Alces, 50: 35-51 Lindqvist, S., Camilla, S., Bjärstig, T...

http://www.diva-portal.org

This is the published version of a paper published in Alces.

Citation for the original published paper (version of record):

Lindqvist, S., Camilla, S., Bjärstig, T., Kvastegård, E. (2014)

The changing role of hunting in Sweden: From subsistence to ecosystem stewardship?.

Alces, 50: 35-51

Access to the published version may require subscription.

N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper.

Permanent link to this version:http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-80292

THE CHANGING ROLE OF HUNTING IN SWEDEN—FROMSUBSISTENCE TO ECOSYSTEM STEWARDSHIP?

Sara Lindqvist1,3, Camilla Sandström1,2, Therese Bjärstig2, and Emma Kvastegård1

1Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Sciences,Skogsmarksgränd, 901 83 Umeå, Sweden; 2Umeå University, Department of Political Sciences, UmeåUniversitet, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden.

ABSTRACT: Although hunting served traditionally to supply game meat, and that is still important inSweden, recreation is the most common reason for hunting moose (Alces alces) today. Hunting alsoserves an important management purpose in regulating moose populations to control crop and forestdamage. This study used semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and officials involved inthe recently implemented ecosystem-based, adaptive local moose management system where huntersand landowners become environmental stewards responsible for managing moose in context with for-est damage, vehicular collisions, large carnivores, and biodiversity. Our study found that participationand collaboration in reaching management objectives was perceived as positive by stakeholders,although their stewardship is jeopardized if specific management responsibilities are not clarifiedregarding monitoring. Further, it is important to find long-term funding solutions for monitoring activ-ities that are critical for adequate data collection and to support the stakeholder role as steward. Theimportance of monitoring must be communicated to individual hunters and landowners to achievean ecosystem-based moose management system that effectively incorporates both social and ecologi-cal values.

ALCES VOL. 50: 53–66 (2014)

Key words: adaptive, Alces alces, biodiversity, knowledge-based, management areas, monitoring,moose, Sweden.

Historically, hunting was primarily asso-ciated with human subsistence and liveli-hood, whereas today it is mostly associatedwith recreation (Hendee 1974, Barnard2004), and has gradually developed into atool to meet sustainable wildlife and ecosys-tem management objectives (Holsman 2000,Fischer et al. 2012). With this shift, huntersand other stakeholders should be directly orindirectly involved in environmental stew-ardship; i.e., the responsible use and protec-tion of the natural environment throughconservation and sustainable practices(Leopold 1950, Holsman 2000, Chapin et al.2009).

Moose (Alces alces) hunting in Swedenembodies this development where utility

and leisure lately have become closely inter-twined with management objective such asgame population control (Holsman 2000,Council of Europe 2007). A new moosemanagement system was implemented inSweden in January 2012 that emphasizesthe stewardship role of hunters and land-owners. It provides a unique opportunity toanalyze the extent that stakeholders supportthis institutional change and whether thenew system offers the resources necessaryfor hunters and landowners to exercise eco-logical stewardship.

The Swedish moose management sys-tem has evolved several times in past dec-ades to balance the interest of hunters (i.e.,high moose populations) with other societal

3Present adress: Sjövägen 96, 834 34 Brunflo, Sweden

53

interests, most notably the commercial for-estry sector concerned with browsing oneconomically valuable tree species. Anincreasing number of moose-vehicle colli-sions (MVC), negative effects on agriculture,and biodiversity are also of high concern(e.g., Angelstam et al. 2000, Edenius et al.2002, Lavsund et al. 2003, Seiler 2003).Because these incremental changes did notresolve these conflicts, the Swedish Parlia-ment decided, in one step, to move from atop-down administrative system consistingof a patchwork of organizational manage-ment units, into an ecosystem-based, adap-tive local management system incorporatingmoose biology components like home rangesize and seasonal migration in combinationwith stakeholder engagement (SwedishGovernment 2010; see also Broman 2003,Wennberg-DiGasper 2008).

To avoid repeating previous manage-ment failures, the main objective of thisreform was to establish a knowledge-basedand adaptive moose management systemwith the capacity to balance different inter-ests (Sandström et al. 2013). In particular,monitoring that was performed irregularlyand incoherently across Sweden, is now con-sidered a key focus in the new system tointegrate knowledge for establishing andevaluating management objectives. Accord-ingly, the extent to which the new manage-ment system will succeed is dependent on 3central elements of ecological stewardship:the will among hunters and landowners to1) support wildlife management programgoals designed to balance social and ecologi-cal values, 2) support and participate in thedevelopment of institutions for defining andimplementing stewardship goals, and 3) par-ticipate in monitoring activities related tomeeting social or ecological objectives(Holsman 2000, Chapin et al. 2009). Ourobjective was to study the implementationphase to assess stakeholder acceptanceand capacity to handle the objectives of

ecosystem-based institutions and monitoringas part of knowledge-based management.

