Jump to content

Talk:Moose/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Mistaken distance

The article says that the moose's grunt is heard 500 kilometers away and it refers to a source... but I checked the source and it says really only half a kilometer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.250.209 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

moose in NZ

re: moose in NZ.........some attribution please.......i've never heard any mention of this before.

This may be worth a read: Status of Moose in New Zealand; K. G. Tustin Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 199-200Dmccabe 03:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Is the connection between a horse-breeders' association EMBLEM and the moose antler pattern meaningful enough to warrant a mention in the article on moose? It *might* be meaningful on the article on Trakhener, with a link to moose, though I kind of doubt it. --MichaelTinkler

the places to see are a bit precise are these the only places in N.Am. needs merging with Elk

Cross-breeding hoax

"Moose are related to cattle and have been crossbred in Canada."

This seems highly improbable; they are classified in different families (Cervidae, Bovidae respectively) - can anyone confirm any details? - MPF 15:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The supposed birth of a "moose-horse mix" foal was a topic of news reports in Canada (it was on "As It Happens"), but of course later on the same radio program admitted that this is physically impossible, and the farmer who reported that unusual foal was, at least, mistaken about its parentage. Vmenkov 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Domestication

In Russia moose are common and are often ridden as a substitute for horses.

This too seems highly improbable. Can anyone verify it? Because I can't find anything about this, except in tall tales and jokes and such. —No-One Jones 20:52, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

No, it's true. I've talked to several Russians before. They say that riding a moose is safer, in forests at least, than a horse, because other moose will not attack other moose, but they will attack and kill horses. -Alex 12.220.157.93 19:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess the Russians you talked to was pulling your leg. Where I live (Norway) there is a very large moose population and horses has been used in foresting and transportation since the bronse age, today horseback riding is very popular as sparetime activity, but I have never heard anything about moose atacing horses. It is a fact however that a moose cow will charge any human who comes between her and her calf.. Back to the moose-riding, I have heard that the swedes tried to train battle-moose in the 17th century, but had to give up beacause it was impossible to make a moose run towards the enemy. They were exelent for fleeing thoug..;)--Njård 09:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there have been fairly interesting (though small-scale) domestication experiments done at a couple of sites since 1949 at least, with plenty of articles published. I have put that into separate articles (Pechora-Ilych Nature Reserve, Kostroma Moose Farm), and linked them to a small separate section in the main Moose article. Vmenkov 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What a joke. According to the Soviet truth a miracle man named Homo soviecus was able to do anything but riding with mooses. Hah,hah,haa. I just wonder from where is the information of Gustav Adolf II moose cavalry in 1618 - 1648 planned to participate The Thirty Year War in Germany. In stone age peharps one of my ancestors hunted the Alces latifrons ancient Giant Moose (Hirvi) the same time when they hunted Mammoths and Wooly Rhinocerons about 11.000 BC north of Altai mountains and all the time moose is called by one of its eldest names up to 2008 AD and it is still named Hirvi (Alces alces alces). Old Prussians named it Elk. There was a German town in former German Province of East Prussia named Lyck up to 1945. Today again Polish Elk.

I have found a photograph of a moose being used to pull logs in Minnesota by Bob Moss at http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.schooloflogbuilding.com/newsletter_files/image002.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.schooloflogbuilding.com/newsletter.htm&usg=__9k0psU6jlVXstcxpRT-AYRPqiMI=&h=384&w=575&sz=55&hl=en&start=23&tbnid=mCx5exCqGyfr2M:&tbnh=

I'm no expert but the photo does seem genuine.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Screwed up summary

The oppening summary and the box that shows the scientific classifiction of a moose seems to be really out of whack, but i am not proficient enough at editing to fix it plus im short on time, but if anyone could try it would be a dandy.

"Germans fascinated by moose warning signs"

Why? PeteVerdon 14:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's really a good question. I think the animal is exotic to Germans, probably the most exotic animal they are likely to encounter on a one- or two-day car trip in any direction. The fact that such exotic animals actually wander out onto the roads is probably slightly absurd. If I traveled by car in the wilderness of Australia and saw a Kangaroo crossing sign (if they have those), I would be rather tempted to bring it with me as a souvenir. Except that it is probably more difficult to smuggle a stolen traffic sign in the luggage from Australia to Europe than in the trunk of a car from Sweden to Germany... up◦land 16:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

They do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo#Kangaroo_traffic_sign Atomic1fire 03:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Moose Distribution Map

I'm curious to know why Newfoundland is not shaded red on the map...the moose population on the island is absolutely enormous.

