Talk:Moose/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

English or American Wikipedia?

Well, the animals name in English is Elk, in American English Moose. I assume that the ENglish language Wikipedia is British English so the totle should be changed to Elk.

It is like calling fotball soccer and ask the FA to change to SA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses both American and British English. The general tradition is to use whichever spelling or term which was used in the article originally. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ENGVAR. In addition to having been originally written in American English, the article subject is clearly more assosciated with North America than the UK, and we already have an article on the other animal also called an Elk. In the early days of this project there was a lot of fighting over variations of English, and so a set of rules governing usage were established. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from conforming to Wikipedia rules, the article does make it quite clear that they are called Elk in europe, but they are called Moose in the Americas (with Elk there referring to a separate species). It also refers to either Moose or Elk appropriately, when referring to the local subspecies. I don't think there is any mis-information present and it is certainly clear what the distinction is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.8.84 (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cannot agree that the distinction is in any way clear. To be honest, coming here as someone British wanting info on elk, I found it very confusing; between this and the “Elk” article, it makes it appear that “elk” is only used by Americans for what they call elks, and that Europeans call their elks “moose” (e.g. the bit about two moose being released in Scotland…). As we never use moose for what we call elks, how can it be said to be clear? 109.155.27.117 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you're seeing the suggestion that speakers of British English call an elk a moose, could you point out where it says that? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

In New Zealand Moose are Moose but never Elk. Elk are sometimes elk but more often called by the North American Indian name Wapiti. NZ Wapiti have interbred with the far more common wild red deer. The last moose(a juvenile) was photographed in New Zealand by a night vision camera in 2010. If they still exist they are extremely rare-only living in the very isolated rugged,unpopulated Fiordland region of the lower South Island.Claudia

female with antlers

For some odd reason this information was "hidden" with a note that the source did not seem reliable. The Alaska Public Radio Network is probably the most reliable source for information on events in Alaska as they have a network of reporters all over the state, not just one "stringer" sitting in Anchorage and phoning in stories. Unfortunately the audio file that was originally attached to this cite seems to no longer be online, but the written abstract verifies the basic fact that although it is exceedingly rare it is possible for a cow moose to grow antlers The Anchorage Daily News, Alaska's biggest newspaper, found the information reliable enough to reprint [1], giving credit to the reporter from APRN, and both reports mention that the animal's head was examined by a biologist from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, who verified that it was a female despite the antlers. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't dispute the ADN or APRN's reliability, even the best news agency can make mistakes. My usual motto is: When in doubt, see what the books have to say on it. From Animal skulls: a guide to North American species by Mark Elbroch, page 490: "There are also cases of female moose growing small antlers. (Bowyer et al. 2003)" The Journal of Mammology in 1990 apparently had an article titled Velvet-antlered female moose by W. Wishard, but I don't have a copy of it. Although old, the book The moose book: facts and stories from northern forests by Samuel Merrill also mentions an account of female moose with antlers. It is mentioned again in Biological exuberance: animal homosexuality and natural diversity By Bruce Bagemihl, (which again references Wishard).

These sources all appear to corroborate the APRN's story. That was just from a few minutes of research, but I hope it helps. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

genitalia

Seen enough?

Ahhh! Too much!!

I took this picture in low light and had to blow it up to make the "subject" clearly visible. Do we want to use this in the article? I dunno. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Beeblebrox. I don't see why not, although the photo is a bit fuzzy. I have a few photos on my user page that I managed to take from pretty close up. A couple show the genitals, although that's not what I was aiming for. I found this guy sleeping on my lawn last year, and managed to wake him up with the following surprised look on his face. (I don't recommend getting that close. They are, apparently, very light sleepers.)

One problem I would watch for, however, is that the article doesn't become overly crowded with pictures. Don't get me wrong, I like lots of photos, until it starts crowding out the text. I do like the little gallery we have in the Social structure and reproduction section, as this does not crowd the text, and allows for many more photos. So I see no reason why you picture would not fit nicely there. Feel free to use any of mine if you like. Zaereth (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

gallery changes

I recently discovered a great image of newborn calves nursing that was in an old camera, and have replaced the first image in the gallery in the "Social structure and reproduction" section with it. I also removed the two images at the end. These were good quality images but the idea of the gallery was to show the development of moose through their first year in chronological order, not to just display lots of nice images of moose calves. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

vehicle collision article error

In the vehicle collisions part it is stated: "... causing the body of the moose to fly up and over the car's hood and ..." This is false. Hitting the legs, thereby effectivle cutting them will make the animal drop down. It will not make the animal fly upwards. A moose body flying upwards would violate Newton's second law. Since the body of the animal may be as high as 5 feet of the ground however, it will drop onto the hood and slide in through the windshield. Driving faster will not help either, since the legs effectivle hooks on to the front of the vehicle, PULLING THE MOOSE BODY DOWN onto the hood/windscreen as the vehicle moves forward. http://www.vti.se/sv/publikationer/pdf/algdocka-av-gummi-for-krockprov.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnilsson83 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Text changed. Reference added. Dger (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Body size and weight

Irish elk/Alaskan moose as largest deer of all time? This information is false, although generally accepted, perhaps due to the massive size of the antlers of the former and its sometime moniker "giant deer". One of your sources is a book by Valerius Geist. I believe it is in another of his books, DEER OF THE WORLD, wherein he states that the broad-fronted moose, ALCES LATIFRONS, could be up to twice as heavy as the largest modern Alaskan moose--or close to two tons--which means up to twice as heavy as the Irish elk as well. This makes it by far the largest deer of all time. Dr. Geist confirmed this for me in an email. Also, any internet search will come up with similar information for ALCES LATIFRONS. When I can, I will come up with an exact citation from Dr. Geist's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotosquito (talk • contribs) 04:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The information most definitely is false. It appears to be a mis-interpretation of the source. The source, [52], is an excerpt from a book called Racks: A natural history of antlers and the animals that wear them.; the chapter is called "Of moose, megaloceros and miracles." What the source actually says is that the Irish elk (Megaloceros giganteus) had the largest antlers of any deer, living or exinct. (14 feet, or over 4 meters!) It does not say that the elk, (or the Alaskan moose) are the largest deer of all time.

