Talk:Moose

error on diet calories - cited wrong

this part - The average adult moose needs to consume 40.9 megajoules (9,770 kilocalories) per day to maintain its body weight.[44]

its not kilocalories, its just calories, and 40.9 megajoules would be 9,768,797.31 calories so that should probably just be taken off, or written as 0.0409 megajoules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.218.56 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're right. That entire ref was full of wrong information, such as saying that moose eat any kind of plant, or have a gestation period of nearly a year. I updated the numbers from a better source, which says that on average of 343 moose surveyed, an animal weighing 900lbs needs about 23,000 kilocalories (96 megajoules), or about 42 pounds of willow, per day. Zaereth (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they eat a lot of questionable stuff (stripped the bark of an elderberry in my front yard this winter) but it's clear to even a casual observer that there are some plants they won't eat. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I had never looked at the source before, because as I recall that was here when I arrived. But it really didn't give much info beyond what is written right here on talk, which is all contradicted by other sources already in the article. Besides, 9770 calories is like one willow shoot. So it's a safe bet to say that the old source is not reliable. The source I found to replace it is a primary one, and fairly old at that, but gives far more info and is very reliable for simple numbers like these. Note that they're calculating in a moose's typical digestion of about 50% of the calories, which puts the actually digested calories fairly close to our original numbers. Zaereth (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

""meese"" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "meese" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#"meese" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Predation By Coyotes

I dont have the time right now, however could somebody perhaps add to the Predators section that Coyotes very rarely hunt Moose during Winter? They dont do it frequently and I'd imagine only old/young/ailed individuals, as well in snowy regions are the only times its happened with any kind of frequency likely, but It indeed is possible and has been done before.

here's a citation of where my claim comes from. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjz-2013-0160 - WL Enthusiast (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. To me, this demonstrates one of the problems with primary sources like scientific studies such as this one, because we have no really good secondary-source interpretations of the data. I read the source, and to clarify, they never actually saw the coyotes kill any moose. They're actually talking about a mix of "Eastern coyotes" and "Coyote/Eastern-wolf hybrids, which they note are a good deal larger than western coyotes that haven't been interbreeding with wolves. They declared it a high probability that the moose hadn't been killed by wolves and just eaten as carrion by the coyotes, mainly due to the kills happening deep within the coyotes' territories, and their research strongly suggests that the territories are well-marked and don't overlap very much. Yet they can't say with 100% certainty and they neglect to mention other possibilities such as bears, poachers, auto collisions, trips and falls, or so many other such things that may inflict life-threatening injury with or without killing the moose right away. Nor do they mention just how a canid like a wolf or coyote actually kills a moose, which generally involves a long chase that can last several days as they tag-team the animal to exhaustion. Such chases can easily cross territory lines without a second thought.

That's one of the problems with using primary sources such as new research, which is why we have such strict rules about them in over in the MEDRS articles. Now, don't get me wrong, because it not outside the realm of possibilities. Coyotes have been well-documented harassing moose, but to my knowledge no one has ever documented an observed case of coyotes bringing down a moose as they have with other animals like wolves and even wolverines. I think there is just too much room for doubt and interpretation from this study, and I'd personally feel more comfortable seeing it in a high-quality secondary source instead. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably “oldest” and not “youngest” bones in Britain?

Probably just a typo but the page is locked 2601:603:4E80:A00:B4B3:1F8C:43BE:407F (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That does seem incorrect however this is what the source says. I verified the source and in context this is relevant. The point being made is about the date of extinction. The most recent time the moose inhabited Britain. There is only verification that it was alive as recently as 3900pb. Probably the oldest are far older. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Polygamous?

When did moose start getting married and have multiple wives? 2603:6000:D700:194D:1892:2DD:C5C9:5691 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

According to our own article on the subject, "In sociobiology and zoology, researchers use polygamy in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Moose&diff=1130934464&oldid=1129974152 Humorous but hard to understand so I needed a few seconds to understand what you meant. Our lek mating is very different from polygamy. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Aggression section needs serious work

The writing in this section is clumsy and unscientific, but much worse it is dangerous. The author does not understand the use of basic punctuation like commas and semicolons, and it is full of misinformed blanket statements like "more aggressive individuals are ALWAYS darker in color" misconceptions that are not only unscientific and inaccurate, but dangerous to the public. The whole paragraph about aggression needs re-written or deleted. "they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences." No, not with "minor" consequences. Bull moose in rut are extraordinarily aggressive and dangerous, even compared to large predators. 24.20.168.19 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That's according to the sources. The source for coloring, for example, comes from the book Deer of the World : Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology, by Dr. Valerius Geist. It's a very in depth and exhaustive book by a world-renowned expert on the subject. Not only does he say that the more aggressive individuals are darker in color, but that they are darkest in those areas facing their opponents during the rut, serving as sort of a visual warning to other ungulates that they're not likely to back down. Your other observation is also well-documented and found in the sources. Moose are very dangerous, I agree fully. The most dangerous animal in Alaska, in fact, and I know that from personal experience. (I've been charged, chased, cornered, and on one occasion even had to bail off a cliff and slide down the ice on my butt.) But in terms of raw numbers, there are a lot of moose attacks yet they are rarely fatal or result in serious injury by comparison. They usually don't go looking for a fight unless someone really pisses it off, but they don't usually back down or run away if they feel threatened. That said, if you have better sources and would like to improve section you are most welcome to give it a shot. Zaereth (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IPA transcription should be added

The article should have the IPA transcription for the word "moose" (probably /ˈmus/ or something) because it's a standard thing in Wikipedia. The Old Macintosh (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a fairly standard thing, but I personally don't find it useful as most readers don't know how to interpret IPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Rabies

Just saw this [1]. Rabies has been detected in an Alaskan moose for the first time, apparently there have been a few cases elsewhere as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Draught, not pack, animals shown in picture?

The picture next to "domestication" is labelled "moose kept as pack animals", whereas the picture definitely shows moose being used as draught animals.

In English as I know it (UK) a pack animal is carrying a load, while a draught animal is pulling one, and it is actually incorrect to exchange the two words. Of course, it is perfectly possible that the animals were kept as pack animals and only incidentally trained to pull sledges so they could do so on rare occasions - working animals are sometimes trained for both - but it is still not the most helpful of picture captions! (A screen reader reading a caption should give an accurate impression of what the picture shows, and this one doesn't).

Unless this is a result of regional variations in English usage, could I suggest it be changed to "Moose trained as draught animals" or some similar phrase?  :-) FloweringOctopus (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

Moose have now been seen repeatedly in central New York, especially near the Mohawk River. The portion of this article about moose in decline since 1990 is seriously outdated. It’s sad that’s this article is locked down because I have videos and picture of moose near Rome, N.Y. That’s an area without moose for at least 120 years. Thanks. Snider33 (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Definitely check out WP:Reliable sources Cannolis (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing your ideas and concerns here. That's how articles get improved. This article sees a lot of vandalism, so it's unfortunate that is has to be locked, but unfortunately that's the world we live in.

I'm neither accepting nor denying your request. Here's the thing. Wikipedia relies on sources. What separates us from the rest of the internet is that, while most contributors are anonymous, we don't simply take people's word for things. We need something like a newspaper article, magazine, or book. A reliable website would do, but no blogs, youtube, facebook, or personal photos as evidence. Few of us watching this article probably live in New York, so (speaking for myself) I would have no clue where to look for such a source. The easiest way to get this included is to find such a source and bring it here, and then we can easily update the article for you. I hope that helps, and if you can find such a source please do post it here. Thanks for you're help. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)