HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe problem of railroad moose conflicts in the susitna valley 1955 to 1956PBELIIIINARY REPORT
The Problem of Railroad-Moose
" CoQtlicts in the Susitna Valley: 1955-56 •
,/
Robert A. Rausch
Results of a cooperative study sponsored
by the Alaska Railroad and the US
Pish and Wildlife Service
I ..INTRODUCTION'
The Problem
The Alaska Railroad passes through the range ofsom.e cf ..,Alaska IS
most'abundant moose populations,in the Susitna Valley and on portions
of the ,Kenai Peninsula.',During 'part of ,each .yea~,'PrimarilY in late
winter;large numbers,of moose,appear in the Vicinity of the right.;.of....ay
in certain favorite locations;some of which extend for considerable
distances 'along the tracks.,:-.Many ofthe'se'moose f'ind their way to '
the plowed road .bed,obstructing train travel,and,often being killed
Qr"injur.ed iIi the,processi Thenumber'ofmoose'killed:varies with
weather,conditions and other factors',but it 'has totaled at least',
sev,eral'hundreds annually,,;in,'certain recent years."This represent's an
Ul'ldesirabledestruction of':'a valuable natural resource,as well as
an additional expensive operating';hazardforthe railroad.
The data summarized inthiS,pre1:iminaryreportaresome 'ot'the
results:"of a,cooperative inve~tigation,'undertaken,'to determine
,possible means of allevia,ting ,or permanently solving this problem.of'
railroad,-moose ,conflict.''
Method of Approach .~,:","
.The problem can:be'broken down:,into ,-two major questions.
(1)How can moose already on the tracks be removed without injury
and without undue delay to rail operations?(2)How,can moOse be,'
kept off the tracks and away from the right-of-way?
"In attempting to answ~r'the'above questions,and 'in 'laying:'
grolind'work for futureprogress,the'followingprinoipal lines ot
investigation were"pursued:;'I,"~"~
Moose behavior in relation to trains -A series of moose versus
train case histories were r'ecordeafrom:thecab"of a'trainengine in
an'attemptc't6 learnthebehavior-patternsofinoosefa:cingan'on';'coming
train..',';.
\.'.1
\ 'Daily movements and activities -Moosemovefuents,local and,
seasonal,were studied;daily patterns of moose activity were recorded,
and six periodic aerial'counts·were made of moose along the ri'ght-of-
way between Anchorage :and Talkeetna~Understanding of,and,subsequent
controL.of moosemovettlents is'likely to'be')'the key to the problem.
Moose scaring and saving techniques -Following';the initial
observations,several moose scaring and saving techniques were evaluated.
Prevents:tive studies-Experimental bulldozing andbaitingwere
attempted in an effort to keep moose from:entering the right"of-way.
Browse studies - A reconnaisance of available and utilized browse
was made between Mile Post 172 and 235 as a basis for evaluating observed
moose distribution.
Biological Data -Information on the age and sex composition,
food habits,and breeding biology of the railbelt moose population
was collected.','
Acknowledgements
Funds,for salary and expenses.,of a full-time investigator for
a period of over,four months were provided by the Alaska Railroad,'.
and the.task of conducting the project was facilitated in every way.
possible by railroad officials and personnel":'.Mr.Robert ,Julian,
General Roadme-ster,was,especially helpfuLin introducing the
inv$stigator,tothe~problems of railroad'operations;and in procuring
materials needed for 'conducting the study.The section personnel.at
.Wasilla,Willow ,Casweil,SunshineandTalkeetnawere very helpful
in .collecting information and speCimens ;;pr'oviding transportation'and
offering many worthwhile suggestions.'.,.'"
The personnel of the Fish·and Wildlife Service '.in Anchorage
provided aircraft for the aerial oounts,"and aided the investigator
in solving many other problems during the course of the investigation.
Administrative matters were coordinated by GameManagementtlgent"
Holger S.Larsen,and technical supervision of the project was by
P-R Leader Robert F.Scott.
II -MOOSE KILLED BY.THE RAILROAD
Magni tude of·Kill
One of the project's initial requirements was to determine
accurate+y thenum.ber andlocationof',m.oos.e ckilled by the railroad
duri~the cr;i.ticalseason.No complete kill records are available'
for any previous year,and various estimates of past moose kills,are,
not consistent.They vary between 90 and 1500 moose kills annually.
,,4t aDece~ber 1955 meeting,'between Fish and',Wildiif~'Service
"andfAlaska.,Railroad,officials,·asystemfor"rep6rtingall:railroad-
killed moose was agreed upon.,Thereafter,the Fish and Wildliff":'
Service received a week~report that indicated the date and location
of each·,railroad-.killed moose.,
The;week~,;report is a compilation of,all'moose kills ,reported '
'/by the conductors of trains that struck 'moose during .the previous
week.'The :conductOJ;s report the m,.oose to the'dispatchers,who in
turn include the reported moose on the dai~report and the
"morning lineup.·'
The section crews are informed of moose having been killed
on their section through the morning lineup.Inadd,ition'to.the
we~k~reportji the s'ection crews were 'instructed to ship all moose
-2....
h~ads,tagged with location and date of kill,to the Fish anci
Wildlife Service,Anchorage,Alaska.The data from the<moose heads
is especially valuable and the collection of this data should be
cont:i.nl.led.Between Decemb,er 22,:J.955,and April 15,1956',225J!loose
were reported killed by the railroad.,'Initial field observations
indicated that about 35 per cent of the railroad killed'moose Were not
being/reported.In late April an Inspection on foot'of the WillOW,
Caswell and Sunshine sections revealed 219 different moose carcasses
and gut piles in an area'where 131 fuoose kills had been reported.