- Because every part of the highway is dangerous with moose crossings -

Umm, that's true, but does it specifically state the map only shows locations where moose are native to the region? It's called the Moose "Distribution" map, isn't it? I assume that would include wherever Moose happen to live, native or not. Crabbyass
The map excludes Newfoundland from the range inhabited by moose, yet the article clearly states that moose are the dominant ungulate there. The article is correct, not the map.Silverchemist 01:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So why dosn't someone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.168.216 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moose and airbags

I hear that the rather spindly legs of moose frequently do not trigger airbags thus making collisions even more lethal. Any truth to that? Also the local lore where I live is that moose are attracted to the road salt used to keep ice off the roads. That sounds totally plausible, but I am unaware of any studies confirming it. There was a moose hanging out in the burger king parking lot a couple of years back; magnificent animal, and hopefully avoiding the fast food:) Finally, I could not resist popping in that piece on "a Moose for Jessica"; great little book!Dmccabe 03:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

many animals are attracted to salt licks. some hunters, predominantly in the United States, use a block of salt to attract deer/moose to their tree stands so they can have a shot. I am a hunter and do not use this method (I consider it cowardly and removing the whole purpose and challenge of hunting, and in some places it is illegal) it is well known. many non-hunters place salt blocks in their back yards to attract deer in the winter, as it is an easy source of the nutrients they need. so I do not doubt that Moose are attracted to the road salt.

--Jadger 13:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Airbags are set off based upon acceleration sensors, not crush sensors. the act of stopping rapidly deploys them. Hitting a moose side-on however raises the distinct danger of them toppling over the hood and coming down across the windshield area (size of moose & car dependent).

--CowMan 05:30, 04 April 2007 (UTC)


I: think you should add something about how moose DO have hind-leg joints after the naturalist entries (Ceasar, etc.). This was just a mistaken notion - right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.156.194 (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

distinctions from Caribou

I was reading a book called Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer which is about a young man who goes into the Alaskan brush to live by himself (excuse the poor summary, google it). But anyway, while living in solitude, he shoots and kills what turns out to be a Caribou (which is concluded from remains from his campsite). However, the young man misidentifies the animal as a Moose in his journals.

Anyway this error sparked my interests and got me to thinking about what the actual difference between the two animals is. Perhaps someone with more time than myself could write a little section on distinguishing characteristics of the Moose from Caribou. From my quick scanning, all I could find was the greater size of the Moose.

Perhaps I might be getting ahead of myself in thinking that this is important, but I'm sure that if I was to identify a Moose or a Caribou, I would be lost.

I hope I'm not being redundant by posting this in the Talk:Reindeer(Reindeer are another name for Caribou) too.

Thanks in advance!

Teimu.tm 21:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is great difference between a moose and a caribou: One weighs nearly half a ton and is seven feet tall and the other is closer to five feet tall and has antlers on both sexes.
Moose have thicker bodies, longer legs, an obvious hump and an ugly face with an arked nose and are rather big animals. Caribous are plain Santa-Claus reindeer, they just are Canadian not European.
I have believed Santa Claus is connected with Reindeers because the old fellow who appears ones a year into the scene have his under earth work shops where little Tonttus make gifts to nice children at Korvatunturi (Ear Artic Hill) in Finland´s Lapland. But of course there is now rised question of his origin because the Russians in Murmansk area are claiming that the work shop is actually on the Russian side of the border. But it does not bother, because their Frost Elder starts his annual tour two weeks later than Finnish Joulupukki literally Christmas Buck but usually called Father Christmas using his poropulkkaand speeds away all around the world with his reindeers during Christmas Eve giving space for the Russians Frost Elder.

Sounds

How about including a sound of the moose.

Native?

Where are "MOOSE" native to.

Average age of moose

A note on the age to which moose live to should be added to this page. Alan Liefting 04:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Done (15 - 25 years, BTW) KarlBunker 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

plural of moose

what is the plural form of "Moose"? is it like goose/geese? or is it mooses? just one question I've always wondered, and the dictionary doesn't answer it.

--Jadger 13:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The plural is "moose". One moose, two moose, red moose blue moose. "Hokey smokes, there sure are a lot of moose in Maine!" :-) KarlBunker 13:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
well maybe we should change it, I like the sounds of "meese". what do ya think? just kidding, but seriously, maybe that should be put in some trivia/myths section at the bottom like in other articles.
--Jadger 19:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Goddam vandals

Some moron has edited it to change all plural moose to meese.


Moose in Europe?

Some questions from across the Atlantic about the European moose: it's former range seems to encompass a good deal of land, from Norway to about Germany. In the past it was a matter of lack of space that kept the big animals from returning back to their native range, but now that seems to be changing. Why haven't individual governments tried to reintroduce the moose and other beasts like it? From where I sit (New England USA) it looks like there is room in say, the Scottish Highlands or the Black Forest....and the population density is similar to here....

Two swedish elks will be sent to scotland sometime soon in an attempt to reintroduce the species there.Narayanese 10:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Elk or Moose