BACKGROUNDCompared to previous management sys-

tems, the current system has a pronouncednational objective for long-term balance ofthe moose population with forest resourcesand societal interests (Swedish OfficialInvestigation 2009). To reach this objective,an official investigation identified the needto overcome institutional deficiencies, pri-marily the lack of collaboration betweenkey stakeholders and an ecosystem-based approach, but also the lack of systema-tic monitoring of moose and forest resources(Swedish Official Investigation 2009).

The institutional change included someredistribution of tasks between the manage-ment levels, but also adding a new manage-ment body at the ecosystem level (i.e.,moose management areas) that covers theequivalent of a moose population (at least50,000 ha in the south and 100,000 ha inthe north). This approach should bridge theregional level with moose management unitsand license areas at the local level (Table 1).The moose management areas are governedby a moose management group consistingof 3 landowners and 3 hunters. This groupis responsible for 1) making an ecosystem-based and adaptive moose managementplan for their respective area (stretchingover maximum 3 years), 2) advising huntersand landowners in creating local manage-ment plans within the moose managementunits, and 3) coordinating and evaluatingmonitoring activities (Swedish OfficialInvestigation 2009). The institutionalamendment of the moose management sys-tem resulted in redistribution of funding aswell, from primary administration use bythe County Administrative Boards to includeall monitoring of moose and forest resources(Swedish Government 2010).

54

HUNTING ROLE IN SWEDEN – LINDQVIST ET AL. ALCES VOL. 50, 2014

The lack of systematic monitoring isaddressed by science-based recommendationto focus on 4 accepted monitoring methodsto provide annual information about themoose population including harvest statis-tics, hunter observation rates, pellet-groupcounts, and calf weights (Bergström et al.2011, Danell et al. 2011, Ericsson and Kind-berg 2011, Kindberg et al. 2011). Jointly,these methods require long-term, standar-dized implementation to function as reliableindices either singly or in combination(Bergström et al. 2011, Månsson et al. 2011).

To further meet the broader goals of theecosystem-based system, information aboutlarge carnivore populations and MVCs willbe evaluated, and assessment of forage andbrowsing damage are also necessary toaddress the primary management objective(Swedish Government 2010). Moosedamage survey methods and forage forecastsare suggested as the basis of monitoring andare preferably conducted every 3rd and 5thyear, respectively (Kalén and Bergquist2011, Rolander et al. 2011). The damage

survey methods estimate the proportion ofold and fresh stem damage within a givenheight interval and area (Rolander et al.2011), and the forage forecasts estimate theavailability and quality of food resourcesthrough combination of satellite mapping ofclearcuts and field sampling (Kalén andBergquist 2011).

STUDYAREAWe conducted our study in 5 counties

(Västerbotten, Dalarna, Södermanland, Väs-tra Götaland, and Kronoberg) distributedacross Sweden: 62°00' N, 15°00' E (Fig. 1).These counties were selected because oftheir differences in ecology, landownership,and use patterns that present varied chal-lenges to fully implement the new ecosys-tem-based, adaptive local managementsystem. The counties cover all Swedishvegetation types including alpine, boreal,boreonemoral, and nemoral zones. Forestsare dominated by commercially valuableScots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norwayspruce (Picea abies), and by deciduous tree

Table 1. The institutional framework of the old and new Swedish moose management systems. TheSwedish Environmental Protection Agency has the ultimate responsibility at the National level with theSwedish Forest Agency functioning primarily as an advisory and supporting authority. At the regionallevel the County Administrative Boards have authoritative responsibility for moose management. At theregional level in the new system, wildlife management delegations with members from all interest groupsare included. At the ecosystem level in the new system are moose management areas consisting of moosemanagement groups with stakeholder representatives (3 hunters and 3 landowners). The differentcategories of license areas in the old system are removed, and license areas or moose management unitsexist only at the local level in the new system. Moose management units also include stakeholders at thelocal level.

Old system New System

National level Swedish Environmental Protection Agency /Swedish Forest Agency

Regional level County Administrative Boards County Administrative Boards includingWildlife Management Delegations

Ecosystem level(50,000–100,000 ha)

Moose management areas led by a moosemanagement group with 3 landowners and3 hunters

Local level(10,000–15,000 ha)

License areas (A, B, C, and E)Wildlife management unitsMoose management units (hunters andlandowners)

Moose management units (hunters andlandowners)License areas (in exceptional cases)

ALCES VOL. 50, 2014 LINDQVIST ET AL. – HUNTING ROLE IN SWEDEN

55

species such as birch (Betula spp.), aspen(Populus tremula), and rowan (Sorbus aucu-paria), as well as broadleaved trees like oak(Quercus spp.) in the south.

The 5 counties also differ in severalother ways that could affect local and regio-nal moose management, including moosepopulation density (Hörnberg 2001) andhealth; for example, moose tend to be largerin the north (Sand et al. 1995). Predation bybrown bears (Ursus arctos) is mostly in Väs-terbotten and Dalarna, whereas wolves(Canis lupus) occur in Dalarna and VästraGötaland. The effect of predation on a localmoose population varies among and withinthese counties depending on the compositionand number of predators (Sand et al. 2011).While roe (Capreolus capreolus) and red

deer (Cervus elaphus) exist in all 5 counties,some of Sweden’s densest fallow deer(Dama dama) populations exist in VästraGötaland and Södermanland; Södermanlandalso has a small population of mouflon sheep(Ovis aries orientalis). Only these 2 countieswere considered with potential for interspe-cific competition between moose and otherungulates.

