Talk:Moose/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Addition of moose sounds on the main article page

I added the wording in the article describing the moose's chirping sounds. I am an Alaska Native and have used this knowledge of moose calls to successfully hunt moose. This knowledge is known to me firsthand, and is apocryphal to my Alaska Native culture and several other cultures that live in the moose's range in Alaska. This firsthand knowledge is my source of information for adding this "chirping" wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.8.99 (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aggression

Most of this article is useful. But the section titled "Aggression" feels like it was written by a fourth grader. It first states that moose are not particularly aggressive toward humans. Then in the second sentence it counters this by saying that moose attack humans more frequently than other wild animals. The entire section is poorly written and should be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.75.198 (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As someone that has shot a moose in self-defense I think the section is important but it needs a rewrite. --Weetoddid (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have edited the section to clarify these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I know two people who have been attacked by moose, one of them twice. However, they are both sled-dog racers and the moose were apparently attacking the dog team. In two cases the moose was driven off with no one injured but the intention to attack was clear. In the other incident, the driver had to shoot the moose to protect her dogs and herself. She was very upset about it but moose-meat chili is just about the best food in the world. 76.28.103.69 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Will in New Haven76.28.103.69 (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

maps

I'd love it if we could come up with maps that 1.) Are accurate, 2.) Agree with each other, and 3.) Agree with what we say in the text of the article. The world map shows moose range extending all the way to the southern tip of Korea, which is not true as far as I can determine. And the North American range as shown on the two maps is very different--take a look at the discrepancies with regard to Newfoundland, New England, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Oregon, etc. One map shows moose in the North Slope but not in western Alaska, the other shows moose in western Alaska but not in the North Slope. Anyone feel like tackling a moose-range map project? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

--reply-to 65.213.77.129 - I'm an Alaska resident. I don't believe moose live on the North Slope of Alaska. It is not a species that the natives there traditionally hunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.8.99 (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The main map also does not shade Newfoundland in red. Newfoundland has one of the highest moose population density in the world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.24.243 (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've read this several times, and checked the links you provided, and I still don't see your point. The assessment of importance is based on the individual importance scale of the specific WikiProjects. How is it that you have summarily decided that the moose is of high importance to every WikiProject whose scope it comes under? I don't get it. And I completely don't understand the contention that this is "obscure to a Western audience" but has "high notability in other places"? Could you be more specific please? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Style

This is a good article, but some sections especially the later parts don't seem to me encyclopedic in style, more what you would expect from a field guide. Some of the anecdotes are largely irrelevant, there are too many examples of moose-problems, and in some places, the language is not in formal correct English. Lord Spring Onion (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't edit

There's no option to edit at the top!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisky moose (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note the padlock symbol at top right. Hover mouse over it for a message about locking. It's semi-protected, so no edits by IP or new editors  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "Moose from Colorado High School" references?

To wit:

For other uses, see Moose (disambiguation). For other animals called "elk", see Elk (disambiguation). also moose is a guy that goes to rocky mountain high school

Contrary to popular belief, the Moose was actually named after Nathan "Moose" Kraus, of Fort Collins Colorado, according to Danish etymologist Oliver Mueller.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.175.37 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

question

what are more than 1 moose called? is there a name for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.215.34 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's still "moose" as in "there are two moose over there." Beeblebrox (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction between statements in two sections of this article

In the Social Structure and Reproduction section it says moose are mostly diurnal. Then later, in the Vehicle Collisions section, it says some parts of Canada recommend that motorists use caution between dusk and dawn, which is when moose are most active. Well, which is it? Demeter (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Diet?

I came to this article because my son was asking me what mooses eat. I was a surprised that there is not even passing mention of what moose eat. I didn't even see it mentioned that they are herbivores. I would add that information, but I'm not as knowledgable in this area. AnalogWeapon (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll check the sources for more specific information, but in my experience they will eat about anything that qualifies as a plant and isn't poisonous or spiny. I've seen them strip the bark off of birch and cottonwood trees in the winter. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Record Moose Size

After finding a picture of a moose that looked too big to be real, I started some research to find what the biggest recorded moose actually was. This article (http://www.jerrysbaitandtackle.com/Trophies/Moose/WorldRecord.htm) gives a record size that is nearly double the height, and 500 pounds heavier, than the record that wikipedia gives. I'm not able to confirm the authenticity of this site, but if anyone else can, that would be great. Everingham.Curtis (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The pictures are of an absolutely immense moose, but the claim that it was 15 feet high and weighed over a ton is difficult to believe. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Stolen moose warning signs

The triangular warning signs common in Sweden, Norway and Finland have become coveted souvenirs among the many German tourists traveling in these countries, and authorities have had to issue warnings that it is dangerous and criminal to remove these signs.