Shouldn't we make clear what is the name of the species in English? I mean every elk in North America is a Moose, sure, but I would claim that the name of the species in English is "Elk". Certainly, that is not the word commonly used to indicate the animal in or from North America, unless one has to be sure to indicate the species and not just the subspecies from North America, but still, this article doesn't function well, Elk (deer) should be the main article about the species, while Moose should just cover the American animals, in my opinion. ThW5 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That depends on your perspective, I suppose. Approximately 400 million English speakers in North America call the animal "Moose". How many English speakers actually call this animal "Elk"?
And then, were we to use "Elk" we'd get into a similar discussion regarding the wapiti, would we not? Now, I suppose one could argue, from the perspective of precedence, that the trivial name is really "elk." I have a good deal of sympathy for that argument. In the end, though, it serves us to remember that these are trivial names we're talking about so, personally, I don't really care. — Dave 12:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Do they call the ANIMAL SPECIES "moose", or do they call the NORTH AMERICAN ANIMAL "moose"? About the wapiti you are dead wrong, it being called elk is simply the most well known example of a process that made the word elk refer to giant deer and sambars as well, and gave us the eland in Africa.
In almost every other English-speaking country, "moose" is used to refer only to the North American Alces alces, while "elk" is used to refer to European Alces alces and the species in general. So "moose" is used as an America-specific term, while "elk" is the general name for the entire species in everyday conversation. I grew up in New Zealand, and have found this to be true throughout the Commonwealth countries, though I don't know about Canada, since it's so close to the U.S. 24.116.151.23 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth
No, they call the ANIMAL SPECIES "moose". I can guarantee that any one and every one of those 400 million English speakers, if travelling in Sweden and a member of the species Alces alces jumped out in front of them, would call that animal a "moose". You truly don't think differently, do you? — Dave 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
"Every elk in North America is a Moose"? Just the opposite. Every Moose may come to be an elk based on scientific terminology, but in North America, Moose and Elk are never confused, and there is a big difference. This article needs a clear decision regarding which term to use. The alternating names are both confusing and annoying. Since the title of the article is Moose--I think that name should be used throughout. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.194.126.157 (talk • contribs).

Minor edit: the group 'is' (not are) called....Dmccabe 02:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article should be changed to use either Elk or Moose, but not both alternatingly. Obviously as a north american, I prefer Moose, which has the added benefit of being unambigious, but even Elk always is better than the current alternater. WilyD 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. It currently, for the most part, uses "elk" when European locations are being referred to, and "moose" for all other references. This seems appropriate to me; it should only cause a problem with readers who skip the introduction that tells them that the two words (usually) refer to the same animal.--KarlBunker 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That may be (though I'm not convinced) but it does contradict the manual of style, pretty needlessly. WilyD 23:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear All, can I clarify something from a European perspective? Elk is sometimes mistakenly used to refer to Moose. Moose are indigenous to Norway, Sweden and Finland, Elk are not. Part of the mistake is false transliteration. In Swedish 'Moose' is Älg which sounds similar to Elk and is therefore sometimes wrongly translated as Elk. In German it is 'Elch'. In Scandinavia the Moose is probably related most closely to the caribou (Reindeer or 'Ren' in Swedish) both being of the Odocoileinae sub-family of Cervidae. At no point should Elk be used to refer to Moose. 130.237.175.198 10:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really clarify anything. Here's the etymology of the word 'elk' - late O.E., from O.N. elgr or O.E. elh, eolh, or possibly M.H.G. elch, all from P.Gmc. *elkh-, related to the general word for "deer" in Gk. and Balto-Slavic, from PIE *ol-/*el- "red, brown" (in animal and tree names) perhaps with reference to the reddish color (cf. Skt. harina- "deer," from hari- "reddish-brown"). This means, to clarify, that the English word 'elk', which stems from the same word as the Scandinavian word, was used to describe elk/moose long before the American continent was properly settled by Europeans. I find it hard to believe that the peoples of Britain would use the word 'moose' to describe elk before they came into contact with the indigenous tribes of America! Grumpy444grumpy 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I see your point Grumpy: I'll try again! Elk and Moose are different species. In Sweden, there is sometimes confusion due to the similarity between the English word Elk (Cervus canadensis) and the Swedish word Älg (=Moose or Alces alces). This is typically manifested in restaurant menus. Having helped translate a few I base this statement on experience.130.237.175.198 11:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Menu-Translator, you are unfortunately getting confused between the English word "elk" (Alces alces) and its divergent use in America to refer to a separate species of deer (Cervus canadensis). In other English-speaking countries, the word "elk" refers to the species Alces alces, which is called "moose" in America. The Swedish word "Ӓlg" and the English word "Elk" are both descended from the Proto-Germanic "Algiz" (along with many other European cognates) and refer to the species Alces alces. In America, however, the European settlers later applied the term "elk" to the species Cervus canadensis and called their Alces alces by the native term "moose". This has created a great deal of confusion, as evidenced by your own. In every English-speaking country but America, the term "Elk" means the same thing as the Swedish "Ӓlg". Only in America are elk and moose different species. When you translate "Ӓlg" as "Moose", it is really a translation into specifically American English, not Common English (although other English speakers will still understand what it means). 24.116.151.23 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth
If by "every English-speaking country but America" you mean "every English-speaking country but the United States of America," you're wrong. In Canada, too, Alces alces is "moose" and Cervus canadensis is "elk." The web page of Jasper National Park, for instance, lists "elk, deer, moose, caribou" as being among the wildlife in the park. Same goes for the site at Mt. Robson Provincial Park. And the list of game species at Alberta's provincial government site. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
An Elk is NOT a moose, they are not the same, look up elk on wikipedia and you will see the difference. picklefishman auguast 18, 2007