Land ownership among the counties alsodiffer with more commercial forest compa-nies in the north, and more private land inthe south; forest ownership in Swedenis ∼51% private and 42% commercial(Bergman and Åkerberg 2006).

METHODSRepresentative officials and stakeholders

within moose management areas wereinterviewed in each county. In total, 29semi-structured, qualitative interviews wereconducted in October–December 2012.Phone interviews, except 2 face-to-face,were used to ensure a high response rate.An interview manual with a vast spectrumof qualitative questions regarding the moosemanagement system guided the interviews,and all respondents were asked identicalquestions. The recorded interviews lasted45–120 min and were transcribed in full.Respondents were given the opportunity toread their transcribed interview, and to clar-ify and/or alter any content to ensure theinformation was as valid as possible.

The first interview in each county waswith the wildlife manager of the CountyAdministrative Board, which is the regionalauthority responsible for wildlife manage-ment issues, including moose management.Given their local knowledge, each was askedto suggest a typical management area thatwas neither more collaborative, nor moreconflicted and turbulent, than any other man-agement area in the county. The stakeholders(3 landowner and 3 hunters) in this manage-ment area were contacted for further

Fig. 1. The 5 counties that served as thestudy area; from the north, Väster-botten, Dalarna, Södermanland, VästraGötaland and Kronoberg Counties. Thefigure in each county represents thenumber of moose management areas inthat county.

56


interviews. In addition, the Swedish ForestAgency (SFA) forest manager who wasresponsible for wildlife issues in each countywas interviewed, since the SFA is an impor-tant advisory authority for the stakeholders.There were 40 potential interviews in thestudy: 5 wildlife managers, 5 forest man-agers, and 6 stakeholders per county (n =30) of which 19 were interviewed (9 land-owners and 10 hunters) with 1–2 non-respondents (unreachable or unwilling) ineach county. Interviews were conductedwith at least one hunter and one landownerin each management group; therefore, thedata were regarded as reasonably balancedand useful to analyze the new adaptivemoose management system.

The interviews were thoroughly readand all information regarding or related tomonitoring was extracted from the material.Specific quotes that strengthen, clarify, orillustrate general (or divergent) responsesare provided in the results. To ensure integ-rity, respondents are anonymous and weonly describe their stakeholder group oragency and county. The interviews were con-ducted in Swedish and we present interviewquotes based upon our translation to English.

RESULTSWillingness and capacity to supportnationwide objectives

We asked respondents about their atti-tudes towards the overarching objective ofthe new moose management system, theneed for collaboration, and the ecosystem-based approach. The management of moosein larger geographical areas, as opposed tosmaller management units, and the compre-hensive ecosystem approach were consid-ered positive in all counties. All but onehunter and landowner felt they wouldbe more able to actively influence the man-agement process. The single hunter fromVästerbotten claimed that “local decisionshave been moved even further away”.

Hunters and landowners also empha-sized the increased collaboration betweenthem as important in fostering managementlegitimacy and trust among all participants.There was a strong conviction amongofficials and stakeholders that the new sys-tem would enable fact-based rather thanassumption-based management, and thatinformation derived from moose monitoring,forage forecasts, and browsing pressure esti-mates would allow more local, detailed, andnuanced management decisions. Two exam-ple quotes were: “An advantage is that wewill be able to get a clear view of the moosepopulation, and that we, with determinedeffort, will achieve a high-quality moosepopulation” (hunter from Dalarna), and“We will have a moose population that isadjusted to the forage production—that’swhat’s important, that we do not have toomany moose, but we use the resources wehave in our forests” (landowner inKronoberg).

The stakeholders were developingmoose management area plans in all coun-ties. The plan was considered an importanttool towards realizing management objec-tives and was regarded as a living documentwhich could be altered if conditions chan-ged. The perceptions of system resilienceand how quickly management might respondto change differed among respondents; somebelieved that a yearly revision was reason-able, while others thought it possible tomake immediate amendments during a hunt-ing season. Rapid changes in the moosepopulation would primarily be based on hun-ter observations, and to some degree on har-vest statistics, but this assumes that reportingis relatively fast and that management groupsmeet frequently to assess the situation. Howsuch reports would be used differed amongrespondents; some claimed that if hunterobservations differed from specified sex-ratios (e.g., equal male:female ratio), thenrestrictions might be implemented. Others


57

observed that reporting is generally quiteslow, and that the hunting season wouldlikely be over before information could reachthe moose management groups and subse-quently to hunting teams.

Willingness and capacity to implementstewardship goals

We asked respondents to describe theongoing implementation process to under-stand the degree of support and willingnessto participate in the development of institu-tions for defining and implementing stew-ardship goals. Despite pervasive belief inthe new moose management system and awillingness among stakeholders and officialsto participate in the implementation process,several obstacles were identified in fullyimplementing the system.

