Antler Size of Alaskan Moose Alces alces gigas: Effects of Population Density, Hunter Harvest and Use of Guides

Moose Alces alces gigas in Alaska, USA, exhibit extreme sexual dimorphism, with adult males possessing large, elaborate antlers. Antler size and conformation are influenced by age, nutrition and genetics, and these bony structures serve to establish social rank and affect mating success. Population density, combined with anthropogenic effects such as harvest, is thought to influence antler size. Antler size increased as densities of moose decreased, ostensibly a density-dependent response related to enhanced nutrition at low densities. The vegetation type where moose were harvested also affected antler size, with the largest-antlered males occupying more open habitats. Hunts with guides occurred in areas with low moose density, minimized hunter interference and increased rates of success. Such hunts harvested moose with larger antler spreads than did non-guided hunts. Knowledge and abilities allowed guides to satisfy demands of trophy hunters, who are an integral part of the Alaskan economy. Heavy harvest by humans was also associated with decreased antler size of moose, probably via a downward shift in the age structure of the population resulting in younger males with smaller antlers. Nevertheless, density-dependence was more influential than effects of harvest on age structure in determining antler size of male moose. Indeed, antlers are likely under strong sexual selection, but we demonstrate that resource availability influenced the distribution of these sexually selected characters across the landscape. We argue that understanding population density in relation to carrying capacity (K) and the age structure of males is necessary to interpret potential consequences of harvest on the genetics of moose and other large herbivores. Our results provide researchers and managers with a better understanding of variables that affect the physical condition, antler size, and perhaps the genetic composition of populations, which may be useful in managing and modeling moose populations.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.