This is a difference of 40 per cent.This differepce,when applied
to the total reported,kill,yields a corrected total of ,366 moose
killed between December 22,1955,andUl.p:dI15,1956.The,corrected
total kill figure for this period isprobS.biya minimum,because it
does not account for the moose still covered by snow,or for the
cripples which wander from the tracks before dying.Aerial surveys
and personal observations indicate that this uncounted portion of the
kill may exceed 5 per cent of the'adjtisted'total kill 'for the critical
period.,,',c
The northern portion of the railroad,&nchorage to FairbB.nks,is,
for convenience of discussion,brokerifnto three segments:'
1.Anchorage -Wasilla
2.Wasilla -Cwry
3..curry "-Fairba.nks
1.,The Anchorage -Wasilla Segnrent'_...Thi,s segIrient (9 Per cent
of the railroad)accounts for II per 'cent of the reported kill;<
however,this segment traverses what 1s,<'perhaps,the greatest
concentration of moose per square mile in llaska •Fortunately,due
to local climatological and browse condition$;and other factors <
discussed later,the ra.tio of moose killedver'susthe number of mOos'e
present is amazingly low.'
2.Wasilla ~Curry'Segment --The 90-mile,segmeritfrom Wasilla
to Curry (19 per cent of the railroad mileage)accounts for 68 per cent
'-3-
of the totalkill.The Willow,Caswell and Sunshine sections (Mile
Posts 172-:-226)occupy the center of this segment and were selecteq.as
the major project areas of.this investigation.
Of the total reported kill,l3l,'or 58.6 per cent,occurred on
this 54~mj.le ;area (11 per cent.of the total .railroad mileage)•Within
this area are five local critical segments:.'..
A.The H9uston-Willow area,M.P.172-186
B.The.Willow Creek area~M.P.l86-l88
C.The Kashwitna River-Caswell area,M.P ..196-203
.D.,The Goose Creek-Montana Creek area,M.P ..207-214
E.The north Sunshine area,M.P.223.5-226.
These,areas are further described below.
••The Houston-Willow area,Mile.Post 172-186 --Thi's area has
very little winter moose browse adjacent to the right-of-way.There
is,however,considerable browse on the right-of-way itself.
Twimty-seven moose 'were killed on this area during and immediately
rpllow~ng th~December 30,1955-January 1,1956,snow storm~Although
the moose,do browse along the ,tracks,the major track use is for
travel.'These moose appeared to be traveling from the Little Susitna
flats (Mile Post 174)to the Lake Nancy area (Mile Post 182).
>,Aerial surveysand personal observation indicate that the
numbereof moose wintering in thisare~dropped during the first half·
of.Jannary 1956.The caUSe or nature of this movement is not,k~owno
B•.The Willow area.,.Mile Pos-t 188.--A series of small
tributaries of the Susitna River cross the track in this area.These
streams serve as access routes for the moose.Upon gaining entrance
to the right-of-way,many of these moose follow the tracks to the
Willow alrstripwhi9h has a border of willow ,aspen and birch;choice
winter browse.
The majority of the sixteen moos~kille~on this two mile strip
were killed during late December,1955,and early January,1956.
C.The Kashwitna River-Caswell area,Mile Post 196-203 --In
contrast to the previously discussed areas the critical kill period
on this section occurred in late winter.
Another distinguishing feature of thissectioni~the availability
O;f major brow.s~areas adjacent to theright-of-way.at the Kasl1witna
River,M.P.199,and at Caswell Creek,M.P.20l.Moose frequently.
enter the right-of-way several miles south of the Kashwi tna River
browse patchand walk -to it.In,addi;tion,the moose wander on and
across the track immediate,lynorthof the bridge.Completecongestion
-4-
of this area is accomplished by large numbers of moose moving to and
from the Caswell Creek area.Caswell Creek has a relatively broad
flood plain whose principal vegetation is willow.Thir~-three moose
Were killed on this area.The majority of these moose were killed
during late February and early March.·
D.The Goose Creek-Montana area,Mile Post 207-212 --The
Kashwitna River-Caswell kill was exceeded only by the Goose Creek-
Montana Creek area.Fifty-four moose were killed on this six mile
portion of the railroad.The majority of these animals were killed
during a two week period in February.
This segment contains the greatest acreage of high .quali~winter
browse adjacent to the railroad on the entire project area.This
browse area is west of the railroad ~nd is bounded on the south by
Goose Creek and on the north by Montana Creek.The moose have four
avenues of approach,the Susitna River,Goose Creek,Montana Greek
and a plowed road --the railroad,leading to this food patch.This
combination of accessibility and food proved to be a fatal one.
E.The North Sunshine area,Mile Post 223.5-226 --The North
Sunshine area is one of lesser total kill,but one of particular
interest.Here,the moose,attracted by the browse surrounding the
C.A..A.airfield at Mile Post 226,travel a portion of the railroad
which is bounded on the east by a steep hill and on the west·by the
Susitna River.Thus,those moose which happen to me.et a train are
trapped and are usually killed.fA total of 12 moose were killed on
two miles of track south of the C.A.lA.airfield.