The first obstacle was the short time per-iod between the political decision in April2011 and when the moose managementgroups would initiate their work (January2012); both officials and stakeholdersclaimed they had inadequate time. Specifi-cally, more time was needed to acquire mon-itoring information, to fully understand thefunction and implementation of the newmoose management system, and to adjustwork arrangements before the first 3-yearplan was due. A landowner in Kronobergsummarized this with: “The process hasbeen too fast, we do not have enough knowl-edge, we have too little knowledge regardingour game populations, we have no monitor-ing methods we all agree on applying, wehave poor knowledge of browsing damage,we have no good overview of forage fore-casts either, we rule and believe that we canmanage the moose population, and wealmost become overconfident and imaginewe can calculate, down to nearest decimal,how many moose we can harvest.”

The second obstacle was the lack ofavailable and sufficient knowledge frommonitoring to define management plans and

objectives. The need for better data and thedesire to develop a better overview ofresource status was apparent in all counties.A new database (algdata.se) providing easyaccess to monitoring information and statis-tics important for developing their manage-ment plans was an identified need. Certainregional county data requirements differed.Västra Götaland respondents stressed thelack of resolution in forage forecasts, moosedamage surveys, predator densities, andMVCs. They also preferred that numbersand data be available for each managementunit or even each hunting team, rather thanan average number at the county or manage-ment area level. In Södermanland, the impor-tance of including other ungulate species washighlighted with regard to species-specificbrowsing damage surveys.

The third obstacle was the vagueness ofmanagement responsibilities regarding datacollection, statistics, and monitoring. Despitethe high degree of awareness of the need formonitoring, the responsibilities for suchactivities were especially perceived as con-fusing among the respondents. The mainemphasis of responsibility for implementa-tion, interpretation, and evaluation of moni-toring lies with the moose managementgroups in their respective areas; the moosemanagement units are obliged by regulationsto participate in monitoring (EnvironmentalProtection Agency 2011). Yet, there wasconfusion concerning role and authorityamong both officials and stakeholders. Aforest manager in Västerbotten stated: “Weshould have a locally based management.And what does it mean? Does it mean thatthe management unit or maybe even thelevel below [hunting team] holds the steeringcapacity? Or does it mean that if the moosemanagement group does not approve theunit’s management plan then you have todo it all over again?”. The County Adminis-trative Board, the agency with actual deci-sion-making power to demand participation

58


http://www.algdata.se

in monitoring (Swedish Official Investiga-tion 2009), referred to the managementgroups and claimed the task was theirs tosolve. They in turn claimed a lack of instru-ments and authority of decision-making andcannot demand monitoring participationfrom the management units. It is unclear ifthe management unit participation refers toall specified monitoring activities or if theycan choose among suggested actions. Stake-holders also claimed that hunters had theactual capability for control.

License areas that cover parts of manymoose management areas in all countieswere another issue because they are not obli-gated by law to follow any managementplan or participate in monitoring activities;consequently, they risk counteracting orinterfering with plans in management unitsor management areas. Respondents wereapprehensive that the vagueness aboutmanagement responsibility might underminethe purpose and role of management areasand the crucial monitoring required forecosystem-based management.

There were also uncertainties in allcounties regarding high costs associatedwith decisions, prioritization, and the inter-val of monitoring activities to provide man-agement with sufficient information.

The lack of financial resources to sup-port the moose management system was thefourth obstacle. Originally, the moose man-agement system was intended to be econom-ically self-sufficient through harvest fees,including the cost of monitoring programs(Environmental Protection Agency 2011).Both officials and stakeholders found itunrealistic that, in accordance with thedecision made by the Swedish parliament,the entire moose management system(administration, management group mem-bers, and monitoring) should be funded byharvest fees alone; cost of monitoring wasof greatest concern. Most funding duringthe implementation phase was used for

administrative work with little left for moni-toring. Most monitoring methods listed hereare relatively inexpensive and require mini-mal effort of hunters, with pellet-groupcounts the exception as field work shouldoccur twice annually (Bergström et al.2011). To save money, an official and a sta-keholder suggested that monitoring be con-ducted in 4–5 year intervals rather thanannually. However, this approach wouldreduce the ability to detect trends in dataand recent information would not be una-vailable during a 3-year plan underminingthe adaptive advantage of the managementplan. Neither wildlife or forest managerscould financially support monitoring activ-ities and higher harvest fees were not con-sidered a viable solution; in Södermanlandand Västra Götaland, this might have a con-trary effect where hunters would refocusefforts on other game. One perception wasthat monitoring expenditures should beshared among stakeholders, versus exclu-sively funded by hunters, by having land-owners responsible for forest resources andhunters responsible for moose. Stakeholdersalso indicated that the SFA should be respon-sible for funding and providing forage fore-casts and moose damage surveys.