Alces latifrons most likely is the largest, which existed in the early to middle pleistocene age; although my only sources are from google books, and so are incomplete. I think it would be interesting to have a short section on prehistoric moose. As far as I can tell, the earliest known example comes from about 2 million years ago, and are called Alces gallicus. Although it was much smaller than its descendent, Alces latifrons, it had a longer rack, consisting of a long horizontal bar ending in palmations, with no tines. I think it would be interesting to have some of the paleontology of moose listed here. That way we would have a place to link to the various species. I found a little info in Morphological Change in Quaternary Mammals of North America but, once again, google book is limiting my access. If you have any better sources, and can help out, that would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the problem, adding a section on paleontology. I hope it meets with both your and Dr. Geist's approval. As far as I can tell, I'm only missing one species, libralces reynoldsi, but haven't been able to locate any useful information about it. If anyone has any info on it, then please add something to the article. Also, both the libralces article and the cervalces article could use some expanding, if anyone feels up to it. (It may be a long while before I can get to them.) Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says, "Behind only the bison, the Moose is the second largest land animal in both North America and Europe." It also says, "The largest confirmed size for this species was a bull shot at the Yukon River in September 1897 that weighed 820 kg (1,800 lb)". But in the article on Kodiak Bears, "The largest known Kodiak bear lived at the Dakota Zoo in Bismarck, North Dakota. Named Clyde, he weighed 2130 pounds when he died in June 1987 at the age of 22. According to zoo director Terry Lincoln, Clyde probably weighed close to 2400 a year earlier." Wouldn't that make Kodiak Bears larger than Moose? I guess it's a matter of comparison, do you compare max weights, or average weights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadsworth (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the author is defining "largest." The largest animal that can be considered, at least partially, a land animal is the elephant seal, weighing upward of 6000 pounds. It is also the largest carnivore, followed by the Kodiak brown bear and the polar bear. Moose are comparable in size to both types of bear, but it may be true that it's the second largest herbivore. I don't know if the author is using average sizes or largest sizes, because there is no source provided for this information. (I hope they're not including captive sizes, which can often consist of overfed, under-exersized animals.) Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

There is a misspelled word in the caption of the last photo. The caption states "Kaliforsky Beach Road, Kenai, Alaska, trees and brush are trimmed along high moose crossing areas so that moose can be seen as they approach the road."

The name of the road is the "Kalifornsky" Beach Road, not "Kaliforsky." You can check it using Google maps if you like. I have driven this road many times.

Thanks for the change.

64.93.120.94 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My bad. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Tame" moose

Other than the Soviet-era attempts, is there any real documentation that anyone has ever domesticated a moose? The image currently in that section is a drawing of a supposedly tame moose pulling a sleigh. I find that highly unlikely and probably a hoax. I can imagine moose on a farm staying inside a fence and being fed in one place like cows, but a full grown bull moose pulling a sleigh? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is extremely unlikely. Moose are not long-distance runners, nor do they have the social characteristics that make horses so easy to work with. Moose are loners and, except during hunting season, they can be quite bullyish and seem to hold grudges. The person in the drawing can be seen holding a whip, which I highly doubt he would've been able to use without some retaliation. Unlike horses, moose are also incredibly flexible animals. I've seen moose scratch their own backs with their hind-legs, and they would have no problem kicking someone right off of their back, which is why you never see anyone riding one. (I've also seen moose stand fully erect on their hind-legs, and spend hours like that, walking around a tree to reach the high-branches. Truely an impressive sight ... I mean, if you think they look big on all fours, you should see a full-grown bull walking on two.)

There is a guy in The Butte, just outside of Palmer, Alaska, that has two "domesticated" moose living on his property. They can't eat hay, like cows and horses do, and it's easier to just let them graze for themselves than to try to go out and procure thre right kind of food. Because tree-shoots are relatively small, moose generally spend all of their free time foraging, just to get enough to survive. There were some pictures on the internet a few years ago, showing a man who hooked a moose up to a plow. According to him, the moose was wild and had been coming around his horses ever since it was a small calf, so he decided to see if he could hook it to the plow, but he couldn't get it to actually pull the plow. That, too, I highly suspect was a hoax. Zaereth (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we should either remove the image or change the caption to indicate that it is almost certainly fanciful. Either one would work for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was real, since the other images in that book seem to be. Since there's doubt, I'll remove it. InverseHypercube 07:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia.fr states, "The domestication of Moose appears to be ancient. The Iakutes of Siberia used it as a draft and riding animal. This use was later forbidden in Russia, as criminals mounted on Moose were leaving the horses of the police behind..."72.94.103.160 (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Do they have a reliable source to back that up? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Only in very deep snow. Sounds like a tall story. Dger (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There are rumours about a squadron of elk cavalry in Sweden during the wars against Russia during the 1600s, but without proper sources I can't say it's a fact. The elk Stolta is well known though, with the picture taken in 1907. BP OMowe (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That does look like an interesting article, any chance you could take a shot at translating its content over here? The machine translation is ok in that it imparts the general idea but it would be better of someone who could actually understand it in its original language did so. (interestingly, it translated the animal's name as "Moose Proud") I guess photography was still fairly new back then, but it drives me nuts that every time we see a picture of an allegedly domesticated moose it is standing perfectly still. If we had an image of a moose actually doing something while hooked up to a sleigh, carriage, whatever it would lend a lot of credibility to the idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

First things first, "älgen" simply means "the elk" (British English since I'm a Swede), while "Stolta" is the feminine form of "Proud". The sources are a bit unclear on exactly how the calf was orphaned (train accident and drowning being the top bets), but it was taken care of and raised by Carl Josef Cederberg and Johan Blad in the Railroad park of Älvkarleö. They trained Stolta to pull carts and lumber, and even participated in the Falun trott race of 1907. In 1909, the park was set under water due to the construction of the water power-plant and hence Stolta was transferred to the Skansen and had her name changed to "Lotta". If you look at the sources for the Swedish article, you'll find a lot more pictures and even some film clips. BP OMowe (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, this actually shows clips of her pulling a cart. Doesn't seem quite as controlled as a horse, but she does indeed pull it and seems to respond to commands. It seems like verification that at least one moose has indeed been domesticated. Not knowing Swedish I am at a loss as to what all the captions said, but the film is fascinating. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Captions as follows:

• The tame elk Stolta in Älvkarleö.
• Compilation Gunnar Ericsson November 2012.
• More than 100 years ago an elk-cow with a calf was hit by the train near Älvkarleö. The elk-cow died, but the calf was unharmed and was taken care of by Anders Jansson and Johan Blad.
• Anders Jansson who were a railroad line-inspector and Johan Blad who were a foreman at the Älvkarleö Railroad park gave the calf the name Stolta and raised her in the park...
• ...where she became a well known attraction. She was for example used to drive tourists between the railroad station, the park and the Tourist hotel.
• Stolta was also used in the work to bring peat and lumber home [from the forest). It was said that she at times got so homesick that she ran back with cart and load.
• Jansson and Blad also used Stolta in their own leisure. In this picture Anders Jansson holds the reins and Johan Blad sit on the [kicksled].