3.Curry-Fairbanks segment --This segment,46.8 percent of
the total railroad mileage,·accounted for 8.88 per cent of the total
reported kill.This portion of the railroad is not considered a
critical kill area.
Critical Kill Dates
When plotted graphically,a definite correlation is found between
seasonal fluctua ti.ons in snow depths,moose abundance along the tracks,
and variation in moose fatalities by dateS.During the last two weeks
in February and the.first week in March,an a.verage of 50 inches of
snow covered the ground in the critical kill areas.At this time
aerial counts of moose wi thin one-eighth mile of the tracks reached
their highest point.Furthermore,reported moose kills for this
period totaled 115 (50 per cent of the winter's total).
FutUre critical dates will probably also coincide with periods
of deep snow and associated concentration of moose along the tracks.
·111 -REDUCING THE MOOSE KILL
The problem of alleviating the railroad moose situation has been
divided into two major questions:A.How can the moose once on the
-5-
tracks be 'i'~eJil'bved from the right-of-way without injury-"and without
undue':delay ,t6the railroad operations?B.How can moose be Idapt off
the tracks and away from the right-of-way?These are discussed
below.'
A.How can moose be removed from the tracks without injury and
without undue delay to the railroad operation?
In'seeking an answer to'this question,and in·trying to determine'
why a moose remains on the track in face of an oncoming train,101 case
histories of moose versus train were observed from the cab of a train
engine.Twenty-four of these moose were killed.
Moose Behavior
It is difficult-to characterize a moose's reaction to a train
because,while they appear genuinely frightened,they do not exhibit a
consistent response pattern in expreflsingtheir fARr.'
The "average moose,"when frightened by a train,usually attempts
to leav,ethe tracks.The moose,using his front feet as "feelers,"
tests the snow adjacent to the tracks.If he sinks into hisbel~
and bogs down,he extracts himself,returns to the track,ambles along
a few paces and repeats the above process.'Generally the moose
succeeds in leaving the tracks on his first or second attempt,but of
those 'cases actually observed,23 animals,or about 20 per cent~
failed and were killed.
NUJlJeroUs daylight observations reveal that ,Illdose ·.are frightened
by :the appearance ofratrain.It is not kndwnwhetherthis fact stems
from their seeing or hearing the,train.'However,moose in the ' '
Mantanuska Valley generally ran at right angles away from the trackS
and moose several hundred yards from the train are frightened
Unfortunately,'the moose encountered on the tracks at night do
not respond in this manner.They generally do not run until the train
is within a few hundred yards and frequently make no attempt to run.
They often stare at"the train,although itis .doubtful thatthe mOOSe
can see,anything other than the train's headlight.These different
day-night responses are not fu11y'understood.Certainly,the direction,
both day and night,that moose can run·from the tracks is dietated
by the snow depths adjacent to the tracks.'
Moose apparently are most active in early evening and at night.
The six 'aerial surveys,on which 631 moose were counted within 1/8
mile of the tracks betweerrAnchorageand Talkeetna',revealed only
10 moose on the tracks.In addition,71 per cent of the moose
counted were lying down.On the one 'late afternoon flight on
February 9,1956,50 per cent of the 100 moose counted were standing
,"-6-
-------------------------------------------------------
and moving about."While riding the local freight or "peddler""from
,Curry'to Anchorage on Sundays;16 moose were observed on the tracks.
:•.oD1y one of,:these moose was struck by the train.This low ratio ,of
~oose on the tracks versus m'oose killed may in part be attributed to
the 'slow speed (20 mph)and subsequent greB'.ter control ;of this train.
However,the moose ,seem more willing to yield,the.right-of;..way in the
daytime.,
Several long-time trainmen corroborated the investigator's belief
that moose are not on the tracks as often in the daytime and that they
will leave the right-of-way more readily during daylight hours.
Remedial Possibilities
This stlldy of moo'se bebavior and activities suggested several
.possible means "for temporarily removing moose from the tracks or
o.therwise reduc;:ihg the kill.,These'are·as follows:
;,
1.,:Operate trains through the critical area between Houston a.nd
Talkeetna during ,daylig};J.t hours,whenever it is economically
feasible..
2.ManipUlate headlights and horn to frighten the moose from
the tracks.
3.-Operate trains at;reduced speeds through critical areas.
4.Spread the snow berm as soon as possible after the initial
plowing operation.
:..
1~'Daylight train operations -Moose habits,as discussed in,
another section of this report,indicate that trains operatedintne
daytime will probably kill significantly fewer moose than those
Qperatedat night.However,the economics.of train operation must
·be taken into censideration in evaluating this proposal.
