Park service staff at the open house explained the process for creating a long-term Moose-Wolf-Vegetation Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, meant to last at least 20 years, and to begin gathering pubic input on what that plan should look like. The meeting is one of four being held in Houghton; Grand Portage, Minnesota; and two on Isle Royale.

The reason for the plan is the dwindling wolf population on Isle Royale, down to three according to last winter’s count, said Paul Brown, head of Natural Resources for the park. With wolf levels so low, they aren’t able to successfully limit the moose population, which is expected to continue recent growth. That, in turn, could decimate various plant species such as balsam fir, likely leading to a situation where there are no wolves, and the moose exist in a boom/bust cycle as they over-browse their habitat. There are currently about 1,250 moose on the island, Brown said.

Article Photos

Courtesy John Vucetich/Michigan Technological University
A female moose cuddles with her mostly grown calf on Isle Royale National Park in this file photo. Scientists expect moose populations on the island to explode without adequate wolf predation, and the Park Service has begun work on a management plan meant to restore balance.

“Over the next several years, we’ll have to see with wolf and moose populations,” he said, “but we expect the moose to increase regardless of wolves.”

The public will have two opportunities to comment, said park Superintendent Phyllis Green, one now in the earliest stages of the process, and another once a draft plan has been prepared.

At this point, she said, the Park Service is primarily looking to gauge its general beliefs on how the situation should be managed. Comments would be used to create a public input report, she said, but not counted as votes. The initial comment period runs through August 29. Locally, people can comment at the Isle Royale National Park office in Houghton, or online at parkplanning.nps.gov/ISROmoosewolf.

“We do want to understand what the values are and how people feel about wilderness,” Green said.

She said the Park Service has developed six proposed broad alternatives for wolf-moose-vegetation management, but that comments don’t need to be limited by them.

“We took a shot at developing concepts that reflect a wide range of opinions, and they might not be wide enough,” Green said. “Some of you might have good ideas you want on there, some may want to narrow it.”

Andrew Coburn of the Park Service’s Environmental Quality Division laid out the six proposed alternatives, beginning with continuing the current strategy – no active management.

Three options include introducing new wolves to the island. One involves a one-time introduction with no moose management, one is a plan to manage both moose and wolves with wolf population augmentation as necessary and one plan includes wolf introduction and reducing moose density as necessary if their browsing is shown to impact other park resources.

A fifth option involves culling moose to limit their population and impact, but not importing wolves, while the final option involves more extensive moose culling combined with vegetation restoration.

In response to a question from the crowd, Green said it would be highly unlikely a public hunt would play a part in any moose culling process.

Coburn also laid out the timeline for the Management Plan process. Once the first public comment period is finished, a report based on the comments will be prepared by this fall, he said. The park service would then gather data, do scientific analysis and prepare the draft plan, which should be ready for more public comment by the winter of 2016/2017. A final plan should be available by fall 2017, with the record of decision – the final step – coming through that winter.

Green said the final decision would be made by the park service. She’d have a recommendation, but not the final say. She said the Michigan Technological University researchers who have conducted the wolf/moose study would not have a direct say in the decision, but that their input would be valued.