ORIGINAL: Schobs
I'm not too familiar with the landscapes of either Alaska or Sweden, but is 100% of alaska able to support moose populations? What I'm saying is the numbers alone can't speak for themselves. If there were supposed to be 2 million moose in Alaska, I'm not sure there's anything anybody could do about it short of major habitat destruction. There wouldn't be any of that in Alaska or anywhere else in the United States would there? Is there such a problem w/ anti's in Sweden? Besides, think about it, moose are relatively large animals, eating relatively large amounts of food each day, Imagine the land mass and vegetation required to support 2 million moose. Alaska is a big state, but it isn't that big. There are way more factors than just the game department's management.
You make an excellent point Schobs. It turns out that neither Sweden nor Alaska are capable of supporting moose populations in 100% of their territories. They both encompass the same latitude range, however, so the numbers are comparable. In 1994, Alaska had an estimated 265,000 moose, so it should at the VERY LEAST be able to support that many. At the moment, they have 100,000 moose. Even if only 25% of Alaska had terrain similar to Sweden, they would be able to support 500,000 moose (Sweden is 1/4 the size of Alaska and has 500,000 moose). The number that is way out of line is the take.
Swedes take 150,000 moose per year. Alaskans take only 7,000.
There is something drastically wrong with this picture, and, trust me, it isn't just moose and it isn't just Alaska.