2.The horn blast -'It is standard procedure to sound the'train's
horn when a moose or any other animal is sighted.on the tracks..The
sound of the horn does frighten moose;however,this fear,usually
,expressed in action,.does not always have the desired effect of
removing:the moose from the track.Generally;.the moose will atterilpt
.to-leave the right-of-way immedia teli following the first horn
blast.-,However,should the moose encounter deep snoW it will
immediately return to the tracks.-
"The -tendency of moose to leave the tracks at the sound of the
initial horn blast has a definite moose-saving possibility.The
following examples,taken from the investigator's field notes,
illustrate the technique that can partially alleviate the moosekiil
-7-
---------------._----------------
and avoid unnecessary delay of trains.On January 6,1956,while
riding a northbound night freight (No.26)'from Anchorage to Curry,
ITmoose were encountered on the tracks;two were killed.The engineer,
after sighting a moose on the tracks didnotsoundthEltrali1'shorn
until within 50 to ,150 feet of the moose..In all cases,except the
two previously mentioned instances,the moose jumped from the tracks.
Since the engine was very close to the moose,the moose did,not
have an opportunity to re-enter the tracks until after the train
had passed.
To further illustrate the value of this technique,the following
example,taken from field notes,is presented.On February 13,1956,
while riding No.26 between Anchorage and Curry,eleven moose were
encountered on the tracks;eight were killed.The engineer sounded
the ,train's horn as soon as he sighted amoosa.Usually;the moose
would jump from the tracks,but would ,have time tore-enter the tracks
before the engine had passed.Continued horn .blowing irritated the
moosEl,and although they usually attempted to outrun the train,one
bull did turn and charge it.The train was pulling over 2,000 tons
at about 40-50 mph.Stopping safely in less than one quarter of a
mile was not possible,and the moose which attempted to outrun the
train could not be avoided.In addition to killing eight moose the
train wa.s three hours late at Curry.
This technique of timing the horn blast with the 'train's speed is
not a permanent solution to the railroad moose problem,nor does it
work all the time,but it will reduce moose fatalities and help prevent
unnecessary train delays.
3.Spee£~Train control is dependent upon speed and momentum.
A freight train pulling over 2,000 tons cannot safely stop within a
quarter of a mile.Train control anci $pe,ecil3,ppeaX':to determine moose
fate in some areas.
Fromlnchorage ','to Wasilla the 'illaska Railroad winds along a narrow
bench between KnikArm of thEl Cook Inletal1d the 'foothills of the<Chugach
Mountains.This results in a great number of curves and turns on the
r!:l.ilroad,!:l.nda maximum speed of 30 mph.Fre:ight trait;ls seldom attain'
this maximum speed.
4.erial surveys and personal observations indicate that there are
more moose per mile of track throughtheiAnchorage<toWasillaarea
than on any other segment of the railroad.However,only 22 moose were
reported killed on this 45 mile segment of the railroad.In addition
to the favorable browse and local climatological conditions discussed
in another section of this report,the moose have more time to get
off the track because of the slowermaximurn speeds and greater train
control.Snow depths between Anchorage and Eklutna and Pittman to,
Willow are not'directlycomparable,but they are similar.The snow
from Anchorage to Eklutna was deep enough to cause moose considerable
-8-
a
..~
trouble.)Six moosewere~reported killed on this segment,while
twenty-tWo moose were reported killed on the shorter Pittman-
Willow segment.·The moose·population between Anchorage and Eklutna
was very great,whereas,the apparent winter population from
Pittman to Willow was low.Aside from the previously indicated differ-
ences"themajor difference ,between these two segments seems to be
speed and·tra.in control.The'maXimUm speed permitted from Anchorage
to Eklutna is 30 mph';the maximum permitted Speed from Pittma.ri'to
Willow is 49 mph.
The portion of tl'ackfrom Mile Post 195-225 accounted for 75
reported moose kills'between February 9,1956,and March 10,1956 •.
During this period'115 kills Were l'eportedbetween Mile Posts 4 and
420.Thus,65 per cent of this kill occurred on 7 per cent of the
kill area.A slow order on the 30 miles of track from Mile'Post 195
to 225 would probably have saved many moose and considerable expense
to the railroad,because it was on this segment of the track that
a moose caused an expensive derailment.·'
,4.Snow'Removal ...;ThiS past.seasOn f·S study..indicates that moose
gather on the tracks in great nUIilbersduring and immediately follOWing
major snow storms.4lt least 50 moose were killed during the
December 30,1955"'January-1,1956,snowstorm.Those moose kil~ed
during the snow storm probably cannot be avoided.!Iowever,'some of
those killed following the initial snow removal operation may be
saved by spreading the wall of snow adjacent to the tracks as soon as
possible).n the'cri tipal,areas.Tl;tesnow wall,or berm,adjacent to
the tracksdiscotirages moose from leaving the right-of':'way once they
have entered it.Removal of this obstacle al16wsthe moose to leave
,t~e traQ,k§.if they are so inclined.Interviews with several'lorig-
time engineers i~dicate that this snow spreading operation saves
many moose.
The temporary,expedients discussed in this section will not
solve the moose-r,ailroad problem,but the,y may partially alleviate
the 'situation until a more permanent solution has been devised.
IV -KEEPING MOOSE FROII THE TRACES
WhY Do Moose Use the Right-of-Way?
The concentrations of moose present along the railroad during the
winter months,in contrast to the sparse stimmerpopulation,s'liggests
that the moose are for some reason either attracted or forced,to the
railroad in winter •.
The openings in the forest,created bitherailroad,and associated
civilization,produce'miles of high quality,availRble,winter moose
browse,principally willow,aspen and"birch.In addition to the
.-9-
browse created b.Y the edge effect of the openings,the attendant
civilization has caused several small fires along the right-of-way.