/...lots of pictures and film-clips.../

• Stolta participated in a trot-race on ice, against horses, on the lake Tisken near Falun and won superiorly. Since then there has been a rule about elks not being permitted in trot-race.
• Anders Jonsson who drove Stolta in the race received a prize consisting of grace-cups with the inscription...
• ..."Remembrance of the Wintersport-festivities in Falun 1907 for driving of elk". The prize is still in the possession of Jansson family.
• When the Railroad park was closed in connection to Älvkarleby Hydroelectric Power Station being erected, Stolta was moved to Skansen. Jansson and Blad chose to never visit her.

Caption ends.

Sadly, the compilation isn't a reliable source in itself, but it definitely adds support to the concept of domesticated elks. BP OMowe (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Rewrote the Domestication-part accordingly. BP OMowe (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information on the domestication of moose here "www.moosefarm.newmail.ru/" This site would be a great source, but as of now it is blacklisted, so I can't add it as a source on my edits. On this website, there are two documents that would be very useful for this article. They also include many pictures, including the real picture of the one in the article. I'm a bit confused about the copyright stuff, though. These documents are in Russian, and a Google translate provides a decent translation. One word it can't translate though is losevodstvo (лосеводство), which roughly means "moose-herding". The links are "www.moosefarm.newmail.ru/knorre01.pdf" and "www.moosefarm.newmail.ru/Loseferma_na_Pechore.pdf" Georges Cuvier (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

recent article

about domesticate moose in Alaska [2] Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That is very interesting, although I'm not sure how to incorporate it into the article. I was thinking about this on Christmas Eve, because I was down at the PX on base doing some last-minute shopping, and a guy there was giving moose rides to the kids. I still see Steve the Moose around town. (That's the moose whose mother was hit by a car on Dimond Rd., and he was raised through the winter by the employees at Chili's restaurant.) Zaereth (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Swedes don't put up nets and fences to protect moose, they do it to protect people

These precautions are taken because car crashes involving Moose have a very high fatality rate for the front seat passagers. The way the text about Moose as food looks now it kind of insinuates that the crazy Swedes want the Moose to live so that their fall menus will have the obligatory Moose-dish. Furthermore that's an exageration as well, Moose isn't that commonly consumed other than, perhaps, in nothern Sweden (in which only a small minority of the Swedish population lives). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.61.89 (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, all Elks shot are consumed. My uncles and grandma have like four freezers in the cellar and it is available in the autumn in all food store do have elk meet for sale. Like cow meet but slightly more wilddry in the taste. Excellent meatballs and often housewives are mixing hacked elk meet with beef or pig meet. And steaks are fine.

In Sweden of a population of 9 million 300.000 are registred hunters and 270.000 hunts elk killing 80.000-100.000 elks a year. It is in general seen as recration and office people have an autumn week off in october in the woods. There are more guns per capita in Sweden than in the USA but veryy different type and use.

There are about 6000 elk car accidents a year (1000 dear accidents and 35.000 roe deer accidents and 3000 boar accidents). All major Swedish country road more than 70km/h do have elk fences for very long distances and certain very well signed out areas without fences. The Germans love to knick the elk signs as travelling soverniers. It has been proven that elk fences are the only effetive method in limiting traffic cashulties. Elks are the game that is dangerous to humans crashing into, one should hit the backlegs if not avoidable and even busses and heavy lorries are wrecked crashing elks. Of the others boars are worst to the car, and the wild boar population is growing heaviliy. Estimations says that more boars will be shot soon than elks. In the 70ies there were about 50% more elks and the underground of Stockholm is protected by fences not only from humans but also year calfs being lost in the city. Every second year the police has to go out and shoot an elk in the underground line area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.247.9.228 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

At the end of November 2010 I was in a moose-vehicle collision. I was driving a minivan very late at night with six very intoxicated passengers when the damn thing, apparently alarmed that I slowed down when I saw it, decided to run right out in front of me on an icy road. I have to say, seeing that big bastard come up over the hood and hit the windshield, I was sure it was the last moment of my life. Ironically, he was so huge he didn't fit through the windshield. His antlers broke the passenger window, and he rolled over the van and landed in a ditch on the roadside. To my utter surprise, nobody was hurt, and after three or four minutes of laying on its back twitching, the moose actually got up and ran away albeit with a pronounced limp. I know I was lucky, pretty much everyone in my part of Alaska knows someone who has been killed or seriously injured in such an accident. Near the big cities we also have moose fences on the highways, with one-way cattle gates so they can get out but can't back in the same way. I have no doubt that they are there to protect us, not them. This winter we had unusually large amounts of snow and ice, and in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough they actually employed the never-before-used-in-Alaska tactic of "diversionary feeding" which entails placing food for moose in the forest, away from busy roads. When the snow gets deep they, like us, find it much easier to walk on the road than off it. Unlike us, they do not comprehend that a highway is a stupid place to walk because the cars can go much, much faster than anything they would encounter in the wild. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Moose in Newfoundland

There should be more information provided and a Map change. The Map doesn't show the island of Newfoundland as a part of Moose habitat, but Moose inhabit Newfoundland endemically with 700 vehicle accidents annually. There are well over 150,000 Moose and they are at a 1:4 ratio with Human population (505,000 live in Newfoundland)

I would change it but I don't believe I could do it justice, I'm also unsure of how to properly edit maps or adding more paragraphs to existing sections and adding appropriate citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.239.78 (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Aggression

