Thread: Moose

Originally Posted by Trout

Its big unfriendly country down there.Any thing is possible.I'd thort DNA,foot prints,poop,moose hair,game camera photos would have been found by now.?

Yip Id agree wholeheartedly.
While I hope like hell for Kens sake there are moose their, there must be some physical evidence in amongst all that Ribbonwood that categorically defines all the sign that its moose.

Originally Posted by Oscar

If it can pick up kangaroo DNA in Wellington's water from petfood, its chances are better than trail-cams by a margin.

That is because your waste water is channeled out in very predictable and easy to monitor egress points.

I drank a beer called moose drool once, well more like a stout actually....my point about moose drool though is that saliva (DNA) should be on those stripped branches.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

That is because your waste water is channeled out in very predictable and easy to monitor egress points.

Could simply enough id similar points in the catchment, especially where water pools for example, even wallows. And if need be, at periods of low flow.

Cant claim to be any sort of expert in it but have been lucky enough to ask those questions of someone who is.

Originally Posted by Oscar

If it can pick up kangaroo DNA in Wellington's water from petfood, its chances are better than trail-cams by a margin.

You’d hope test info like that would result in those responsible checking on standards in retirement homes?

Originally Posted by Oscar

There is now a very effective technology that beats trail cams hands-down: environmental DNA https://www.epa.govt.nz/community-in.../what-is-edna/

Take water samples at the bottom of catchments. Quick, simple, effective, doesn't need a moose to be at a given spot at a given time (as a trail cam does), can do multiple areas simultaneously. Could go straight in when there is a 'credible sighting' and check, not wait 6 months to get trail cam results.

I'm really surprised they haven't done it.

Theres definitely limitations to EDNA, it really only works well with a higher population of the organism you are trying to monitor, or that organism is located very close to your sample point.

Definitely a numbers and scale game.

I use it a fair bit for work for the reason you describe but I would think in this instance it might not be super effective.

Also, you would have to get the genetic sequence of the species of moose uploaded into the Wilderlab database so that it would flag in the testing.

I have had false positives come up for certain species of interest owing to their relatedness to other species i’m not looking for that were in Wilderlabs system, which required a bit of adjustment at Wilderlabs end.

All that said, its another tool in their toolbox.

I have a bit of moose antler I can send you if you can input it into your data system

Originally Posted by hebe

Theres definitely limitations to EDNA, it really only works well with a higher population of the organism you are trying to monitor, or that organism is located very close to your sample point.

Definitely a numbers and scale game.

I use it a fair bit for work for the reason you describe but I would think in this instance it might not be super effective.

Also, you would have to get the genetic sequence of the species of moose uploaded into the Wilderlab database so that it would flag in the testing.

I have had false positives come up for certain species of interest owing to their relatedness to other species i’m not looking for that were in Wilderlabs system, which required a bit of adjustment at Wilderlabs end.

All that said, its another tool in their toolbox.

Yes it can miss the obvious. We started using it in our catchment last year. We were surprised at the results of just how much stuff it picks up. However the greatest surprise was the lack of goat DNA despite them being known to be present in reasonable numbers on a property which has streams feeding into the river above the sample point.

Maybe I’m just older and more cynical but I think the only proof that would be accepted nowadays is if you put one on the ground. You might cop a lot of flack but the evidence would be irrefutable. Let’s face it, they’re genetically so inbred now, you might just be doing them a favour.