Som~of these burned areas now contain excellent stands of winter
moose brows~.
The many tributaries of theSusi:tna River,generally flowing
from east to west and crossing the tracks at right angles,provide
another source of browse as well as a~cess to the railroade
The food patches,edges,burns,and river bottoms have a common
connecting link --the railroad.This combination of food,access
routes and a plowed road may not initially attract the moose,but
it probably serves to hold the moose once they have.discovered its
possibilities.
Sex and.Age Composition
The following chart (Table I),based on 230 moose heads and jaws
large~y from the Willow,Caswell and Sunshine sectionA,indicatea
that no one age or sex group is responsible for the train versus
moose problem.The predominance.of females (62 per cent of the
sample,and 68 per cent of all moose above age class II)may reflect
the effects of hunting pressure,an unbalanced sex ratio,or
seasonal habitat preferences.
TABLE NO.1
Sex and ~ge Classifications of the Railroad-Killed Moose
..Age
Classification
Ntimber
of Jaws
Per Cent
of Total Females Males Unidentified
1
1
1
22
10
2
10
9
13
10
1
3
,j -1
-·81 ..'.,/;-J
•.• • • • • • •.:•5-7
•.• •.',•-20
• 0 0 45-47
Class II females
27
10
5
7
13
19
18
20
11
16
146
o 49 21
I 20 9
II 7 3
III 17 '7
IV 23 10
V 32 14
VI 29 13
VII 22 10
VIII 14 6
IX 17 7
Totals 230 100
Total bulls/IOO cows ••.
Young bUlls/lOO bulls 0 0 •0.0 •
Calves/IOO cows 0 •.0 • • • 0 • • • 0
(percentage depends upon whether
are includ~d.as adult cows)
Calf percent in total sample •..•0 0 •0 2],
Young bull per cent in .total samp:t-e -0 0 0 0 0 4
Young bull/IOO bull calves.•0 • • 0 .0 00 .'o·00 .0 ·0 00 4
2
5Totalpercentfemalesinsample0 0 6
Per cent females above age Class II 0 • ••68
•.:)
'tlhe age classifieations are based on the--moose dentition key
constructedby'Calvin I.Lensink (P.R.'Quarterly Report V.10 -No o '2,
1955,pp 3-15)and on the age characteristics listedby,RandolphL..
Peterson (North American~,University of Toronto Press,1955);,
Before effective action to keep-moose off and'away from the
right-of-way can be undertaken,it is necessary to know what'portion
of the railbeltmoose population is using the right-of-way~
Most authorities state that,providing adequate food is available,
moeseare relatively sedentary animals.The Susitna Valley moose
dO'travel;however,the age or sex composition of the moose and the
distance and direction of these seasonal movements are not adequately
known.A.erial surveys,'trackcounts,interviews,andmarking
experiments were tried in an attempt to learn more of the individual
range and movement patterns of the railbelt moose population.
Moose tracks.observedduring sixaerial,surveysflown<between;
January 5,,1956,and February 15,1956,indicated a definite east-
west altitudinal movement,'principally along the drainage systems.
It was,impoE\sible ,to determine the direction of the tracks,but
perhaps they were in both directions andrepresentedlocalmoveinents.
Moose track observations,made afoot and from a gas car,
suggested localm.ovementsalongandacross the track..These observations
did help determine local critical areas,butshedlittle light on
any major moose.movement.
A number of long-time valley residents were interviewed.These
interviews suggested several seasonalmbveinent patterns 0
'Section personnel and local residents at Wasilla state that
:greatnumbers of moose ,mOVe from the north along the right,;;,of-way
through ,the Wasilla area and into the Matanuska.Valleyduring November
and December.They also state that there is'a reversal of this
migration in late March and ~pril.
Willow area people believe moose move from the Talkeetna Mountain
foothills to the Susitna River area during late November,December
and January.Mr.Richard ,Drew,a resident of the Caswell area since'
the 1930 I s,and a professional guide,indicated tllat the moosemo.'re
from the foothills of the Tal;keetna Mountains to the lower areas in
,November,December and January •.However,he believes 'that some
moose do cross the Susitna River from the west:,cOlllingto the tracks •
Personal observation in January,February and March atM6ntana Creek
revealed,that moose do cross the SusitnaRiver'in bothdirec~ions.·
-11-
Talkeetna residents insist too t the winter moose population -in
that area arises from great numbers of moose crossing the Susitna
River,coming to therailroad'·areashortly after the river freezes
over.
Moose Marking Project
Marking moose in an effort to determine the extent and'magnitude
of seasonal moose.movements was proposed.One·suggested system for
marking moose incorporated thense of paint,a.flame thrower,and a
heJ,icopter.The flame thrower was supplied by the United Stateslrmy
and the helicopter qy the United States Air Force.
-.
The flame thrower was ground tested in March 1956;two:moose,
a cow and calf,were sprayed with international orange enamel.The
flame thrower-paint system worked satisfactorily •The flame thrower
has an effective moose marking l'angeof 60-70 feet.