It seems that the aggression section of the article is almost entirely about aggression towards humans. Would anyone have a problem if I moved it from "Biology and behavior" to "Relationship with humans"? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 21:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a better solution might be to research moose agression toward other animals and expand the section. I have personally seen them act agressively towards dogs, other moose, andblack bears. They have also been known to attack inanimate objects when they are angry but can't identify the cause. There was an incident during the preperations for the Salt Lake Olympics wherein a moose slid down a large portion of the bobsled track. It was so infuriated when it reached the bottom that it stomped a trash can to pieces. I'll see what I can dig up on the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, there was an edit conflict, so I had to rewrite this, but I pretty much agree with Beeblebrox. The way it's written, I personally have no objection. However, I think it is noteworthy that moose are often agressive toward other animals. Moose have been known to charge bears, stomp wolves, and fight each other during rut. Rutting challenges can be very violent, leaving moose with deep cuts on their faces, missing eyes, or, worst case, stuck locked together at the antlers until they die. (Like most other animals, moose seem to go out of their way to avoid wolverine.) There is a display at the Nature Center, at Crow Creek Trailhead, Eagle River, Alaska, describing how the prey is not always the helpless victim. (I know from personal experience that moose, even those that hang out at the dog park and are used to dogs, get very nervous around Germah Shepherds, possibly becouse they look so much like wolves.)Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A common occurance during rut is for bull moose to charge trains.Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was just wondering. I won't have time to rewrite the section because I'm writing an article at the moment, but I won't move it. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 13:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It took me a while to get back to this, but I have added some information about moose aggression towards predators. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

two species

The finnish language wikipedia says there are two species: the european and the other which lives in North America and Southern Asia with scientific name Alces america. Somebody already asked for separate maps for the species, but the answerer probably didn't understand, because there isn't any mention about other species in this article (The last section in Archive 3).
There are two references to that sentence in fi.wiki, #8 and #9. Maybe that information should be added here also. 82.141.127.47 (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide a direct link so we can see those sources? I tried searching moose, elk, and elg and got no results, not even a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, I checked though some of my sources, did a quick check of google books, and could find nothing about there being two species of moose, nor anything about moose in southern-anywhere since the time of Libralces. According to all the books I looked at, there is only one living species, Alces alces. However, they are divided into many subspecies, one of which being Alces alces americanus. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 species. Alces alces is the European Moose; Alces americanus is the American species. Search for Alces here: http://www.itis.gov/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is incorrect. "Americanus" is not a species, but a subspecies. "Alces" is the genus, "alces" is the species, and "americanus" one of many subspecies. There is also a subspecies, "alces," (Alces alces alces, rather redundent, I know), and many other subspecies. However, there is only one species.

You are of course entitled to disagree with the Integrated Taxonomic Information System...there may be other authorities worth consulting, but ITIS plainly lists Alces as the genus (on that we agree) with two species: 1. Alces alces (Linnaeus, 1758) – moose, original, Eurasian Elk; and 2. Alces americanus (Clinton, 1822) – Moose. The IUCN red list adopts the same convention. There are certainly sub species beyond that, but a 2 species model is broadly supported by the molecular data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So it seems to me that the Wikipedia article is simply wrong. In the past I would have fixed it, but I have learned that Wikipedians with more time than I would come in and revert productive changes and explain that I missed the point of the democratic nature of Wikipedia.....I disagree. There are 2 species in the genus; the biology backs it up and there is consensus among the scientific community. But Wikipedia gets entrenched on things like this...it's always a valuable starting point for information seeking, but it's essential to go to the real sources for accurate facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

....SO I fixed it; added the second species; reverted as predicted. It turns out that the same IUCN listed in the box in this very article recognizes the 2 species. Oh well, I guess it's OK for Wikipedia to be wrong. This validates claims of critics everywhere.

The more I read the original question, the more I think it may be about the prehistoric species, Cervalces latifrons and Cervalces scotti, but the article already addresses that, so I'm still not really sure. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

107.3.2.240 seems to be correct that Alces americanus is valid in ITIS.[3] That taxonomy has been adopted in fi:Hirvi (although fi:Alces americanus has not been written). I reverted his/her edit to the lede because the lede is supposed to summarize the content of the article. If Moose#Populations were to discuss Alces americanus, it may be appropriate to include that term in the lede. To do otherwise is to invite confusion. Often, Wikipedia does not reflect the latest taxonomy. For a change to be included herein, reliable secondary sources must be cited. Otherwise, those looking at sources using the older taxonomy will also complain that Wikipedia is wrong. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the frank explanation of the reasons why the Wikipedia community chooses to be incorrect. It confirms what I have been telling my students for years. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please allow me to explain further. My information was based on books which are admittedly not very current, and taxonimy is not my specialty by a long shot. The link you provided above did not say anything about moose. It is my faul;t that I did not take the time to search through a website for the proper page, but is a common mistake if you simply link to the main page. (To me, ITIS usually refers to "get-there-itis," which can be a common cause of aircraft accidents.)

That said, when Wsiegmund reverted your edit on June 16, the reason stated in the edit summary is not that it was wrong or something. Not at all. The reason is that the lede is a summary of the article, so it must match the rest of the article. Therefore, to make this change you must be willing to incorporate it into the entire article, and provide sources cited inline. Then the lede can be altered to match. However, as Wsiegmund stated above, primary sources are usually frowned upon unless there are secondary sources you can also add to back them up. There are good reasons for this; one of the main being that it is easy to misinterpret a primary source unless you have extensive knowlege of the particular field. The other is that Wikipedia is not a news source, and doesn't need to keep up with the latest advances, studies or rumors. We can usually wait until some change seems to be accepted by at least somebody. I have no doubt in the ITIS' authority in the matter, but you may still get reverted unless you can find a book or something like that which has also adopted the taxonomy.

Foremost, Wikipedia is sort of a do-it-yourself place. If you get no response on a talk page after about a month or so, you can probably see that as a green light and go ahead and make the change yourself. (Rarely is someone going to do it for you.) Just be prepared to do it thoroughly, cite your sources inline, and you should not have a problem. By the way, just by commenting here you have become part of the Wikipedia community, so you are more than welcome to make constructive comments or changes that benefit the quality of the article." Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Check it out....2 species, plain as day, and in a secondary source. http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=14200205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.3.2.240 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 October 2012

\"please change Maine moose population estimate of 30,000 to 76,000, based on the 2012 Maine moose population survey."

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Survey-shows-Maine-has-about-76000-moose.html http://www.maine.gov/ifw/licenses_permits/lotteries/moose/index.htm "According to state wildlife biologists, Maine's moose population is estimated at 76,000."