In Greece we call it "Άλκη" (Alki) that propably derives from the roman word or from the exact same word (Άλκη - ancient greek) that also means physical strength. Propably the greek name derives from the fuse of the celtik "elk" (known to greeks by the romans, we only have Red, Roe and Fallow Deers here) with the indigenous word for strength (that could be represantive for the second biggest mammal of Europe at the current time). Only Americans call the elk "moose" (propably a sound-immitating word) the rest of roman-influenced countries that are somehow familiar to the animal call it "Elk". After all Americans "discovered" that species way after the Europeans had given it a name... What sounds more fair to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.23.158 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that the use of the word "elk" for Cervus canadiensis should be dropped, in favor of "American Wapiti" or "Canadian Deer" or something like that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.23.158 (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style promotes using British spellings (which I would extend to British terms) when discussing British subjects and American spellings (as before) when discussing American subjects. It also always favors consistency and maintaining the style of the original author (who preferred "moose"). From this I would suggest changing to moose throughout, with the exception of the Popular Culture section which refers to perception of the Moose/Elk in national contexts, and any other bit that refers to the Moose/Elk in a specific geographical range in depth. There, the preferred term of that nationality should be respected. This note especially regards the first bit in the Popular Culture section about Sweden and Norway, which uses moose and elk interchangeably and confusingly; this should be standardized. Somerut 23:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many of the early Brits who colonised the Americas weren't scholars. When they saw a meleagris gallopavo they tought it was a helmeted guineafowl, which was called a "turkey-cock" back home (they later dropped the "cock" part, not realising that Turkey was the name of a country); when the Indians (mistakenly called so by the equally ignorant Columbus) introduced them to maize they started calling it "Indian corn" (and later dropped the "Indian" part); and when they first saw a cervus canadensis they started calling it "elk", as it was much larger than any deer they had seen at home - but some of them had heard of a very large animal with antlers called elk, "so that's probably what it is". Consequently, when they eventually saw their first alces alces (the true elk), they adopted an Indian name for it, as they had already decided that "elk" was something else. Today, their ancestors regard their variant of the English language as the only true English (the English spoken in England they call a "dialect"), and they regard their beliefs as the only truth. As they have also invented the nuclear bomb and have more military power than the rest of the world put together, we probably have to humour them and accept some of their misconceptions... Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Try to remain civil. Not only is "moose" the name for the species in the US and Canada (two countries that, taken together, comprise well over half of all native English-speakers and are the only Anglophone countries to which the species in question is native), but it also appears to be widely used for the European animal. For instance, the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management uses "moose" rather than "elk" in their English-language materials online, as does the Swedish Ministry of Agriculture's Hunting and Game Management page. The analogous Finnish government site does, however, call them "elk." 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That could be because alot of at leat swedish dictionaries translate Älg to both elk and moose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.121.47 (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In Denmark, Norway and Sweden Alces alces is almost always called Moose in English. Elk is hardly ever seen, because it is not used for Alces alces and we don't have Cervus canadensis. Cervus elaphus is referred to as Red Deer. --Honymand (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Should add though that my (rather old) printed dictionary indeed states that Moose is American English (only). Probably Elk is a word now lost to many non-native English speakers. --Honymand (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

can i put more pictures on?

Can i because if i can i will but it will be on the talk page. Call of duty 08:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Personally, I'm getting sick of all the stupid vandalism this page gets on a daily basis. I'll admit, some of them are kind of funny, but still...just look at the page history and you'll see how many edits are "reverts" of stupid vandal edits. Should we request this article to be semi-protected via Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy? --Crabbyass 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Moose

The moose in south eastern Wyoming can, and do "graze" on mushrooms growing in the grass, so I would suppose that they could graze on the grass itself if they wanted. The females and calves also have a bell that hangs from their neck. Perhaps it's not as big as on a bull, but I've seen them at least 8"-10" long. Do you know what it's purpose is?71.208.45.169 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that point that they can't graze due to the shortness of their necks didn't make any sense, so I removed it. I've seen moose get their faces close to the ground plenty of times. It may be that they can't digest grass, and so can't "graze" in that sense, but I don't know about that. KarlBunker 17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Kostroma Moose Farm site [1] (created by a a biologists who worked with these animals animals, and takes good pictures too) says that the moose won't eat hay, but they (at least young calves) love clover. He has pictures of both the adults and calves browsing in a flower field. Vmenkov 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Name documentation citation?