On&pl'il 3,1956,the fi1'8t marking attempt from a helicopter
was conducted.The results were not satisfactoI'Y.The principal
difficulty stemmed from the dissipation of the paint stream,caused
qy the wind blast from the helicopter's ·forward.motionandfrom the
roterblast ..No further marking experiments ,were attempted.On
May 11,1956,Mr.Robert Hinman reported seeing an orange moose
calf.The calf was about four.to five miles ..from the original marking
site on Fort Richardson.No further marking experiments were attempted •
.This work done this year was insufficient to yield definite results
in determining the extent or nature.of ..seasonal moose movements in
the Susitna Valley.Further investigation is warranted.
IV -Hew'·CAN MOOSE BE KEPT OFF.THE .TRACKS?-
Several experimentfl were tested thispast.season in.an effort
to keep moose from entering the right-:of..way.In addition,there are
several other experiments .of merit that have not been tested.The
following experiments were conducted during tile past winter:
1.Bulldozing trails and feed yards.
2.The use of salt as a mOQsellJI'e.
Bulldozing Project
.The availability of food -and good walking on and along the tra.cks
are two attractions believed responsible for many ,moose fatalities.
Creation of alternate trails and artificial browse areas,by'bull-
dozing,was attempted inaneffQrt to determine if the moose would
use these trails and associated feed yards in preference to the
.railroad and its associated browse areas.
-12-
J
The first such trail was constructed from Houston to Willow in
late January.This area was selected because it was the critical kill
area at that time.The trail roughly follows the proposed Alaska Road
Commission to Willow,and has been partially cleared.The trail :i.s
located east of the railroad to Mile Post 183 where it crosses to
the west,follows the north edge of Nancy Lake for a short distance
and then continues along a low ridgelineto Willow.The south
portion of the trail (Mile Post 176-183)rough~parallels the
Alaska Railroad and traverses some reasonably good moose browse.
The portion from Mile Post 183 to Willow airstrip is about one mile
from the railroad and except for the Willow airstrip,does not'pass
through good moose browse.
A number of small feed yards,formed qy bulldozing down aspen,
birch and willow patches along the trail,were made in conjunction
with the trail-making operation.
Prior to the completion of this trail on February 2,1956,
about 20 moose had been killed on this project area.From February 2
to March 15,1956,3 moose kills were reported.It is believed that
the bulldozed trails did reduce the moose kill;however,other factors,
princ.ipally a reduction in moose abundance in this area,also probably
influenced the kill reduction.
The trail and associated feed yards were filled with snow in
mid-February,and reopening of the trails was not effected due to an
equipment shortage.Therefore,an accurate evaluation of the ,
effectiveness of.this moose trail-feed yard experiment is not possible.
Despite the partial filling of the trail and feed yards,moose
did use them.The trails on Willow airstrip supported six and
possibly eight moose for the remainder of the winter.By A.pril these
moose had nearly exhausted the browse created by the bUlldozing
operation and were barking aspens and willows extensively.They
had beEm able to keep'the trail partially open throughout the
winter and they refused to leave the hard paths even when chased by
humans.
An inspection of the trail from Willow to Mile Post 183 revealed
no moose actually wintering on it,though sporadic use was indicated
qy tracks and browsed trees.From Mile Post 183 to Houston,eight to
twelve moose spent the winter feeding on the browse adjacent to the
trail and in the'feed yards.Bymid-.!A.prilthey had exhausted their
food supply and a few moose wandered onto the tracks and were killed.
Results in this project area indicate that moose will localize
.'ill small areas provided that food and walkingconditions are
favorable.
Following completion of the Houston-Willow trail,another
project was started in the excellent browse area near Montana (Mile
Post 209).Unfortunately,a heavy snowfall necessitated the transfer
-1)-
-------------.~~--_._~.~--.~_.__._-.._----~~--------_..__.___.~_.__.._-----.~--
-J
ofi;he bulldozer equipment.to other areas before the project was
completed.
Several trails had been constructed in this area prior to the
snow stormo'These trails were visited from time.to time throughout
the winter 0 Moose used the trails extensively for travel and
browsing.In addition,the moose used.one o£the trails,which ran
to theright,..of-way,to gain entrance·to the tracks.This area,
which was one of great moose concentration,continued to have a
high rate of moose kills;however,the project was not completed and
evaluation of its effectiveness is impossible.
A cost estimate for the bulldozing project is included in
Table II.
Salt blocks were placed on Willow airstrip and at Mile Post
203.5 in the Ca$Well area in an effort to determine ilmoose.could
be attracted by saIto These salt blocks were placed on.brush piles
nea:r;-known moose concentrations (one was placed on a bulldozed trail)•
There was no indication thl;1.t the moose.hadany.interest in this form
of salt during the late winter or early spring months.
Suggested experiments
Ca,ttle guards --fA.modified cattle-llmoose guard"was constructed
.in the railroad,shops and shipped to Willow •Unfortunately,a bull-
dozer was not available to construct a trail at the proposed install-
ation site and the moose guard could not be tested this year •.
There are several local areas where this device,in conjunction
with·qozing and proposed fencing experiments,may alleviate the
current moose problem.Discussion of actual placement of moose
guards is incorporated in another portion of this report •.
''Why don't you fence the entire track?"is a persistent question.
Fencing would be desirable if:--if it is economical~feasible,
·-,..if we knew what tJTpe of.a fence to construct,--if·weknew what
tYPe'of materials to use in building the fence,and --if we knew
how the moose would react to a fence.