In all counties but Västerbotten, anotherproblem was how to fairly subdivide moni-toring costs among many small landownersin the fragmented ownership common inSweden. One solution was that all monitor-ing be conducted by volunteers; however,certain deficiencies were identified relativeto voluntary monitoring including lack oftrust among some stakeholders regardingthe credibility of monitoring data, and thetime that stakeholders were willing to spendon voluntary activities. Circumventing suchconcerns requires hiring professionals formonitoring which would increase costs sub-stantially. The money available from harvestfees in each specific county differs becauseof variable harvest fees, but more


59

importantly, on the annual moose harvest ineach county; for example, harvest is about∼1,000 moose in Södermanland versus6,000 in Dalarna. Raising harvest fees toincrease management finances was not con-sidered as an option, especially in Söderman-land and Västra Götaland where increasingcosts for hunters might have an unintendedeffect. Rather than investing money andefforts in moose hunting, officials and hun-ters suggested that other game species mightinstead become increasingly important to thehunters.

Willingness and capacity to participate inmonitoring activities

We asked respondents to describe moni-toring methods used previously, new meth-ods to be implemented in the adaptivesystem (Fig. 2), and their general knowl‐edge about different monitoring methods.Information about local moose populationsduring implementation of the new system

was mostly obtained from harvest statisticsand hunter observations, but data from allbase-monitoring methods were used tosome extent when moose management areasdefined their initial plans. ThroughoutSweden in 2012, ∼50% of managementareas used hunter observation rates of mooseduring the first week of moose hunting.Rates within our management areas werehigher than the national average (unpub-lished data, Swedish Hunting Association),although none of the 5 counties consideredthis sufficient information to manage theirmoose population. Pellet-group counts wereconducted in all counties; however, theydid not provide complete data for any countyor moose management area due to their frag-mented application. Only Södermanland col-lected data on calf weight but it was regardedas a monitoring method for future use.Hunters still recorded calf weights and futureuse of these data might be facilitated by afully developed database (algdata.se). This

Fig. 2. The monitoring methods planned to be used in each county (CAB)and selected moose management areas (MMA). Additional monitoring willbe conducted in MMAs than at the county level in Västerbotten, Dalarnaand Södermanland.

60


database will gather data from all monitoringeffort and other areas of interest, and willpresumably serve as an important manage-ment tool in facilitating stewardship.

Forage forecasts were provided by theSFA in all counties but a comprehensive for-age forecast should include both satellitemapping and field visits; only satelliteimages were available in Kronoberg andSödermanland. The quality of forecasts inother counties could not be ascertainedfrom responses. A countywide moosedamage survey was conducted only in Väs-terbotten, the only county with a long-termtradition of monitoring browsing damage.Browsing was monitored on a smaller scalein Dalarna.

The need and desire to collect moredetailed and comprehensive informationwas evident in the planned monitoringactivities identified by officials and stake-holders in all counties. The necessity formore information and data about forestresources was specifically highlighted bya landowner in Västerbotten: “in order toachieve a functioning adaptive managementbased on more facts and local knowledgethat consider both the quality of the moosepopulation, but also take moose damagesinto account”. There was confusion and opi-nions were divided about the applicabilityof monitoring methods and related validityof derived estimates. Respondents in VästraGötaland desired estimates at the manage-ment unit level or lower, believing estimatesat the management area level were toocoarse.

Officials and stakeholders indicated theirintention to address MVCs in managementplans. They generally believed that MVCswere not only of societal importance, butreflected the relative size and trend of themoose population. Stakeholders in VästraGötaland claimed that moose impacts oncrops must be assessed, since moose

damage, especially to oat (Avena sativa)fields, is a recurring issue within their area.

All respondents identified the need toinclude prominent county-specific condi-tions such as other ungulate species, moosemigration patterns and predation, and habitatchanges in the moose management system.In the 3 counties with established popula-tions of large carnivores (i.e., brown bearsin Västerbotten and Dalarna, wolves inDalarna and Västra Götaland), informationabout predator populations and predationrates was considered an important com‐ponent of moose management plans. Res‐pondents in Södermanland stressed theimportance of co-managing other deer andungulate species, rather than focus on moosesingly, arguing that moose and deer interactand share several resources (e.g., habitatand food). They also questioned whydeer and wild boar (Sus scrofa) were notalready considered in the ecosystem-basedmanagement system. In Västerbotten, seaso-nal migration patterns of moose were reflectedin the management plan. In Kronoberg, habi-tat changes resulting from the 2005 hurricaneGudrun received special attention, as it felled75 million cubic meters of forest in southernSweden (Swedish Hydrological and Meteoro-logical Institute 2013), creating beneficialhabitat for moose and roe deer.

DISCUSSIONThe respondents generally perceived the

increased participation and collaborationbetween hunters and landowners as positive.Despite some concern that the new mana‐gement approach might remove decision-making from the local to ecosystem leveland lose legitimacy with individual hun‐ters and landowners, the majority of officialsand stakeholders supported the programgoals and believed the opposite. Most envi-sioned a decentralized influence from thecounty to ecosystem level or down to thelocal level, and believed that enhanced


61

stakeholder stewardship would consolidatemanagement legitimacy. Despite the positivespirit and increased collaboration, mostrespondents found the specific managementresponsibilities to be unclear. The term“local” seemed to create confusion aboutdivision of power, at what scale, and wherepower resided to influence decision-making.

