Abstract

Topic: Moose management and monitoring

Counting moose from the ground and air: How do they compare?

Alexej Peder Kelly Siren¹, Lee Kantar², Scott McLellan², Kendall Marden², Tammy L. Wilson³, Department of Environmental Conservation⁴

University of New Hampshire, 8 College Road, Durham, New Hampshire, 03824, United States of America
Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Bangor, ME, USA
U.S. Geological Survey, Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Amherst, MA, USA
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

Abstract
Moose (Alces alces) populations have declined by at least 30% in the past two decades in the northeastern U.S., primarily due to winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) infestations. As such, concern has risen among natural resource agencies spurring interest in improving methods for monitoring moose populations. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has used aerial surveys as a primary tool for estimating statewide moose abundance and herd composition for the past 15 years. Although aerial surveys are often considered the gold standard for monitoring moose populations, they are costly, have limited survey periods, and are potentially hazardous for observers. Remote camera surveys, on the other hand, are more cost-effective, can be deployed year-round, and are safer for observers. They also record data on other potentially interacting wildlife species (e.g., deer) and environmental data (e.g., snowpack conditions) that influence moose behavior and space use. In a recent paper, we demonstrated how moose abundance, recruitment, survival, and demographic composition can be estimated from camera trap data using multistate Dail-Madsen models. However, our earlier work did not directly compare with other approaches such as aerial surveys. Here we compare estimates of moose abundance and herd composition between camera and aerial surveys from a collocated survey design in northern Maine, USA. We share preliminary findings from this investigation and discuss tradeoffs between survey methods for monitoring statewide moose populations. We also outline several avenues of potential research that could address the ongoing and projected decline of moose populations along the southern part of their range.