Leodor23 (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Zaereth (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy tag - Range Map

I removed the current infobox range map because the map incorrectly represents the actual range of moose, especially in North America. The Commons talk page lists several significant errors with the map, which have gone uncorrected and no better world map has been generated. My edit was reverted with the justification that "map is farly accurate, an improved version wouldnt hurt, but dont tell us to visit a talkpage where you've posted nothing". First of all, the map is not fairly accurate; as the talk page notes, Newfoundland is not included, nor are the UP or the Yellowstone/Teton area, and yet Seattle, Portland, and the Oregon coast are (there are no moose on the American Pacific Northwest coast). These are major errors. The map is at considerable variance with another distribution map on this page, leading the article to contradict itself. Second, since these concerns have already been voiced well by other editors, it is inappropriate to call me out for not having reduplicated them. In any case, I am doing so now. The map currently gracing this page is incorrect, and the revertion of my removal is unjustified. Chubbles (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reverting your change when you say see talk page yet by removing the map, it becomes difficult to see the now oldish conversation at Commons, where you still haven't posted a comment...and you hadn't yet then posted a single word about it anywhere till now. Now that you have, as I said in my edit summary, a better map wouldn't hurt. If I knew how to generate the map I would.--MONGO 22:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps may be able to help generate a new one.--MONGO 22:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a request at WP:GL/MAP#Moose_distribution. William Avery (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This would be a more acceptable representation of the range in North America? William Avery (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

IUCN map doesn't show Moose in Newfoundland. Perhaps because it is introduced there. See List of mammals of Newfoundland. William Avery (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thats interesting...I wonder if that was done for the purposes of hunting? The period of introduction would seem to support that.--MONGO 23:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no doubt that moose are in fact found there... [4] But I don't know whether the IUCN is basing its data on natural ranges. Chubbles (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe they base it on range distribution on natural occurrences in relatively recent periods. But if indeed the moose is now self-sustaining and well established in Newfoundland, then that should be part of our range map even if IUCN doesn't include it. Some range maps have multiple colors to denote historical and current ranges.--MONGO 16:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So it looks like a revised map with much of the proposed changes is now showing on the page...but when I click on it and enter Commons, the old map is still showing. Is that just an issue on my end? Chubbles (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it's been updated; I've removed my dispute tag, as the changes I've requested have been made. Chubbles (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks good...seems to have the historical and introduced ranges as one color, but that works.--MONGO 00:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

removal of hatnote

There is no "disambiguation" A Moose is an animal, not a political party. If we have to educate the people as to the difference between the two we are in real trouble as a species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ME Researcher (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, please don't do that again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree take the politics about Moose and Global warming out of it. I researched the footnote and found the Robbins I believe left out a critical point. "The solution to the tick problem might be, paradoxically, more moose hunting. “It’s up to the public,” she said. “We could kill more if we want healthy moose.” This person used his or hers political leanings to edit footnote and article. New York Times should never be used as a source.Then they locked the whole article up.I QUIT!!!no more help from Patrick M

please edit: not many moose in Poland

in the distribution sections is mentioned that there are many moose in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Poland. But the table below says that there are only 2800. 84.118.20.120 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2014

please change Birds, carnivores and rodents each dropped antlers as they are full of protein and moose themselves will eat antler velvet for the nutrients.

to: Birds, carnivores and rodents eat dropped antlers as they are full of protein and moose themselves will eat antler velvet for the nutrients.

thank you. I also believe that moose will sometimes eat entire antlers and bone fragments they find in order to pick up more calcium that goes toward antler production, but I do not have a source.

More info on Crash tests would be interesting. Subaru are very popular cars in Alaska, the designers should know and design them to be able to endure moose collisions. Thank you! 75.170.43.93 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I changed each to eat, but you need to provide reliable sources that support the rest of the changes. Cheers, LittleMountain5 06:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Request edit. Typo.

Within the Domestication section there is a typo. At the beginning of the second to last line, it states, "While where has been documented cases of..." Obviously the "where" is supposed to be a "there." Thank you.

Fixed. Dger (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Elk/moose

Although it is uncontroversial that "elk" is the British English term for this creature and "moose" the American, to say that it "is always called a "moose" in North America but usually called an "elk" in British English" is not really correct. As Britain doesn't have them any more and usage of a term probably reflects greater familiarity with North American examples than European continental ones or historical British ones, the American term is almost certainly in much more use overall (though wouldn't be used for those European examples). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutt Lunker (talk • contribs)

I've read this three or four times now and I am not getting what, if any, changes to the article are being proposed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I'm not sure of the best way to phrase this in the article but the current wording is, in my view, misleading. My point is that, in British English, what the creature is in fact usually called is the North American English term (talking, largely, about North American examples), rather than the British English term. The current wording belies this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in that the etymology section needs some rewriting and some better sourcing. Etymology is a big interest of mine, so I may be able to help, but am too busy this time of year. (It'll have to wait until winter before I can get around to it.) The problem is that I've never been to Britain and etymology rarely deals with current usage, so I really have no idea what term they use currently. Plus, names often vary considerably from region to region. (For example, here in Alaska we say "snowmachine," but in most of the rest of America they say "snowmobile.") So my question is, do you have any sources that say this, or at least British sources that use the American name? Zaereth (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a source that states so I'm afraid and it may be a tall order to find on that spells it out specifically. If comparative usage of the two terms in British publications was of use, I'd be very surprised if the term "moose" didn't crop up much more than "elk" but I don't know how one would obtain the stats and to simply extrapolate from them would be WP:OR (wouldn't it?). Just to clarify, I would agree that "elk" is the British term but in ref to British (long extinct) and continental examples (less under discussion then N. Am. ones) and we use your term when referring to yours. The Cambridge Dictionary definition of moose says "(UK also elk)" and the Oxford dictionary "Also called elk in Britain", implying at least some comparative parity of use if not greater familiarity of "moose". Other dictionaries just define both terms, stating one is UK, the other N.Am.. Hmmm. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Well there's OR that is used in writing, and then OR just to satisfy one's own curiosity. In my own opinion, a section on etymology shouldn't really get into modern usage so much as the origins of the term. Give me time and I'll look into it on my end. Zaereth (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the work on the section. From the sentence "Early European explorers...the familiar "elk" (red deer) of Britain" would indicate the term "elk" is/was used for red deer. That is surprising to me but is thus interesting to note if indeed the case. Can you confirm it is so?

This is probably just my misreading but I'm a little unclear about the sentence "The moose resembled the German "elk" and so retained the Anglicized Native-American name". Is "Germanic" intended and if the creature resembled the elk, why would it follow that that name was in fact not used despite this? Thanks again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the sources I've read, "elk" was the term used in Britain for the moose back before it went extinct there. This makes sense, since Old English evolved from the Proto-Germanic languages. When the animal died off there, the term remained, but was used for other large deer like the red deer. (As far as I can tell this was not exclusively used for the red deer, but for large deer in particular. It is not uncommon in English to reuse old words for new purposes, nor to have several word that mean the same thing.)