Lack of funding and the actual time pro-vided for implementation of the new systemwere other obstacles identified by respon-dents. While time constraints would gradu-ally be remedied, the funding issue risksundermining the entire management systemsince it reduces the possibilities for stake-holders to contribute to ecosystemstewardship.

Stakeholders were aware of the need tomaximize information to successfully bal-ance moose and forest resources. Allacknowledged the need for reliable monitor-ing and appropriate sampling as part of adap-tive management, and that the purpose ofmonitoring might be lost without usingappropriate techniques. However, stake-holder expectations and scientific recom-mendations regarding data acquisition andmonitoring differed. The suggested monitor-ing methods were most useful for moosemanagement areas, and less so for smallerlocal units where the goal is to use accurateestimates (Ericsson 2011). Pellet-groupcounts are an exception, but using thismethod in a smaller management unit wouldnot be as useful when managing a largepopulation, a primary goal for achievingecosystem-based management (SwedishOfficial Investigation 2009). Understandingthe limitations of monitoring techniquesis crucial to achieve transition from anassumption-based to a knowledge-basedmanagement system.

The forest monitoring methods areapplicable at both the management area andlocal scales (Kalén and Bergquist 2011,Rolander et al. 2011). However, local

damage surveys are often only roughly cor-related with population density (Rolanderet al. 2011), and applying such data withmoose population estimates at larger scalerisks error in interpretation within the largermanagement area. Further, data collected atdifferent resolutions probably poses risk tothe overall assessment that includes variousmonitoring techniques, potentially compli-cating stakeholder stewardship further.

The ability to modify the managementplan was perceived as a core and essentialfeature of the moose management system;however, perceptions varied as to whether itwas possible to alter management decisionsduring an ongoing hunting season. Indeed,invoking change given new information isessential in adaptive management (Allenet al. 2011). The question remains as to theextent of adaptability in the new moose man-agement system. The regulations (Environ-mental Protection Agency 2011) providefor changes during a hunting season, yetthis would require continual monitoring andrapid response by stakeholders. Unlessreporting efforts improve, it will be difficultto adjust during a hunting season. Even ifthese components function flawlessly, mostmoose in Sweden are harvested in the firstweeks of the hunting season (Ball et al.1999); therefore, from a practical standpoint,non-emergency changes and deviationswould likely occur the following year.

Accounting for MVCs and predationwas relatively well developed in all counties.Predation, for example, could be estimatedprecisely from wolf monitoring (Sand et al.2011). Conversely, with respect to otherungulates—such as in Södermanland wherered deer, roe deer, fallow deer, and wildboar (Sus scrofa) are abundant—currentmonitoring of populations, damage, and for-age forecasts were considered highly insuffi-cient; neither wild boar nor deer aresystematically monitored in Sweden (Apol-lonio et al. 2010). Deer populations could

62


be assessed with pellet-group counts, butdensity estimates are dependent upon spe-cies-specific identification of pellet groupsand defecation rates (Neff 1968). It mightalso be possible to expand hunter observa-tions to include other deer with the methodsof Kindberg et al. (2009), where effort-cor-rected observations of brown bears was sug-gested as a useful monitoring technique.Adequate evaluation would be requiredbefore implementing this approach intomoose management plans. Despite progresswith genetic monitoring of browsing damage(Spong 2011), information about differentungulate forage selection and food overlapis generally lacking. Overall, our results sug-gest that critical knowledge-gaps exist withboth hunters and landowners that precludetheir effective participation in, and use ofmany monitoring techniques.

ConclusionsWe found strong stakeholder support for

the moose management goals to balancesocial and ecological values. Although thewillingness to embrace ecosystem steward-ship was pervasive among stakeholders, themoose management program faces severalchallenges in fully implementing an ecosys-tem-based, adaptive moose management sys-tem. This includes the need to clarifyprimary concepts like “ecosystem-based”and “local”, and to have all stakeholdersclarify and agree about definitions withinthe plan and the role and responsibility ateach level; such an approach should helpmitigate conflicts and avoid furtherconfusion.

Several obstacles were identified con-cerning monitoring, the key tool enablingenvironmental stewardship. Specifically,unclear responsibilities and inadequatefunding threaten local and regional datacollection, both of which could jeopardizestakeholder stewardship.

The importance and benefits of monitor-ing and reporting, as emphasized by therespondents, must be communicated to thegrass-root level to enhance future participa-tion; i.e., the responsibility of individualstewardship. Demonstrating that monitoringis a worthwhile effort of individual huntersor landowners is perhaps the most difficultchallenge. It is important to create a sustain-able moose management system in balancewith forage resources, traffic safety, andlarge carnivore populations, as well as otherland uses and biodiversity objectives (Molleret al. 2004).