Though I fully agree the English word "moose" came from an Algonquian language, I'm curious where the translation of "twig eater" comes from. For example, in the Anishinaabe language mooz(-oog) is "moose" and one group of the words for eating do have a /mo/ in them (amo, "eat somebody"; amodiwag, "eat each other"; gidamo, "eat all of somebody") but "eater" would change the initial syllable vowel where typically to a long vowel that would not experience syncope, the participle typically would be indicated by /-dy(ig)/ and not /-zw(og)/, and even with a suffix the /mo/ would not become /moo/. In addition, the word for "twig" is wadikwan(-an) and not found in the name (though it might have been at one time, but if so, there might have been evidence of this imprinted onto English, but it wasn't). Maybe in search for this answer, a more specific Algonquian language origin would be found. CJLippert 01:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I am no linguist, I think the best guess for which Algonquin language the word "moose" came from might be from Wampanoag, possibly Narragansett. (These are the tribes that the Puritans had for neighbors.) Taking a look at history (and a map), there are other tribes of northeastern North America only other European group I can think of that would have seen a moose in Alqonquin territory were the French, but the word was not absorbed into French Canadian (ruling out a few other tribes and certainly ruling out the Maritimes, where the animal is not native.) Shadowcat60 09:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the Cuoq's Algonquin Dictionary, the word is there as "monz-ok" and there he defines the word as "élan, original"... and for many of the derived words he uses "original" and not "élan". So, at least in southern Quebec, he was aware of the existance of the illusive "moozoog". Maliseet word is "mus-uwok/-ok"; Eastport, Maine is called "Muselenk". It seems the Maliseet word is just means "moose", and many of the moose-derived words are identical in meaning as in Ojibwe (Mal: "musumin" = Oji: "moozomin": currant). It seems in Lenape, the word "mos" is a general term to mean "elk, cow", and used much like the way the Algonquin uses and eastern Algonquian languages use "atik/adik" and Ojibwe-Saulteaux uses "bizhiki". Now here is something interesting, though, the Lenape word for "calf" is "motit" and not "mosis", so maybe the word was with /-dy(ig)/ that changed to /-zw(og)/? CJLippert 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm entering this discussion many months later, but I'll add that I'm not sure "twig eater" is a probable meaning of the name. -ooz(w) occurs in a number of animal names in Ojibwe (e.g., waabooz, rabbit (with waab-, "white"), omashkooz, elk (with omashk-, "bog"??), etc.), and evidently in other Algonquian languages as well (I believe the Proto-Algonquian form was *-ōswa (since "moose", iirc, was *mōswa)). As far as I'm aware, there's no identifiable further meaning, besides "[derives names of animals]" (J. Randolf Valentine, in Nishnaabemwin Reference Grammar [University of Toronto Press, 2001] glosses it as "animal" [pg. 490]). And m- on its own doesn't mean anything that I'm aware of either.
However, the Online Etymology Dictionary does say of "moose": "said by early sources to be from moosu "he strips off," in reference to the animals' stripping bark for food." I'm not sure which sources those are, though.
As for the language "moose" comes from, Marianne Mithun (in The Languages of Native North America, Cambridge University Press, 1999) says it's Narragansett (pg. 4). The Online Etymology Dictionary also says "probably Narragansett". The American Heritage Dictionary and Dictionary.com, however, suggest the source is Eastern Abenaki.
In any case, since the Online Etymology Dictionary gives "he strips off" as the translation, I think "twig-eater" should at least be removed from the article for now, since no one ever did end up providing a reliable source for that translation. I'll check what the OED says tomorrow, if I remember. --Miskwito 05:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I checked the Oxford English Dictionary, and it just says: "< Eastern Abnaki mos < Proto-Algonquian *moswa, in later use prob. reinforced by or reborrowed < the identical word in southern New England Algonquian languages, e.g. Narragansett moòs." (the PA form the OED gives is wrong; as I said above, the vowel was long, so it should be marked as long in some way, e.g. *mōswa or *mo·swa or mo:swa...). --Miskwito 09:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Moose Cavalry

Would someone please cite a source for this? It's wonderful, we know, but we should give references for something so unusual if its not some sort of Swedish urban legend. Wilhelm Ritter 05:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This story is repeated all over the net. I cannot for even a moment imagine anyone riding a moose and surviving. I suspect the 'story' lacks literature support because there is no such literature; but I'd love to be proven wrong, because it is a great story.Dmccabe
See Charles XI of Sweden; it was already there. I first heard it in UseNet long ago, in soc.history.what-if which had a fair number of people who'd be all over you if you mis-created something; actually I remember that somebody brought it up as a what-if, and there were responses that it had in fact been attempted by the Swedes; it was only tonight that I found the Charles XI ref, and it's alrady on that wiki page by someone else; hadn't seen the bit about them being too fast for horse-mounted police to catch moose-riding thieves, but that's a cute angle. In soc.history.what-if the facts brought forward, by someone others would have been all over if they weren't facts, provided fuel for some tactical what-ifs; empire built on the battlefield might of trained, armoured ungulates....cool, but it didn't work out; hard to breed in large numbers, and also to keep up a steady supply of tonnes of lichen and moss adn other veggie what-not every day; impossible to use on the steppe, for example...(Charles XI's successor was the guy who ravaged Poland and the Balkans for a while before miserable exile in Constantinople). Sounds to me like a Swedish part of Wikipedia might be able to have someone actually find the history and provide the cite; if there isn't, it's a web myth; if not, it's rather fascinating doncha think?Skookum1 08:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  ..ehm not the balkans (jugoslavisa and neighbours), the baltic region,Estonia and neighbhours. And I wouldn't call Protection swedish territory ravaging... :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.121.47 (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, if moose could be ridden, I would imagine that someone somewhere would be doing it today. Is anyone aware of such moose riders? Also, I could believe that Charles may have tried to domesticate moose, but I think fantastic claims need support support before being added to a credible encyclopediaDmccabe. Still unsupported, so I took the liberty of removing the statement.Dmccabe 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the Swedish page on Moose there was an unsucessful attempt to form Moose Cavalry (it is implied that this was due to a shortage of horses) during the reign of Gustav II Adolf. There is no citation however:

"Under Gustav II Adolfs regeringstid gjordes försök att tämja älgar för krigsmakten som behövde riddjur till det 30-åriga kriget som rasade på kontinenten. Detta misslyckades dock."130.237.175.198 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Moose on the Loose