The wapiti resembled the familiar red-deer to the English explorers. Elk may have been used just because of its larger size, but that is pure speculation on my part. The blame for the naming is most certainly John Clayton, due to his treatise. The moose, on the other hand, was familiar to the English only as a foreign animal found in continental Europe, and the resemblance of American moose to what they called the German Elk did not seem to be established until 1736, and much later was it established that they were of the same genus. I used the term "German elk" because that was what the source used (as opposed to the British elk of the time, which of course was not a moose), which seems to indicate that it was the British term for European moose at the time. I try to go based only on what the sources say and try not to add my own conclusions. I prefer to let the reader decide. Zaereth (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it Mitchinson/Lloyd which refers to the use of the term "elk" for red deer? Your sentence "The moose resembled the German "elk" and so retained the Anglicized Native-American name" says to me that the consequence of it resembling the "elk" was that a term other than "elk" was employed, which I'm afraid I can't fathom. That may not be what the sentence is intended to convey. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I tried to clarify what I meant. Did that help? Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is confusing you. If so, let me know and I'll try to re-phrase it. (I need to sleep right now, so maybe a fresh-start in the mosning will help. Zaereth (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, a useful elaboration though it doesn't address the aspect that I see as rather confusing which is that, to me, it still says "the subject looks like A, which is why it is called B", which clearly would not make sense. Is the intention "despite the subject looking like A, as those encountering the subject were unfamiliar with A they called it the local name, B" i.e. "Though the moose resembled the German (continental European) "elk," as the latter was less familiar to the British, and so those encountering it, it retained the Anglicized Native-American name in North America" (I'm not suggeting this be the actual wording but to clarify the intent )

Regarding the use of the term "elk" for red deer, is that in Mitchinson/Lloyd? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what the book by Mitchinson/Lloyd says. The British moose went extinct, but the term lived on and was used to describe any large deer. (I've also read that in other sources, which I'm still trying to find.) The British settlers/explorers named the familiar "grey moose" elk and named the unfamiliar "black moose" by its local name.

I can see how that sentence would be confusing when taken out of context. When taken within the context of the previous sentence, I meant it to say: The wapiti looked like the familiar "elk" so they named it such, while the moose looked like the unfamiliar "German elk," so (presumably because "elk" had already been used) they used the term "moose" for the unfamiliar species. (The irony is that the moose should have been named "elk" but wasn't, because the British had long before changed its original meaning. Had other Europeans colonized the area, the outcome probably would have been different.)

Let me think about it some more, and I'll try to rephrase it to avoid the confusion you describe. It might be worth mentioning that for a period of about 200 years the colonists had no official name for these animals, but they were called by many different names. No one person seems to have decided upon the names, but it is just something that eventually grew into common usage.Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Nailed it, thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Red deer?

What is this nonsense about red deer being called elk? I have never, ever, come across that usage - outwith Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to modern usage? Etymology is about archaic usage (ie: between the Bronze age and the 1700s the word existed and was used in reference to local deer, but no moose existed in Britain. The red deer was the largest deer.) Zaereth (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm referring to never having heard or seen it used for a red deer in a lifetime's reading and listening.. In English it was and is used to refer to the big things in Sweden and Finland. I am well aware that elk are extinct in Britain, and feel sure that many people in the past would have noticed the complete absence of a giant comical animal that looks nothing like a red deer. DuncanHill (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply going by what the source says. (See the section directly above this one.) I can't base what I write on what "I've never heard or seen" or what I "feel." I simply go by what the sources say. You can also find this in The origin of English names of European birds and mammals or the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture.

So how would a Bronze age people notice the absence of a creature they hadn't seen in a thousand years? It's not like everybody had access to photos on the internet. Sure, people did travel back then, but it wasn't as easy as it is now nor was information about the fauna in other countries as readily available. It took nearly 300 years to just sort out the confusing descriptions of these two species. When studying etymology, it is important to think of the times that people lived in and how they differed from now. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OED does not mention red deer in its entry for elk - and I've not seen it in any other dictionaries (though there is a rather obscure usage which may, but not clearly, imply other species of deer, in an Act of 1541). Have you? I did a fair bit of research on the meanings of elk some time ago for this very article. DuncanHill (talk) 09:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dictionaries primarily deal with modern definitions and are rudimentary sources at best for etymology and ancient definitions. Language is not so rigid that a word will always retain the same usage over time. Have you tried reading some books on ancient languages? Perhaps it would be helpful to examine some of the correspondence of the time. The colonists had many names for the wapiti, to include elk, red deer, grey moose, Canadian stag, wampoose, wakeeshee, and wakeshaw. They had no idea what to make of the moose. Now if they were so familiar with European moose, then why didn't they call American moose an elk? It was not until the early 1800s that people even began trying to give the animals some official name, and it was during this time that the word "elk" was reintroduced in English as being a name for the moose. However, by this time the word "elk" had already become the common name for wapiti in America. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, the term "German elk" as used by the British simply referred to the largest deer of Germany. It was a long time before the British or Americans began to associate the moose and the German elk as being the same species. Most British were familiar with the German elk only from the antlers or from vague descriptions, which was the most common way of comparing deer at that time. Samuel Dale spent quite a bit of time explaining the differences between the two antlers, but not much on the similarities. Few were aware that they had similar snouts, teeth and body shapes. Even after sending live moose back to Britain for study in the 1700s, people still did not make the connection for about a hundred more years. It really wasn't until the late 1800s to early 1900s that official names were given to all of these creatures. Zaereth (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The OED is fairly well-known as being a disctionary on historical principles (you nay have heard of it?) - it actively seeks out and documents the earliest usages. I am not denying that the word elk is used for the wapiti, and moose for elk. I am questioning your claim that elk is (or was) used for red deer. It wasn't, and it isn't. If it had been, then it is most likjely that OED would have noticed. DuncanHill (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary. Like I said, it is a rudimentary source at best for etymology. Better is the Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. It says that in Old Britain there were two words used to describe large deer: Red deer and elk. The Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society says, "the term "elk" was formerly used for any large deer's horns, without their precise identity having been determined." The Researcher's Glossary of Words Found in Historical Documents of East Anglia says that elk was a name applied to large deer, although it was also used as a name for European moose. The book Deer says that the British settlers mistook the wapiti for animals they called elk back in Britain. The book The A to Z of Early North America sys that "elk" was a name given to several large species of deer in Europe.