Unless these challenges are resolved, theprimary objective of the new moose manage-ment system risks the same failure as withprevious plans. To address the monitoringissues, an addition or revision of the regula-tions (Environmental Protection Agency2011) regarding the purpose of monitoringis suggested; this approach would be positivefor all stakeholders and should facilitate theircommitment to the system. The issue ofmonitoring costs, specifically regarding for-est resources, needs to be addressed directlywith full support of stakeholders to achieveadequate participation. Lastly, informationregarding coexistence and co-managementof ungulates in management areas needs tobe incorporated into the system, an approachsimilar to that for large carnivores in Sweden(Andrén et al. 2011).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis research was funded through Future

Forests, a multi-disciplinary research pro-gram supported by Mistra (the Foundationfor Strategic Environmental Research), theSwedish Forestry Industry, the SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, UmeåUniversity, and the Forestry Research Insti-tute of Sweden. We thank the two anon-ymous reviewers for valuable commentson an earlier draft of the manuscript.


63

REFERENCES

ALLEN, C. R., J. J. FONTAINE, K. L. POPE, andA. S. GARMESTANI. 2011. Adaptive man-agement for a turbulent future. Journalof Environmental Management 92:1339–1345.

ANDREN, H., A. JARNEMO, H. SAND, J.MANSSON, L. EDENIUS, and P. KJELLAN-

DER. 2011. Ekosystemaspekter på älgför-valtning med stora rovdjur. Ecosystemaspects on moose management with largecarnivores. Fakta Skog 12/2011. SwedishUniversity ofAgriculture,Umeå, Sweden.(In Swedish).

ANGELSTAM, P., P. E. WIKBERG, P. DANILOVA,W. E. FABER, K. NYGREN, W. B. BALLARD,and A. R. RODGERS. 2000. Effects ofmoose density on timber quality and bio-diversity restoration in Sweden, Finland,and Russian Karelia. Alces 36: 133–145.

APOLLONIO, M., R. ANDERSEN, and R. PUT-MAN. 2010. European Ungulates andTheir Management in the 21st Century.Cambridge University Press, New York,New York, USA.

BALL, J. P., G. ERICSSON, and K. WALLIN.1999. Climate changes, moose and theirhuman predators. Ecological Bulletins47: 178–187.

BARNARD, A. 2004. Hunter-Gatherers in His-tory, Archaeology and Anthropology.Berg Publishers, Oxford, UnitedKingdom.

BERGMAN,M., and S. ÅKERBERG. 2006.Moosehunting, forestry, and wolves in Sweden.Alces 42: 13–23.

BERGSTROM, R., J. MANSSON, J. KINDBERG,Å. PEHRSON, G. ERICSSONR, and K.DANELL. 2011. Spillningsinventeringför älg. Pellet-group count for moose.Fakta Skog 12/2011. Swedish Universityof Agriculture, Umeå, Sweden. (InSwedish).

BROMAN, E. 2003. Environment andMoose population dynamics. Ph.D. The-sis. Department of EnvironmentalSciences and Conservation, GöteborgUniversity, Göteborg, Sweden.

CHAPIN, S., G. KOFINAS, and C. FOLKE.2009. Principles of Ecosystem Steward-ship: Resilience-Based Natural ResourceManagement in a Changing World.Springer Science and Business Media,New York, New York, USA.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE. 2007. European Char-ter on Hunting and Biodiversity. Adoptedby the Standing Committee of the BernConvention at its 27th meeting in Stras-bourg, 26–29 November, 2007. <http://www.cicwildlife.org/uploads/media/Hunting_Charter_EN.pdf> (accessedApril 2013).

DANELL, K., J. P. BALL, R. BERGSTROM, G.ERICSSON, J. KINDBERG, and H. SAND.2011. Älgkalvvikter – ett konditionsmått.Moose calves’ weights – an index of fit-ness. Fakta Skog 13/2011. Swedish Uni-versity of Agriculture, Umeå, Sweden.(In Swedish).

EDENIUS, L., M. BERGMAN, G. ERICSSON, andK. DANELL. 2002. The role of moose asa disturbance factor in managed borealforests. Silva Fennica 36: 57–67.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.2011. NFS 2011:7. Naturvårdsverketsföreskrifter och allmänna råd om jaktefter älg och kronhjort. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s regulations and gen-eral guidelines on hunting for moose andred deer. (In Swedish).

ERICSSON, G. 2011. Inventering för adaptivälgförvaltning i älgförvaltningsområden(ÄFO). Monitoring for an adaptivemoose management within moose man-agement areas (MMA). Inventeringsma-nualens förord. Manual preface.Swedish University of Agriculture,Umeå, Sweden. (In Swedish).

———, and J. KINDBERG. 2011. Älgobserva-tioner (Älg-obs). Hunter observations.Fakta skog 11/2011. Swedish Universityof Agriculture, Umeå, Sweden. (InSwedish).

FISCHER, A., C. SANDSTROM, M. DELIBES-MATEOS, B. ARROTO, D. TADIE, D. RAN-

DALL, F. HAILU, A. LOWASSA, M. MSUHA,

64


http://www.cicwildlife.org/uploads/media/Hunting_Charter_EN.pdf



V. KEREZI, S. RELJIC, J. LINNEL, and A.MAJIC. 2012. On the multifunctionalityof hunting – an institutional analysis ofeight cases from Europe and Africa. Jour-nal of Environmental Planning and Man-agement 56: 531–552.