.Opviously·these llifs"can be answered 0IllYby limited experi-'
:ments.Limited fencing in conjunction with moose guards and bull;'
dozing would provide an opportunity to evaluate cost effectiveness,
type of material needed,and minimum construction requirements of
a moose,..proof'fence,as well as provide a test for ·the moose guards 0
The Montana Creek area,Mile Post 207-212,on which 50 moose
were killed this past winter,is.particularlywell suited to a
fencing,.mool3e guard,and bulldpzingexperiment •.Here,the Susitna
-14-
v
-River,roughly parallels the railroad,on the west,and is no farther
than'one mile from the tracks along the entire segment.The southern
portion of this area contains excellent browse,located between the
tracks and the Susitna River.The northern portion of this area is
used as a highway by moose traveling to good browse at Mile Post
213-124.Many of these problem mO,oseenter the tracks at the
confluence at Montana Creek and the Susitna River at Mile Post 211.
The high steep banks on the northern portion of this problem area
area barrier to moose attempting to enter the tracks in most
pla.c~s~The few gaps could be fenced with a minimum of effort and
cost.'
Bulldozing trails tbrough the snow and stands of aspens on the
southern portion of this area shoUld localize some of the moose and
keep them from wandering onto the right-of-way.
There are two logical positions for moose guards.One at
Mile Post 207.9 between two cut banks,and the second at Mile Post
212 where ·asteep cliff on the east and a ledge on the west 'would
prevent m09~e f'rom going around the cattle guard.
v -ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Cost and disposition of the railroad killed moose
The chart shown in Table II,supplied by the Alaska Railroad,
summarizes estimated costs for butchering moose and other activities
thr(:>ugh~:t'ch 1,1956.The estimate is based on .175 reported moose.
TABIE II
Cost of 'Handling Moose to March 1,1956
MObse Pass
Hl1nter
Portage'
Kern
Campbell
'Birchwood''
',''Wasilla
Willow
CafWvell
Sunshine
Talkeetna
Estimated 30 brs.Straight Time'
'"II 40 brs.II
n 40 brs.n
II 40 brs."II 30 brs."II 50 hrs."Actual 99 brs.'"
II 280 brs •it
.."300 brs.n
Estimated 150 brs.n
"50 hrs."
Total Overtime Taken from Payroll
Total''
";15-
$70.00
94.00
94.00
94.00
70.00
117.00
235.00
658.00
705.00
350.00
117.00
$2,604.00'
278.00
$2,882.00
{Carried Forward)
Two dozers began ploughing mooee trails
on January 25,1956
One Operator worked 9 days
One Operator worked 1.3 days·
Fuel,etc.
Total
TABIE III .
'2J$82~0().-..
..
The ratio of salvaged versus unsalvaged moose on the three
project sections.
Section
Willow
Caswell
Sunshine
Totals
Salvaged
.38
.30
27
95
Unsalvaged
12
50
67
129
S salvaged
76.0
37.5
30.3
Adjusted Cost Figures
The Caswell and vailow sections,two sections thatkeptJ'ecoicls
of time expended on salvaging moose,salvaged 68 moose,and ba4 a
total expenditure of 1,.36.3 dollars worth of labor,or an ave~ale
cost of 20 qollarspersalvaged moose.Mr.Whalen (ChierOlerJcin
Engineering)suggested that another five dollars per salvagec1 aoosl
could be added for transportation and handling charges.T:be~.
figUres confirm Mr.Cook's (Superintendent ofEngineeJ'1131~".
Alaska Railroad)earlier estimate of twenty five dollarsoo.tpeJ'
moose salvaged.
Forty-three per cent (95 of 219)of the railroad-k1lletJlOO'.
Were salvaged on the three project sections.If this isre~e.e"t&tive
of the entire railroad,158 moose were salvaged.The adjt1ste4 total
expenditure for salvaging and transporting moose then becOJIle,
4,266 dollars.
Cost of removing unsalvaged carcasses
The unsalvaged carcasses are removed from the right-ot__q
intbe spring.This removal is accomplished by pulling the
carcasses away from the tracks,using a ~as car,ropeandtackle
arrangement or by burning them.This arrangement is illustrated
in picture.The investigator timed several days ot moose removal
-16-
'J
operati.,onson the Willow and Caswell sections and found that the
average labor cost of removing a moose carcass amounts to approxi-'
matelyten dollars.If the estima.ted total of 158 salvaged moose
is correct,then about 200 moose were unsalvaged and subsequently
removed in the spring at an estimated cost of 2,000 dollars.
The section that attempted to burn moose found that burning is
not a successful nor e~onomical means of removing unsalvaged
carcasses.
Damage
In late February,1956,a moose caused the derailment of a
loaded flatcar at Montana.The exact manner in which the moose
caused this derailment is not known.In all probability the moose,
struck by the train's engine,either rolled under the train and
later ,some portion of the moose fell under the flatcar's Wheels
and was sufficient to derail it,or the moose struck by the train
fell alongside the track and while threshing about fell under the
flatcar's wheels,derailing it.Mr.,Whalen has estimated the cost
of this derailment at $3,000.00 •.
The combined direot costs to the railroad for salvaging,
transporting,spring removal.and damage caused by moose is
estimate.d at about;$10,000 f'orthe winter of 1955-56•
.