Even the word "deer" had a very different meaning in Middle English. A deer was any form of wild animal, whereas "cattle" referred to domesticated animals. The word elk means "to defend" and is a reference to an animal with antlers. Zaereth (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@MONGO, yes “it has no references posted” in the article itself but they are laid out above in @Zaereth’s post and they do “support these assertions”, hence my request for Zaereth’s addition of them to the article forthwith. Are you saying “this is not correct” procedurely, i.e. in regard to my adding them back with the fact tag, pending these refs, in which case you may have a point and I’ll not re-add them until Zaereth has had a chance to write up the refs to go with the material, or are you disputing the reliability of the refs themselves, or their content? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Duncan is correct in this instance in regard to red deer ever being called elk except maybe by accident. Elk is derived from the Germanic Elch...a word that describes large deer in general, particularly what North Americans now call the Moose. When English speaking settlers first came to North America they had their first encounters with a deer that was somewhat different and much larger than the native Red Deer found in the British Isles...These settlers erroneously called this new species Elk. North American and eastern Asian Elk have never existed in Europe. I see mentions of sources....do we have actually links?--MONGO 13:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather confused as to what you are saying as it, at least in part, seems to back up @Zaereth. Are you disputing that the sources say what @Zaereth says they do? Or do you have sources which contradict what Zareth's sources say? I'm not sure about the relevance of "North American and eastern Asian Elk (never having) existed in Europe" as I don't think anyone has stated or implied this. Thankfully Wikipedia is not restricted to the few sources that happen to be on the internet or it would be a considerably impoverished resource. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Place isbn, urls and legitimate references in the article itself to support the claims...then it's fine.--MONGO 14:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@MONGO, so you are not disputing the factual aspect but only requesting that the material not be re-inserted until it is fully reffed? In which case @Zaereth, on ye go please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes and no. I am not anything close to knowledgeable as to what 16th century Brits called large deer....it seems to make sense that they may have used the Germanic word Elch as a general descriptive for any large deer, but I concur with Duncan that I doubt that Red Deer were routinely called Elk....except as a misnomer. If the references contradict everything I have ever read about this matter then I'm more than happy to be better educated.--MONGO 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I was initially surprised by this as well by the way. If it makes sense though that elk was used as a general descriptive for any large deer, why would it not be used for red deer, Britain's largest? Or would it be better if the mention of red deer in brackets said "(red deer and fallow deer)" to include both of the larger species, if that is correct? Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys seem to be reading something into the sentence that it doesn't actually say. I never said the word "elk" was ever used as a specific name for the red deer. It appears that it was a word used to describe large deer in general. It may have survived because they heard the word used by foreigners and travelers to describe large deer from other lands, but few seemed to understand exactly what these foreign deer looked like. The red deer was the only local deer they had as a reference point. The word seems to have be used as a generalized term for large deer, not any one deer in specific.

An analogy is the word "dog." In old English, the general word for the species was "hund." The word "dog" referred to a very specific breed of large hund. Somewhere along the line that breed of hund died off, and the word "dog" became the generalized term to refer to any large hund, and eventually to all hunds. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, from looking at dictionaries from that time period, the most common definition of "elk" was: A deer or a hart with large horns and as tall as a horse. That seems to be the best description the colonists had to go on. (It's funny, because you can find this exact discussion we're having in writings all throughout the 1800s.) Zaereth (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others but I'm not reading that into what you've said and it wasn't my impression that anyone else was. As far as I was concerned, the discussion was about the generic use of "elk" for large deer, including red deer, not its specific use for said. If this is indeed supported by the sources as you say I find this interesting, pertinent to the article and would welcome its inclusion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why on earth would anyone have called a red deer an elk when they were already very familiar with red deer and calling them red deer? The wording I object to is the wording which clearly claimed that "elk" was used for "red deer" (and still more unbelievably for "fallow deer"). As for dog - its earliest uses seem to be for Canis familiaris, with the use for an inknown specific hound coming later (as also the still current use for a male Canis familiaris). Usage of elk for "A deer or a hart with large horns and as tall as a horse" would seem to me to suggest that it was being used for such an animal that did not otherwise have a name - so red deer and fallow deer are out of the question. I still cannot find a single usage that applies to red deer or fallow deer. DuncanHill (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the difficulty: for they same reason that someone would use any generic term rather than a specific term. They may have called it generically a hart, an elk or a deer or specifically a red deer. If the term is a generic term for a large deer, as indicated by @Zaereth's sources, if it wasn't employed, generically, for red deer (and/or for the slightly smaller fallow deer) and the European elk was long extinct and thus poorly known if at all in Britain, what was the term applied to initially?

Merriam Webster states "Any of several species of large deer in the genus Cervus,notably the red deer of Europe, the Kashmir stag, and the Himalayan shou, as well as the North American deer more correctly called wapiti." Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've been away for the weekend. Anyhow, here is a direct quote from the book The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European culture, from page 133:

Illustrative of both points two and three is the history of English elk. When the Angles and Saxons invaded Britain from their continental homes, they were familiar with both Alces alces (the ‘elk’ of European English and the ‘moose’ of North American English) and Cervus elaphus (the ‘red deer’ of European English and the ‘elk’ of North American English) and applied those designations to members of the same two species which were also present in Great Britain. By about ad 900 Alces alces was extinct in Great Britain but the loss of local referents did not mean that the word ‘elk’ disappeared since the species was still familiar to some speakers because of its continued existence on the Continent (e.g. Scandinavia, Germany). However, for most speakers the referent was pretty vague, something like ‘large deer’ or the like. By 1600 or so the inherited designation for Cervus elaphus had been replaced by the innovative and descriptive red deer and by about the same time or so the species itself had disappeared from most of southern Britain except for a small number kept for the chase. At that point for most speakers of southern British English there were two terms for large deer, ‘elk’, and ‘red deer’, without well-known referents.

When some of these southern British English speakers emigrated to New England at the beginning of the seventeenth century they came to live in an environment again with both Alces alces and Cervus elaphus and they needed names for both. ‘Red deer’ was not suitable for either since neither Alces alces nor the North American variety of Cervus elaphus was noticeably red. How-ever, ‘elk’ was available and was assigned to the commonest large deer in the new environment, Cervus elaphus, while a borrowing from the local Algonquian language, ‘moose’, was pressed into service for Alces alces.

In terms of Indo-European as a whole this case is probably not the only one whereby a word, relegated to the periphery of the lexicon and to a vague referent by environmental change, was reassigned to a new referent by yet another environmental change. In any case all three of our options pose real problems in recovering really specific evidence for the one and only Proto-Indo-European world.

Does that help? Perhaps the wording should be changed to reflect that the term was indeed not used as a specific name for any one deer, and the name "red deer" is a fairly recent name as well. Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's very helpful. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll give this a little more thought and try to think of a way to rephrase it that is more clear. I usually try to save whatever text that is well-referenced and helpful, but that is often more difficult than writing it from scratch.