HENDEE, J. C. 1974. A multiple-satisfactionapproach to game management. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 2: 104–113.

HOLSMAN, R. H. 2000. Goodwill hunting.Exploring the role of hunters as ecosys-tem stewards. Wildlife Society Bulletin28: 808–816.

HORNBERG, S. 2001. The relationship betweenmoose (Alces alces) browsing utilizationand the occurrence of different foragespecies in Sweden. Forest Ecology andManagement 149: 91–102.

KALEN, C., and J. BERGQUIST. 2011. Fodpro,Foderprognoser. Skogliga inventerings-metoder i en kunskapsbaserad älgförvalt-ning. Fodpro, Forage forecasts, Moosedamage survey methods in a knowl-edge-based moose management. Version1.0. Skogsstyrelsen (Swedish ForestAgency). (In Swedish).

KINDBERG, J., G. ERICSSON, R. BERGSTROM,and K. DANELL. 2011. Avskjutningssta-tistik för älg. Harvest statistics for moose.Fakta Skog 10/2011. Swedish Universityof Agriculture, Umeå, Sweden. (InSwedish).

———, ———, and J. E. SWENSON. 2009.Monitoring rare or elusive large mam-mals using effort-corrected voluntaryobservers. Biological Conservation 142:159–165.

LAVSUND, S., T. NYGREN, and E. J. SOLBERG.2003. Status of moose populations andchallenges to moose management in Fen-noscandia. Alces 39: 109–130.

LEOPOLD, A. 1950. A Sand County Almanacand Sketches Here and There, Illustratedby Charles W. Swartz. Oxford UniversityPress, New York, New York, USA.

MANSSON, J., C. E. HAUSER, H. ANDREN, andH. P. POSSINGHAM. 2011. Survey methodchoice for wildlife management: the

case of moose Alces alces in Sweden.Wildlife Biology 17: 176–190.

MOLLER, H., F. BERKES, P. O. B. LYVER, andM. KISLALIOGLU. 2004. Combiningscience and traditional ecological knowl-edge: monitoring populations for co-management. Ecology and Society 9(3):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/ (accessed April 2103).

NEFF, D. J. 1968. The pellet-group count tech-nique for big game trend, census, and dis-tribution: a review. The Journal ofWildlife Management 32: 597–614.

ROLANDER,M., C. KALEN, and J. BERGQUIST.2011. ÄBIN, Skogliga inventeringsmeto-der i en kunskapsbaserad älgförvaltning(Moose damage survey methods in aknowledge-based moose management).Älgbetesinventering (ÄBIN) Version 1.0.Skogsstyrelsen (Swedish Forest agency).(In Swedish).

SAND, H., H. ANDREN, J.E. SWENSON, and J.KINDBERG. 2011. Flera jägare på älgpo-pulationen – predationsmönster hos vargoch björn. Several hunters of the moosepopulation – predation patterns of wolfand brown bear. Fakta Skog 25/2011.Swedish University of Agriculture,Umeå, Sweden. (In Swedish).

———, G. CEDERLUND, and K. DANELL.1995. Geographical and latitudinal varia-tion in growth patterns and adult bodysize of Swedish moose (Alces alces).Oecologica 102: 433–442.

SANDSTROM, C., S. WENNBERG-DIGASPER, andK. ÖHMAN. 2013. Conflict resolutionthrough ecosystem-based management:the case of Swedish moose management.International Journal of the Commons 7:549–570.

SEILER, A. 2003. The toll of the automobile.Ph. D. Thesis. Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, Umeå, Sweden.

SPONG, G. 2011. DNA-analyser och viltöver-vakning. DNA - analysis andwildlife sur-veillance. Fakta Skog 17/2011. SwedishUniversity of Agriculture, Umeå, Swe-den. (In Swedish).


65

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art2/

SWEDISH GOVERNMENT. 2010. Proposition2009/10:239. Älgförvaltningen. 2010.Proposition 2009/10:239 Moose man-agement. (In Swedish).

SWEDISH HYDROLOGICAL AND METEOROLO-

GICAL INSTITUTE. 2013. <http://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/gu-drun-januaristormen-2005-1.5300> (acce-ssed March 2013).

SWEDISH OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION. 2009.2009:54. Uthållig älgförvaltning i sam-verkan. 17th June 2009. Sustainable

moose management in collaboration.Fritzes. Stockholm, Sweden. (InSwedish).

WENNBERG-DIGASPER, S. 2008. Naturalresource management in an institutionaldisorder: the development of adaptive co-management systems of moose in Swe-den. Ph. D. Thesis. Division of PoliticalScience, Department of Business Admin-istration and Social Sciences, Luleå Uni-versity of Technology, Sweden.

66


http://www.smhi.se/kunskapsbanken/meteorologi/gudrun-januaristormen-2005-1.5300



Alces, 50: 35-51 Lindqvist, S., Camilla, S., Bjärstig, T...

Documents

Transcript of Alces, 50: 35-51 Lindqvist, S., Camilla, S., Bjärstig, T...