It's easy to find serious references in Swedish for such road sign thefts; Google yields articles in Dagens Nyheter and on Sveriges Radio's website, for instance. What's hard to find is a serious reference with a mention of German tourists in particular. That makes sense if you think about it. In urban legend and folk belief, it is the Germans who liberate the missing signs; but do respectable media go out of their way to mock or patronize any nationalities? (Even if most Germans are merely amused by references to their national moose fever?) No, and Wikipedia shouldn't either. So I've removed the Germans, and also the "warnings" from the authorities, which I couldn't locate in any source. And added a little about the expense. And about replacing the moose signs with generic warning signs in some regions (noooo! boring!). Those factoids are covered by the Dagens Nyheter reference I've put in. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Collision with Vehicles

"Although vehicles with higher clearances (such as trucks) are typically immune from this effect"

This is a little inaccurate or maybe incomplete, at least in my experience. I have seen several trucks that had a moose come in through the windshield, in fact I've seen it much more than cars. Although trucks are taller than cars, their bigger windshield makes it easier in a collision. For reference, the steering wheel on a Ford Crown Vic, with the 'tilt' set at the middle of it's range, actually provides less than 12 inches of space between the top of the steering wheel and the top of the windshield vertically. The problem arises when the moose is not hit completely broadside, but rather partially from behind, as if it were turning away from the vehicle. The hit from behind tends to drive the rear of the moose under it's body due to the initial contact being with it's hind legs, in which case the front of the animal goes up into the air. This has different yet related effects on cars versus trucks: On a car, it tends to but the center of mass at or above the roofline, on a taller vehicle, it tends to put in closer to the middle of the windshield. All in all, anything but the tallest trucks provide very little protection in my experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.224.34 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Etymology and naming - unsatisfactory explanation.

I find the current explanation of how this animal came to be called moose quite unsatisfactory. "The word moose first entered English in 1606 from Captain Thomas Hanham Mus and in 1616 from Captain John Smith Moos, with possible mutual reinforcement in usage.[2]" Quoting the definition of the word "moose" in Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. 2nd ed. 1989.

First of all the current statement does not explain how/why the word has come to be used for the animal, which is necessary. Second, the following explanation (found online at http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moose) would appear to be more to the point.

"moose" "1613, from an Algonquian language, probably Narragansett moos (cf. Abenaki mus, Penobscot muns), said by early sources to be from moosu "he strips off," in reference to the animals' stripping bark for food."

I am unsure if the above definition is copyrighted by www.etymology.com and/or if it can be verified independently.

Editorialcomment (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)Editorialcomment, 12/26/2009.

Moose "paradise" blargh

Citation Dr. Valerius Geist:

The Swedes fence their highways to reduce moose fatalities and design moose-proof cars

And that's a theatrical "paradise" animal-lover nonsense. The main reason to fence highways is to save human lifes. An elk (in Sweden they're "elks") collision is usually fatal for the car driver and passengers at highway velocities, as well as for the elk. And they're too numerous, since the predator pressure is too low. Of course we love elks, if they don't become too frank and start to harvest our gardens. Big animals are generally impressive if they don't interfer with humans and plantations. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 09:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about the moose proof cars, but in Alaska we also have fencing on our few stretches of divided highway that are outside of city centers, with one-way cattle gates that allow moose to get out of the highway right of way if they do happen to wander in somehow, but as you say, it is more for human safety. Although there are more than a few Alaskans who are willing to go "hunting" with the front bumper of their pickup truck. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of name usage in article

Going through the article, it was rather confusing to have the switch in terminology between Elk and Moose throughout. Being from North America probably led to more confusion, but I feel that there really needs to be more consistency in the name used throughout the article.

While I understand that Elk is the name used in Europe (I'm assuming that includes the UK), the fact that Elk is also used for a different animal in the english language makes it an ambiguous term. Considering the name of the main article is Moose, I'm proposing that it should be the name used throughout the article. I suppose that European Elk would also be acceptible (versus just Elk), but I'm not sure if that would be misinterpreted to mean a subset of moose. Given my regional bias, I wanted to put this up here for discussion before I made any edits. Jsbrugg (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The naming issue is explained in the lead section. The name of the article is "moose," so we should just be consistent and use "moose" throughout. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Beeblebrox - We can also say Alces alces, if necessary in a particular case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)