Vermont’s Fish and Wildlife Department is reducing moose hunting permits by more than half this year, from nearly 180 to 85, in response to a parasite outbreak that kills calves and weakens adults. The cuts are concentrated in the Northeast Kingdom, where winter ticks—which can infest a single moose by the tens of thousands—have become a serious threat. As climate change shortens Vermont’s winters, ticks have gained a longer window to attach to moose in fall and survive through spring, intensifying their ecological impact.
The move reflects a widening mismatch between wildlife and climate. State biologists argue population reduction is the only practical tool to limit tick spread, though the strategy faces criticism from some conservation groups who question whether hunting should remain the primary management approach.
Joey Davis spends much of his time in the Northeast Kingdom’s woods, guiding moose hunts and searching for shed antlers each spring. But with increasing frequency, he encounters a sobering sight: dead moose calves, drained by parasites.
The culprit is the winter tick. Native to northeastern New England, these parasites have become catastrophic for moose in recent years. A single moose can host tens of thousands of them. They attach in fall, feed on blood throughout winter, and when numbers are high, they kill calves and severely weaken adults.
The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department’s response is direct: slash moose hunting permits to reduce the population that feeds and sustains these parasites. This year’s proposal—85 permits, down from nearly 180 in prior years—all focused on Wildlife Management Unit E in the Northeast Kingdom, marks a significant shift in how the state manages this ecological crisis.
A changing climate tilts the balance
The winter tick is not new. But climate change is. As Vermont winters warm, snow arrives later and melts earlier, extending the ticks’ window of opportunity in both fall and spring. Historically, the harsh, long winters would limit their survival and reproduction. Now, that constraint has weakened.
“Winter ticks have always been here, but historically they were more limited by the length of our winters,” said Nick Fortin, Vermont Fish & Wildlife’s moose and deer project leader. Fortin has examined the consequences firsthand—dead calves he describes as “withered away to nothing, literally crawling with ticks on the carcass.”
The problem is most acute where moose are most concentrated. The Northeast Kingdom, home to the state’s densest moose population, has been hit hardest. The correlation is direct: denser moose populations mean faster tick spread.
Yet outside the Northeast Kingdom, the ticks pose no significant threat to Vermont’s broader moose population.
Population reduction as the practical path
The state sees few alternatives. Fungal treatments exist but are prohibitively expensive. Pesticide approaches face a different barrier: the landscape is too vast. Capturing thousands of moose annually to treat them would cost millions or hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
Fortin questioned whether eradication is even appropriate. “They’ve been here as long as moose have been here,” he said. “Is it right for us to kill off the ticks because we don’t like them, or should we try to find the balance between ticks and moose?”
Instead, the department is using hunting to manage moose numbers. The strategy has worked: hunting over the past three years has reduced the population. This year’s lower permit count is designed to maintain that progress while avoiding overshooting the target population.
“We feel that we’re at a point where, given some of the other concerns, this is the time to let off the gas,” Fortin said.
The department is also bracing for the worst. Biologists documented higher winter tick counts on moose this fall, suggesting that spring 2026 could bring elevated mortality as those infestations peak.
Hunting strategy faces pushback
Not everyone agrees the approach is sound. Brenna Galdenzi of Protect our Wildlife VT appreciated the permit reduction but questioned the broader strategy. “Everything from the department always seems to justify killing the moose,” she said. She expressed concern that the state relies too heavily on population density reduction and may be neglecting other options.
Joey Davis, who guides hunts and works the woods, takes the opposite view. “I don’t think there will be any pushback from hunters who know where the moose population is at,” he said, offering support for the reduced permits.
The department’s proposal is open for public comment through March 31.