Value~Realand Potential,·of Salvaged,Railroad-Killed Moose Meat
Thi,s winter'sestimated total of 158 salvaged moose yielded an
estimated total of 63,000 pou:nds of Usable meat.This estimate is
based on 388 pieces of salvaged meat received in ~chorage.These
pieces averaged 125 pounds each,yielding 48,500 pounds of meat.
Since all salvaged meat above Curry was shipped to Fairbanks and
the meat salvaged south of Anchorage was generally shipped to
Seward,the estimated total of 63,000 pounds seems reasonable.
~he average bull moose killed by a hunter and processed at a
coldatorage locker weighs about '500 pounds.Seventy-nine per cent
of th~railroad~killed moose were of comparable size.Thus,the
average railroad killed moose probably yields about 400 pounds of
salvaged meat.If 158 moose were salvaged,and allowing 400 pounds
per salvaged moose,the total is 63,200 pounds.This is approxi-
mately,the same as the earlier estimate.
It is difficult.to place a dollar and cent value on this
salvaged meat,which is distributed to destitute native villages and
local charitable institutions.However,salvaged moose meat,based
on the adjusted cost of 4,266 dollars,represents an expenditure by
the railroad of 7 cents per pound.A local cold storage plant
operator,who has had considerable experience in processing moose
-17-
meat,suggested that rai1road-k:i11edmoose meat should be worth
25 cents a pound at current meat prices.Therefore,the salvaged
meat has an intrinsic value of 15,750 dollars;three times the
salvage cost.
Of the estimated total kill of 366 moose,208 were not
salvaged.Examination of 219 ki11"s revealed that only about
10 per cent of the moose were completely des:troyed.The author
believes that a more accurate reporting system plus cooperation
from the section crews would double the amount of salvaged meat.
Public Relations
The cost of salvaging a moose has been estimated to be twice
the cost of spring carcass removal."However,un salvaged moose are
responsible for the unfounded rumors that "thousands of moose are
slaughtered by the Alaska Railroad."Local residentsa.s well as
transients,who see and count the same moose throughout the winter,
"are largely responsible for the exaggerated moose kill estimates.
As an example,the investigator talked to several local people,
including guides and other professional people,who insisted that
upwards of 1500 mOOSe had been killed by mid-February of this year.
Several sections attempted to bury the unsalvaged moose in
snow.This,an"added expense,was not successful because the
carcasses were still"present when the snow thawed.Gut piles,
from salvaged moose,are more easily concealed,and "salvage costs
are only slightly higher than the expense of later carcass removal.
The value of the salvaged moose meatp1u.s the public relation '
factor will justify a determined'effort to salvage all railroad
killed moose.
SUMMARY
From January 3,1956,to May 15,'1956,an investigation of
the moose versus railroad conflict was carried on in the Susitna
Valley.
A system for reporting railroad killed moose was devised.
The railroad reported 225 moose kills between DeceIilber 22,1955,
and ~pril 15,1956.An adjusted total of366~ere believed killed
during the above period.
A study of moose~train behavioral responses was made.This
study suggested the following temporary moose"saving techniques:
1.Timing the horn blast'
2.Daylight train operation
-18-
to.
".
3.Reduced speeds in critica~areas
(during the most critical period of the winter,65 per cent
of the kills were concentrated on a 7 percent section of"
track)
4.Spreading the snow berm as soon as possible in critical
areas.
In attempting to keep moose from the right-of-way,the
following experiments w~re conducted:
1.Bulldozing trails parallel and adjacent to the right-of-way.
2.Creating feed yards by bulldozing through patches of aspen,
birch and willow.
These experiments led to the following conclusions:Bulldozing
trails and feed yards will localize moose in some areas.The favored
winter browse species in this area is aspen.Muskeg areas are
difficult to negotiate in the winter.Proposed bulldozer routes
should be marked in~the fall.Further investigation of this method
is needed,principally in establishing trails and feed yards
before the snow depth becomes critical.
The effectiveness of salt as a moose lure was tested,with
negative results.
A cattle-tlmoose guard ll was constructed,but was not installed
due to a shortage of equipment.
Approximate~60,000 pounds of useable moose meat was salvaged
and distributed to welfare agencies during the winter.
Approximately 10,000 dollars were expended by the railroad for
salvaging,transporting and removing moose carcasses and for repairing
damaged equipment.
Considerable biological data pertaining to the status of the
railbelt moose population was gathered and will be presented later
in a technical appendix to this report.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.It is recommended that the moose kill reporting system
and the moose head collection system be continued.
2.Daylight train operation,when economically feasible,slow
orders in critical kill areas,and horn blast timing should be
further tested and evaluated for moose-saving effectiveness.
-19-
3.Further experimentation with bulldozed trails and feed
yards is warranted.
4.Cattle guards placed in conjunction with bulldozed trails
and feed yards should be tested as planned.
5.The study of seasonal moose movements'and moose population
shifts should be continued,and results scrutinized for possible
leads to additional methods of permanently diverting moose from
the immediate railbelt area.
6.This project has yielded much factual information on the
c~rrent moose problem and has established a sound basis for
future work.It is believed that continuation of the study and
experiments for another year would yield even more pertinent
information,with a correspondingly greater liklihood of approaching
a permanent solution..
-20~