBob]

"Take some time and read them" as if I'm haven't even bothered to look into it. Did you catch the inflammatory response? That link you provided does show .9 rise but was over 140 years. I stated .7 in 100. I'm still confident in my statement.

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I will continue to listen to both sides openly and make my mind up accordingly.

From NASA "The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months."

You minimize the warming by neglecting to note that most of the temperature rise has occurred in the last 35 years and appears to be accelerating. That is what I meant by misquoting. Believe what you want about whether climate change is real but don't distort the facts because it just weakens your argument.

[Slumgum]

Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I will continue to listen to both sides openly and make my mind up accordingly.

"I was provided with additional input that was radically different from the truth. I assisted in furthering that version."
-Colonel Oliver North

[MuddyWaters]

When dinosaurs roamed, the earth was much warmer, wetter, and had 39% oxygen in atmosphere instead of 20% currently.

Where is it written the earth will maintain constant conditions?

It isnt. It changes. Always has. Always will. Hopefully one day we will be gone and it recovers from our destruction of it.

Parts of middle east that are desert today were lush just a few thousand yrs ago. It changed. It wasnt the internal combustion engine .
When the "global warming" theory was debunked, and it was, it was changed to "climate change" . Nothing global about it. While temps were increasing in some areas, others were getting colder. While some glaciers retreated, others were adding ice at rapid rate.

Recent history may be the aberration, not norm. 100 yrs of scatterred data doest tell you squat about even a timeline of hundreds of thousands.

[Slumgum]

When dinosaurs roamed, the earth was much warmer, wetter, and had 39% oxygen in atmosphere instead of 20% currently.

Where is it written the earth will maintain constant conditions?

It isnt. It changes. Always has. Always will. Hopefully one day we will be gone and it recovers from our destruction of it.

Parts of middle east that are desert today were lush just a few thousand yrs ago. It changed. It wasnt the internal combustion engine .
When the "global warming" theory was debunked, and it was, it was changed to "climate change" . Nothing global about it. While temps were increasing in some areas, others were getting colder. While some glaciers retreated, others were adding ice at rapid rate.

Recent history may be the aberration, not norm. 100 yrs of scatterred data doest tell you squat about even a timeline of hundreds of thousands.

It is much easier to ignore the truth when it requires some sacrifice on our part. Predictions that come to pass are ignored as an "aberration". Predictions that do not materialize are held as proof that global warming/climate change is a hoax.
Yes, parts of the Middle East are now desert when in the past they were lush. But was that a normal planetary change or a change or a result of human activity? I don't know. How about the thousands of square miles of lost prairie top soil in our country during the Dust Bowl? That had nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, but it was the hand of man that caused that environmental debacle. True; the planet is not static. False; man can profoundly affect our environment even on a global scale. Climate change has been debunked only in the minds of a few sheep who follow the dribble out of Fox News.

[greensleep]

It is much easier to ignore the truth when it requires some sacrifice on our part. Predictions that come to pass are ignored as an "aberration". Predictions that do not materialize are held as proof that global warming/climate change is a hoax.
Yes, parts of the Middle East are now desert when in the past they were lush. But was that a normal planetary change or a change or a result of human activity? I don't know. How about the thousands of square miles of lost prairie top soil in our country during the Dust Bowl? That had nothing to do with greenhouse emissions, but it was the hand of man that caused that environmental debacle. True; the planet is not static. False; man can profoundly affect our environment even on a global scale. Climate change has been debunked only in the minds of a few sheep who follow the dribble out of Fox News.

At times, deniers of the obvious remind me of a small boy, running in circles, with a finger in each ear, yelling "nyah, nyah, nyah..." so as not to hear unwanted news/advice/warning.

[TexasBob]

......Recent history may be the aberration, not norm. 100 yrs of scatterred data doest tell you squat about even a timeline of hundreds of thousands............

You might be interested in this graph showing CO2 levels and global temperature for 400,000 years.

400000yearslarge1.gif

[Starchild]

....

Quebec manages their moose more aggressively than the US and I don't think winter tick mortality is as significant.

. Doesn't Quebec have more snow coverage then NH, which will kill the tick once they 'feed and fall' if they fall on snow? Could that be a reason also?

[/quote]... I see all the time folks putting up various photos describing the "docile moose" on the side of the road that didn't appear bothered by people taking selfies. Frequently the docile moose is a "ghost moose" that is starving to death and has rubbed its fur off trying to displace the ticks. Fish and Game will occasionally put them down to put them out of their misery but the moose usually end up wandering in the road and getting hit.[/QUOTE]

One of my best moose encounters was a beautiful bull roadside. Upon stopping at a distance he pranced around in a 360, galloped away then walked back. He was showing off. It was amazing.

[MuddyWaters]

Double post

[MuddyWaters]

You might be interested in this graph showing CO2 levels and global temperature for 400,000 years.

400000yearslarge1.gif

Actually, im not.

While they get co2 from ice cores i think, the age is calculated by depth, and temps are estimated too . Its not data, its calculations
Heres a fact, data.

Large tree stumps of hundreds of year old trees by rings, are in bottom of tenaya lake in yosemite. The tree species doesnt grow in water. The sierra used to be muuuuuuuuch drier than today, for thoudands of years.. CA is in an excessively wet period based on much tree data. In just a few hundred years, the climate there has changed considerably, ..CA will be in world of hurt when it reverts .ie, no water

Again.....pre combustion engine significant climate change.

But if manmade chang is occurring, its easy to stop.
Exterminate people.
You choose how.

1 baby per couple ala china could cut population in half in 50 yrs. 25% in 100.Not rocket science.

At some point it becomes necessary on world scale, just like in china. So, why not now?

[tdoczi]

Actually, im not.

While they get co2 from ice cores i think, the age is calculated by depth, and temps are estimated too . Its not data, its calculations
Heres a fact, data.

Large tree stumps of hundreds of year old trees by rings, are in bottom of tenaya lake in yosemite. The tree species doesnt grow in water. The sierra used to be muuuuuuuuch drier than today, for thoudands of years.. CA is in an excessively wet period based on much tree data. In just a few hundred years, the climate there has changed considerably, ..CA will be in world of hurt when it reverts .ie, no water

Again.....pre combustion engine significant climate change.

But if manmade chang is occurring, its easy to stop.
Exterminate people.
You choose how.

1 baby per couple ala china could cut population in half in 50 yrs. 25% in 100.Not rocket science

we could dramatically cut Co2 emissions by embracing nuclear energy, but we don't.

is it a coincidence a strong desire to "do something" about global warming walks hand in hand with an anti- capitalism, pro socialist agenda? please, put away your i phone an- stop kidding yourselves.

when push comes to shove we don't even like wind farms or solar farms, NIMBY. how many threads have we seen on here decrying windmills "ruining the view"?

[Five Tango]

Lots of people talk about the weather but nobody changes it.

[Dogwood]

Ohh, Mods.