I believe the "Moose on the Loose" campaign which was run by the city of Toronto should be listed in the Trivia section. Roughly 50 fiberglass moose I believe were purchased, painted, and put on display throughout the city as a way of attracting tourists. Afterwards, the majority of them were sold for charity. Canking 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Geographical distribution

The geographical distribution map in this article indicates that the animal spreads all over Russia, Mongolia, northern China and to the Korean Peninsula. I'm not sure about the former three, but am absolutely certain no wild moose/elk lives in Korea, at least not in the south. The map should be corrected to reflect this. --Himasaram 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The map excludes Newfoundland from the range inhabited by moose, yet the article clearly states that moose are the dominant ungulate there. The article is correct, not the map.Silverchemist 04:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Venison

Three times my edit has been reverted when I tried to mention venison in the trivia section. Why aren't moose as a food worth at least one sentence in this article? --24.235.229.208 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Moose are good eatin'." is not encyclopedic writing. KarlBunker 14:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nor does it belong in the "Trivia" section of the article. Look, there's already a venison article that says that moose are edible. This should be good enough until you can figure out an encyclopaedic way of working a link to the venison article into this one. Random interjections into this or any other article, however, will be removed without hesitation. Dave 14:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Moose Have Horns

Moose have horns —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.216.132 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

No, Antlers should never be confused with horns. Only true cattles have horns. Watch these videos, and you'll find the clear difference btw the 2:

(links removed)

See? Huge difference, right?

State animal.

The moose is NOT the Alaskan state animal-the willow ptarmigan is. ~~Equusryder 3.19.2007~~

Name outside North America and Europe

Out of curiosity, what do Anglophones outside North America and Europe (i.e., people in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Caribbean, etc.) call this animal? Elk? Moose? Something else entirely? Funnyhat

I may be wrong but I was under the impression that it is where the animal is from that affects naming, not where the speaker is from. i.e. All anglophones would call those Alces alces that live in North America moose and those Alces alces that live in Europe elk. —Jeremy (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case for this animal. Maybe you are thinking of caribou and reindeer? Regarding Alces alces, to me (coming from North America), a moose is a moose no matter where it lives, and I think a British/Irish person would think the same (but call it an "elk"). Funnyhat 22:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No Alces alces is Elk thats wher the name elk comes from, only North American call an elk moose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.121.47 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I love mooses to...

If we're going to mention Toronto's 'glass meese, shouldn't we mention the "world famous" moose statue outside Halifax? (I just wish I could recall where...) Trekphiler 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Moose test

I have never seen any advertisment from either SAAB or Volvo claiming anything about any moose test. The term "moose test" was invented by the motor magazine "Teknikens värld". The test is simply a test where the tested car must to do a sharp S turn at a rather high speed. The first time I heard the term were when Mercedes A-klasse failed the test and turned over. German reporters, as far as I can remember, asked why such a test was of any interest whatsoever. The swedish testers replied that it was important if, for example, a moose came out of the forrest and on the road. Thus "moose test". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.76.62 (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomic confusion

It seems that traditionally the Moose was regarded as one species (Alces alces) with several subspecies. Some recent sources, however, have promoted the North American race to be a fully separate species (Alces americanus), most notably Boyeskorov (1999). The Third Edition of Mammal Species of the World also recognizes Alces americanus as a separate species.[2] Would it be possible to add a brief section to this article discussing the taxonomic issues? Kaldari 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification

Is Wikipedia primarily targeted at Americans? I thought it was for everyone. This article is entitled "Moose" yet is actually about the species "Alces alces" as a whole, not just the North American mammals called "moose". So shouldn't the article be entitled "Alces alces" with sub-divisions for the European elk (the true name, which is even reflected in the scientific classification "Alces alces") and the North American moose? This entire article is incredibly biased. Everywhere in the introductory passage and above the picture in the info panel "moose" is given first and "elk" second. Just because the settlers in America mistakenly gave the name "elk" to their North American deer (Cervus canadensis) does not justify scientific obfuscation. In the interests of scientific accuracy and neutrality, the order of the names should be changed to reflect the scientific classification rather than the political/cultural influence of the continents in question. "Moose" and "elk" searches should both be redirected to an integrated article titled "Alces alces" that would have two sub-sections for the European elk and the North American moose. To avoid confusion for Americans, a search for "elk" could provide a choice between going to (European) "Alces alces" or to (American) "Cervus canadensis". Alternatively, as the previous comment mentioned, there could be separate entries for "Alces alces" and "Alces americanus". Either way, it reflects a massive American bias to have a search for "elk" go straight to the article for Cervus canadensis while "Alces alces" redirects straight to "Moose". 24.116.151.23 18:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

