The Wildlife Division is responsible for the sustainable management of moose as a game species for Newfoundland and Labrador.  The Division attempts to maintain population size below the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, while retaining enough animals to maximize the opportunity to hunt and keep hunter satisfaction at acceptable levels.

The island of Newfoundland, does not have an apex predator capable of naturally controlling moose population size.  The implication of this is the Division and the hunting public are charged with this task.  Without adequate population control, moose can increase in number unchecked until habitat and food availability become limiting factors to population growth.  This can result in habitat degradation and population crashes in moose and other species within the ecosystem.

The Division controls moose populations through a quota allocation distributed across a management unit system (Moose Management Areas, or MMAs).  Many sources of data inform decisions around quota development including winter population census, population modeling, and license return harvest statistics.  Public opinion and feedback are also very important, as is expert knowledge and experience.

During the annual quota development process, a population estimate and trajectory is established for each MMA, which is then assessed against the target population size.  The harvest required to manage the species towards the target is established and a quota developed based on recent success rates in the area.

However, moose do not occur uniformly across an MMA.  Quotas are developed to manage the MMA as a single unit, so an over or under abundant portion of the management unit can impact the resulting quota.  Due to the naturally patchy distribution of moose, moose habitat, and hunter access (i.e. woods road access, as well as reasonable terrain to allow for effective hunting), hunters are not always aware of the variation in moose density within and MMA.  This can make it difficult for management biologists to address over or under abundant regions within an MMA, and in some cases difficult to manage the MMA as a whole.  It can also frustrate hunters trying to hunt an area they perceive is being mismanaged.

The goal of this moose density mapping project was to address this disconnect by creating a product that is easy to interpret to help inform the general public around the wider distribution of moose within each MMA.  It is the hope of the Division that a well-informed public can better participate in productive discussion around moose management.  A possible secondary benefit to the hunting public in particular, and another hope of the Division, is that this mapping may aid in planning a hunt away from or towards these under or over abundant portions of management areas helping to address some of the more extreme variations in density.

It is important to note that population estimates developed from these aerial surveys do not rely on this mapping methodology.  This mapping was developed using a “spatial statistical model” in order to create a visual product to provide to hunters for descriptive purposes only.  Though useful, this methodology has its limitations and they should be understood and considered when using these maps to plan a hunt:

• Moose census data is collected between January and March each year. This mapping will only reflect moose distribution during the winter months.  Distribution during spring, summer and fall may be different, the extent to which will depend on the area.
• During the winter survey, moose densities are measured at randomly selected locations within an MMA. These locations are referred to as survey blocks.  Survey blocks account for approximately 12% of a given MMA, so densities for remaining 78% of each MMA in this product have been estimated by a statistical modeling software.  This methodology uses the measured densities and the distances between them to “interpolate” moose density across the MMA (i.e. create a smooth surface from one measured density to another).  To be clear, the area of land between survey blocks has not been surveyed, no moose have been counted there, and the model does not incorporate habitat, human development, hunter access, harvest pressure, or any other factor that may influence moose occurrence.  This mapping is very useful in highlighting general areas where moose are more or less abundant, but will not pick up the finer points of the patchy distribution mentioned earlier.
• Due to the random placement of survey blocks (required by the census methodology), this mapping may be less reliable in underrepresented regions within an MMA. For example, an area of low moose density without a survey block, but surrounded by high moose density survey blocks (eg barren mountain top, or rugged coastline) maybe be incorrectly classified by the software as high density.  Examples of this include:
  1. MMA 1 – the large yellow “medium density” area towards the eastern portion of the MMA.
  2. MMA 10 – the large orange “medium density” area along the western portion of the coast.
  3. MMA 22 – The large red “high density” area in the north east of the MMA.

 

To assist with interpretation of this mapping, the surveyed blocks (measured density) have been indicated by a black outline and hash marks.  A black dot, sized relative to the measured density (the larger the dot the higher the density), has been placed inside each block. Please be aware, each MMA is classified (i.e. blocks colored green to red indicating low to high moose density) independently of each other. A high density in one MMA may not be equal in value to the high density in another.

It is important to use this product as one tool in your tool box, and to consider other information and local knowledge of the area when planning a hunt.

 

New information is added to the Island Moose Season Table here.