At a time of severe decline elsewhere in northern states across the Rocky Mountains and the midwest, the moose of Colorado are steadily gaining in population.
Our newly re christened fish and game folks (called Parks and Wildlife) know there are a lot of moose, estimates can vary by 50%, there's been no real attempt at quantifying them. Numbers tossed out are around a couple thousand. In the county I usually walk around, forty to eighty.
http://www.coloradohometownweekly.com/...
Moose aren't as fast at breeding as elk or deer, no harems, but when you see a couple calves per cow, and when those calves make it through the first winter you're going to see an increase.
Moose are usually pretty easy to find, you follow a creek from a perspective that allows a view of both sides of the watershed and all the willows that grow beside it and you'll turn up a moose. Mostly I look for them to avoid them. Statistically they are more dangerous than the black bears or mountain lions we have, my thought is they might stomp me but at least they won't eat me.
Dogs can act more as an attractant than as a protection for their owners. Moose sees a large canine and the dog barks at it, that moose just wants to stomp the dog, dog runs back to owner and the moose attacks the owner. That's just the scenario that played out earlier this month at Grand Lake.
Being so big and because they stand around posing, moose are often a symbol, like the Bull Moose Party, another name for Teddy Roosevelts Progressives.
Minnesota which used to be very proud of it's population has seen a decline from 8,000 down to 2,700. Thirty five percent in the last year alone. Scientists say if this decline keeps up all the moose should be gone from the state by 2020.
http://www.kare11.com/...
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/...
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have of course seen large declines. New Hampshire also thinks it is having declines but in neighboring Maine it's assumed numbers are way up. I think it's a lot harder to count individuals in the thickly wooded midwest and east. Also a million dollars to do a study isn't as much of a drain on resources out west where typically Fish and Wildlife departments employ flocks of wildlife biologists and budgets (funded by tag sales) are generous.
There is now a first of it's kind scientific study of moose mortality going on in Minnesota. As of July half the moose mortalities were due to the one factor no one wants to talk about, another 30% were due to unknown causes. A hundred animals have been GPS collared and fifteen died in the first winter. No doubt as more moose die and as more are collared, reasons for mortality will become less ambiguous.
http://www.onearth.org/...
Edit,, I should have added the IUCN and Wiki entries.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Update:
A big thank you to Backyard Science and Community Spotlight. I just kind of cranked this one out after seeing the article in my local free paper, and then added some more based on recollections of reading. And I think I made some factual mistakes. The consensus seems to be the moose population in Maine is decreasing not the other way around. Might well be some other mistakes too.
A humble thank you. Better rescued than recommended and science begins in our backyard.