I agree that it's a tough thing to get right. It seems that, no matter which way it goes, you're bound to offend someone. I'm not implying that Google is an authority for anything but, just so you know, a search for Moose +"Alces alces" returns 137k hits. A search for Elk +"Alces alces" returns 56k hits, and a search for Elk +"Cervus canadensis" returns 27k hits. By the way, Cervus canadensis is the Canadian, not North American deer... :-) Now, Wikipedia is here for the English-language readers of the world. That's our target. And, if you simply go by English speakers, it is irrefutable that there are close to 400 million English speakers who call this animal moose, a number which, I suggest, rightly or wrongly dwarfs the number who call it elk. I have to admit that I'm not happy with the way it is now but my fear is that, were we to change it, we'd have twice the number of discussions started by people who want to change it back the other way. In the end, the only advice I can give you is that they're both vernacular names that have absolutely zero relevance to anything important. (As an aside, the name alces does not come from German since Julius Caesar used that very word when writing about the animal in his Commentaries on the War in Gaul. Now, he may have taken it from some Germanic root, perhaps Gallic, but the word does not come from German.) Finally, speaking of remaining vigilant against cultural bias, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Anishnabek and several other indigenous people of the Americas have been calling it something very much like moose at least as long as Europeans have called it something akin to elk.— Dave (Talk | contribs) 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize the name "moose" is accurate for the North American mammal; however, this page purports to represent the entire Alces alces species, therefore it should have equal sections for the European elk and the North American moose, rather than the whole article being titled "Moose", which is simply not correct. I don't care if there is an article titled "Moose", as long as it clearly refers to the North American animal, not the entire species of Alces alces, which should have its own page rather than simply redirect to "Moose". To lump all Alces alces under the name "moose" is a bias towards American terminology, which you claim you're trying to avoid. I'm not asking for elimination of the term "moose", which would be just as biased; I'm just asking for accurate representation. People should learn the correct terminology for these animals on both continents, not simply negate one in favor of the other because it currently has the power of cultural dominance on its side.
I also understand that the name Alces alces did not come from the German; the name has been around since long before there was even a language called "German". The name "elk" and its many cognates in the Germanic languages are supposed to come from the proto-Germanic "algiz", which was Latinized/Grecianized by the Mediterraneans as "alcis" and "alces"; but the name "algiz" likewise came from an earlier Indo-European name which also has cognates in the Baltic, Goidelic Celtic and Brythonic Celtic languages. "Elk" is simply the modern English equivalent of a name going back to the time before the Indo-Europeans split up and became Celts, Teutons, Balts, Iranians etc. It represents a family of names with a history of at least 7,000 years of continuous use throughout Europe. Specifically, it refers to the animals now scientifically classified as "Alces alces". With that kind of established record, I think it's only fair that the European elk get its own share of the limelight, as in equal representation alongside its North American cousin, the moose. 24.116.151.23 20:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth
Please don't think me insensitive to your concerns. I hope that we can reach some sort of accommodation that will address them. Let me preface what I am about to say by indicating that the European animal called elk and the North American animal called moose are, as far as current, "official" taxonomy is concerned, the same animal. This complicates things insofar as we have to combine them in one article because they are one species. Within that single species, there are likely several different races. In any event, the official taxonomy and the vernacular names are not what should motivate us as editors. Nor is writing an encyclopedia is about "fairness" or "national pride" nor anything of that ilk. I'd suggest we should be motivated by thoughts of what simplifies things for our readers. That and that alone is what should drive us on stylistic choices, while accuracy should drive us on factual content. There is no dispute, I don't believe, that the content of the Moose article is accurate and that what we are discussing amounts to a stylistic choice that has its closest resonance, really, in something akin to WP:MOS#National varieties of English. So, after all of that long-winded preface, what do I think is critical in this discussion? What I think is critical is that a reader who comes here looking for information on an animal he calls elk should be able to find the information he seeks with ease. I feel the very same is true for a person coming here looking for information on an animal he calls moose. Now, the moose thing is the simplest, really, because that only refers to one animal and, I think you would agree, such a user has no trouble, right now, finding the information he seeks. So that leaves the person who comes to look for information on the elk. Now, such a reader will be looking for one of two things. He could be looking for the information in the Elk article which I shall, for the sake of simplicity, call the wapiti for the rest of this posting, or he could be looking for the information in the Moose article. Now, if he's looking for information on the wapiti, then he's already well served and he arrives there without trouble. So, that leaves the reader who comes to look for the elk and wants what is in the moose article. Well, right now, what does such a reader receive? He gets to a page on the wapiti and, at the very top, the very first line of the article, it says that the article is about something like the wapiti and that, for the species Alces alces, he needs to go to Moose and that for other uses of elk go to the dab page. Now, finally, let me say that, if you look at the nearly 500 articles that link to the Elk page, only a dozen or so, at best, do not refer to the wapiti-like animals. So, it appears that the editors of this encyclopedia (who are really a subset of its users, after all) have no trouble dealing with the current configuration of articles. So, in the end, what are your precise recommendations for how you feel we should deal with the situation? Which articles would need to be moved or renamed and what consequential other moves and changes would need to be made? You say you seek an "accurate representation'. I'm with you on that. Given the constraints I've outlined, above, what would that look like and how would we accomplish it? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B Class, although it really needs to address the cleanup tags that are present, and of Mid importance, as I feel that the subject of this article plays a strong role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maine Moose Hunt

There ought to be some mention of the Maine moose hunt on this page and how the justification given for it is to control moose population size and reduce moose-vehicle collisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.216.217 (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Moose Crash Test Dummy

How about inserting something about this under the vehicle collsions section:

Following the death of the head of SAAB in 1980's after his car was involved in a collision with a elk, SAAB started researching how they could best protect their car's occupants from death or serious injury when involved in a similar collsion. One outcome that I am aware of was the strengthening of the windshield and roof pillars.