A few months ago I had no idea about any of this. The usual explanation that it was an American mistake seemed quite simplistic to me, because the only Americans at the time were Native Americans. However, the deeper I dug the more interesting it became. (I never knew there were no moose in Britain.)

It was not my intention to step on anyone's toes. For the most part I think etymology is usually unnecessary for an encyclopedia, which are about rigid, definable things. Etymology is about words, and language is fluid and constantly changing. In the few cases like this where the etymology is actually notable (because this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary) I generally find it better to dig deeper and look at how the people of the time knew and understood the word, which is often very different from modern understanding.

I'll give this a little more thought. I'm rarely in a hurry, but would rather take my time to get it right. I'm always open to suggestions if Mutt, Duncan, Mongo, or anyone else has some. Zaereth (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Red deer almost extinct in 1600s Britain?

Interesting edits today, thanks, though it's a surprise to hear that in the 1600s the red deer "was almost extinct in Britain". Is that really the case? Is the intention to say that their range had become significantly more restricted? I'd have thought they were never truly near extinction in Britain as a whole, particularly in areas where they currently thrive, such as the Scottish Highlands. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The source actually says Southern Britain, which is probably more accurate, but I was trying not to paraphrase too closely. I am by no means an expert on the fauna or geography of Britain. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Youngest bones in Britain

That the "youngest bones (of moose/elk) were found near Scotland" is an odd way to put it as surely it could be stated where, near Scotland, they were found. Was it in England, near the Scottish border, or in sediments in the sea off Scotland, or what is intended? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. That's the only location given by the source. I suppose it means somewhere north of London but south of Loch Ness, but I didn't dig any deeper, because that would have taken me out of etymology and too far into archaeology. Zaereth (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of that long stretch is either actively "in" rather than "near" Scotland or not near the Scottish border.

Is the source specifically about England, or that section at the least? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The source was talking about the names and just kind of threw that in as a way to show how long they have been extinct there, sort of like I did. I read elsewhere that Caesar described moose in Britain, so they must have had them up until his time, but apparently no younger bones have yet been found. (That doesn't mean that they don't or didn't exist, because all fossil records are extremely incomplete.) Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, from rechecking the source it looks like a mistake on my part. It does say "in south-west Scotland" not near. My mistake. Zaereth (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Mutt Lunker (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you quote the passage that deals with where the bones were found please? Mutt Lunker (talk)

Hello.

I don't know how to edit wikipedia pages but this one doesn't have a link to its french counterpart (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alces).

Thank you to the person who will edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.185.172 (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

Pliny the Elder would not have referred to moose as "moose" as no one from Europe had discovered North American moose yet. Further, moose cannot breed with cattle and the article cited is very old and inaccurate. Scott Windsor (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

 Not done: presumably he was referring to the Eurasian elk. Also, this is a section covering the history of moose, so it is still relevant per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed moose-cattle hybrid sentence.

I removed the following sentence from the article:

Moose have been bred with cattle in the past for food.[5]

A single old, brief provincial newspaper article is simply not an adequate reference for something that has not otherwise been confirmed scientifically. (Albeit, there's an additional reference to this same breeder here, but isn't a scientifically verifiable reference either.) My reading on the topic has turned up only one peer-reviewed journal article on the topic [6], and whether the beast observed in the article was an actual hybrid or simply an unusual cow.

A section on the article on claims about moose hybrids would certainly be a good fit for the article and could certainly include the above material, put in scientific context. There are also (somewhat more plausible) claims of a moose-elk hybrid [7], though as far as I know, there's never been a well-documented cross between a moose and any other artiodactyl.

However, merely mentioning the existence of an unconfirmed moose-cattle hybrid as a single sentence in the section on food uses isn't properly encyclopedic. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015

Please remove "unregulated hunting" from the following section. There is no country or province in North America from the 1990's forward with unregulated hunting of moose. In fact moose hunting is highly regulated in all of North America. No doubt unregulated market hunting in the 1800 and early 1900's may have contributed to population declines of wildlife but those days are long past and this reference unfairly links moose population declines to hunting which is simply not true. If it is true then documentation should be supplied as to where unregulated hunting of moose still occurs in North America. Moose hunting regulations can be obtained from all state, province and tribe wildlife management agencies in North America where moose hunting occurs.

Decline in population Since the 1990s, moose populations have declined dramatically in virtually every part of North America.[30] The exact cause of the die off is not determined, but appears to be a combination of factors, from change in habitat and heat stress caused by global warming, liver flukes, brain worms, unregulated hunting, the reintroduction of wolves, and winter tick infestations.[13][31]

ProfBio (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)ProfBio

Well, the source article in the NYT does specifically use the phrase "unregulated hunting" so I'd rather not just remove it outright, though it's not a very strong reference. My gut feeling is that it's probably referring to illegal hunting rather than unregulated hunting, and the article used imprecise language. However, again, the article does say "unregulated", so I'm not just going to change it either. I'll leave this open for a bit to hopefully get a few more eyes to look at this. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

True, the source does indeed say "unregulated hunting," but I agree that they most certainly mean poaching. I have no problem with changing the term to a better synonym. I was surprised to find that the epidemic is North America-wide. I had not heard of any decline here in Alaska, and source #30 confirms that, saying that populations in the Yukon have actually increased. This directly contradicts the first sentence of the section in question. Zaereth (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So, should we replace "unregulated hunting" with "poaching," then rewrite the section to better reflect the increase in Yukon moose population?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I took a shot at rephrasing to more accurately reflect the meaning intended by the sources, but feel free to change it back if you don't like it. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The New York Times is perfectly capable of making occasional mistakes and we are capable of recognizing such objective mistakes and avoiding repeating them. Unregulated hunting and poaching are not synonymous. In fact they are more often mutually exclusive. Unregulated hunting refers to legal hunting occurring absence of a regulation regime or at the least absence regulatory limits and seasons for that animal. Poaching occurs within regulated hunting regimes, and is the breaking of the regulations. There is no place in N.A. Moose ranges were there are no regulations on hunting moose. The New York Times is describing poaching.73.132.139.167 (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Moose. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150121094634/http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html/ to http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/wolves/story/410461.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2015

Decline in population

Since the 1990s, moose populations have declined dramatically in much of temperate North America, although they remain stable in arctic and subarctic regions. The exact cause of the die-off is not determined, but appears to be a combination of factors, including a change in habitat and heat stress caused by global warming, poaching, the reintroduction of wolves, and the northward migration of warmer-weather parasites to which moose have not developed a natural defense, such as liver flukes, brain worms and winter tick infestations.

The global warming part needs to be removed as scientific data has proven global warming to not be happening.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.219.124 (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)