Others, including the writer of this MSc thesis [3] who was sponsored by the Swedish Roads Administration, have researched the construction of crash test dummies shaped like elk, although I am not sure if any car manufacturer uses anything similar.

Thanks

91.154.39.165 18:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elk Meat and Venison

OK it is understood that under the article on Venison we can read that elk/moose meat is edible, but surely we should have something more specific here. As an example see the Elk/wapiti page, where mention is made of the protein levels found in that meat, its approximate flavour, etc. A Taxed Mind 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC).

Have at 'er, friend. Be bold. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I see you've added the section you'd mentioned here. Nicely done! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely hate this, never had so many crashes and flops and retypes in my life!!.
My one problem Dave was references, no idea and no time anymore for learning. I would be grateful if somebody could sling these in:
for the nutrition bit:
Kathy Etling’s article “The Wild Diet” from the 8/02 edition of Outdoor Life,
only available in edited version on the net both referenced;
[[4]]
and unreferenced;
[[5]]
Cadmium in Finland;
"Cadmium intake of moose hunters in Finland from consumption of moose meat, liver and kidney"
Authors: L. Vahteristo; T. Lyytikäinen; E.-R. Venäläinen; M. Eskola; E. Lindfors; R. Pohjanvirta; R. Maijala
Source: Food Additives and Contaminants, Volume 20, Number 5, May 2003 , pp. 453-463(11)
Abstract available here:
[[6]]
Thanks A Taxed Mind (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Missing something

There needs to be more infomation on the social life, reprouduction etc on the moose. Bobisbob (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Range

Could someone please add information on distribution of Moose in Europe? As it stands, the section is exclusive to North America. ClovisPt (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the map for canada is incorrect, as it does not include newfoundland, which they were introduced to. 142.139.0.69 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I live in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, and we have moose in the area (they occasionally wander down from the mountains)

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2676121 I think that the range map needs to be improved (but I don't know enough about Moose to do it). It is mentioned in the article, but the map does not reflect it. 24.10.195.243 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Text in collision section

Demonstratively, Highway 7 between Fredericton and Saint John, which has one of the highest incidences of moose collisions in the province, does not have these fences, although it is extremely well signed.

What is this demonstrative of? PaulKishimoto (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I feel like the sentence on top of the article should be "The same animal is called the Elk or Elg in Europe." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.12.199 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Vehicle collisions

The section on "Vehicle collisions and moose warning signs" is in dire need of improvement. There is esssentially no information whatsoever on the main issue, namely traffic accidents resulting from collissions with moose. The section mostly consists of silly trivia on the background of the term "elk test" and moose warning signs. Could someone acquainted with the topic expand this with some real information? --85.23.245.171 (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 

== Lifespan? ==

Average lifespan for makes and females? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.17.28 (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this section has gotten out of hand, and it's time for a clean-up. I've given it the {{trivia}} tag, and will try my best to clean it up in a few days' time, but I think a few of these entries should probably remain in the article, and would like to solicit some discussion as to which should remain behind and if some should be relocated or merged elsewhere.
∴Walkeraj 04:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mooses annually in one capital city in EU countries

I presumably live in the wilderness as annually about ten unlucky mooses enter throung the Central Park to my home city wandering just in distance less than one kilometre where I live about 7 km out of country´s 0 point of road map. Less than a month ago police had to finish two young moose´s. One was finished on the TV center area and the other one in a distance less than one kilometre where I live on the middle of the highway. And this is annual sight in the capital city of the country. Now in smaller towns even City bears, next peharps City wolfs again. This is life in Northern Europe today in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.206.246 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC) bla bla bla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meagwilk (talk • contribs) 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Take pity on readers and clarify the moose versus elk discussion

In the US, these are considered different animals, have different game licenses, etc. It's hard to tell from this article if the animals are the same species. Also it's disconcerting when European elk are compared to NA moose. Note, I don't even know what is correct here. I'm just saying as a reader coming to this article to learn about the moose, it is damn confusing. Needlessly so.TCO (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now. Still it is darn confusing to use different words for the same animal WITHIN the same article. Let's be consistent. Let's go with moose as it is more common, plus does not invite the elk confusion. Would also have a specific section on naming called out right at the front after the intro, that says this is what we are doing and explains the different usages.TCO (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

hi my name is borat im from akakastan and you i want to meet a real life moose so i could live with it an so i could kiss it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.109.136 (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that we should use Moose, because many (most?) non-native english speakers in Europe actually know only the word Moose for Alces alces. Elk is typically thought of as being old-style language, misspelling of scandinavian elg or the North-American Cervus canadensis. In short, most people who actually have Alces in their country refer to it as Moose in English. Americans because it is named Moose in American English, Scandinavians and Russians because they don't know any better. The only ones who really know it's named Elk in British English don't have it.

To make things more clear can't we change the description of the word Elk in the Elk and Moose articles from "Elk (Europe)" or "named Elk in Europe" to "Elk (British English)" or "termed Elk in British English".

--Honymand (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moose/Archive_1&oldid=1137020257"