Selling game: Can we learn from the Scandinavian Model of Wildlife Conservation

Abstract

CONTROL ID: 1108165 TITLE: Selling game: Can we learn from the Scandinavian Model of Wildlife Conservation? AUTHORS/INSTITUTIONS: S.M. Brainerd, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, AK;
B. Kaltenborn, , Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Lillehammer, Oppland, NORWAY;
CONTACT (NAME ONLY): Scott Brainerd CONTACT (E-MAIL ONLY): scott.brainerd@alaska.gov SUBMISSION ROLE: Contributed Poster/Paper CURRENT CATEGORY: Human Dimensions, Conservation Education, and Conservation Policy PRESENTATION TYPE: Oral ABSTRACT BODY:
Abstract Body: Many once-depleted wildlife populations in Sweden and Norway are flourishing today. Sweden’s annual moose harvest, for example, totals more than 80,000 animals, and Norway’s is nearly 40,000. Though moose and other wildlife species in Scandinavia were nearly exterminated only a century ago due to over-hunting, concerted efforts by hunter-conservationists and legislators have brought many species back from the brink. This pattern of over-hunting and recovery may sound familiar: In many ways, the successes of wildlife conservation in Scandinavia have paralleled those of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. Key to the Scandinavian Model is that game meat has significant commercial value in Norway and Sweden. This is especially true for big game species such as moose, wild reindeer, roe deer and red deer. Hunters may pay landowners roughly 10-20% less than the market value of the meat, as compensation for the service they perform in harvesting managing game populations. Because Scandinavian landowners can charge hunters for access and for the meat they obtain, they have a strong incentive to sustainably manage wildlife by allowing hunting on their property. By keeping hunting fees reasonable, hunters are provided abundant hunting opportunity and the ability to offset some of their expenses by selling a portion of the meat they harvest. Non-hunters also benefit because they are given the opportunity to purchase meat from hunters and/or landowners. Hunter license fees also finance research and monitoring, and management has been decentralized to facilitate rapid response to changing conditions. Thus, detailed science-based management plans ensure long-term sustainability and viability of game populations. A basic premise of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation has been the elimination of markets for game. In areas where game populations are overabundant and hunter access is lacking, creative implementation of a model similar to that practiced in Scandinavia may revitalize wildlife - and perhaps hunter - populations here in North America.

Full text

Can we learn from the Can we learn from the
Scandinavian Model of Scandinavian Model of
Wildlife Conservation?Wildlife Conservation?
Oscar Jansen
Oscar Jansen
Scott Brainerd (Ph.D), Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Oscar
Jansen
Scott
Brainerd
(Ph.D),
Alaska
Department
of
Fish
and
Game,
University of Alaska (Fairbanks) and Norwegian University of Life Sciences
Bjørn Kaltenborn (Ph.D), Norwegian Institute for Nature Research

 The North American Model of
Wildlife Conservation has been a
great success.
 Many game species were rescued
from extinction through timely
from
extinction
through
timely
conservation measures.
 Huntin
g
has
p
la
y
ed an im
p
ortant
gpy p
role in conservation and
management.
Hbdi

H
owever, game overa
b
un
d
ance
i
s
a chronic issue in some regions.

North American Challenges:
 Some deer and geese
lbd
popu
l
ations overa
b
un
d
ant.
 Public hunting not working
as a management tool.
 Limited access.
 Fewer hunters (recruitment).
 Little landowner incentive.
 Time to think outside the
box?

 In Norway and Sweden,
success
f
ul game
management has been
p
racticed in a s
y
stem where
py
game meat can be sold on
the open market.
 Here we illustrate how this
has been used to benefit
conservation by presenting
the Scandinavian model for
moose management.
P.H. Pedersen/DN
moose
management.

History:
 Prior to 19
th
century –
 Big game considered Royal
Property in Sweden Danish
Property
in
Sweden
.
Danish
and then Swedish kings
instituted restrictions in
Norwa
y
.
y
 19
th
century
Ultdhtib

U
nregu
l
a
t
e
d
h
un
ti
ng
b
y
commoners drove populations
to near extinction .
1789: The French Revolution frightened the
Swedish nobility into allowing peasants
to freely hunt on crown and private land.

Solution:
1825
1899:
1825
-
1899:
 Laws and regulations instituted to
protect species and regulate harvest .
 Landowner rights reestablished to
ensure proper stewardship and
protection.
Norway Association of Hunters and Anglers
 Organized hunter-conservationists
played a key role.
 Capitalistic model* : Markets continue
for wild game. Felled game is owned
and can be sold b
y
landowners
y
(incentive for conservation).
* Condy, P. 2008. Conservation – Public or private, Socialism or Capitalism? Wildlife Professional, Summer 2008: 52-43.
Swedish Hunters Association

North American Model Scandinavian Model
Wildlife as Public Trust Resources
Living Wildlife
a Public Resource, but Landowners own
All Game Harvest on their Property
Elimination of Markets for Game Sale of game meat allowed.
Allocation of Wildlife b
y
Law x
y
Wildlife Should Only be Killed for a
Legitimate Purpose x
Wildlife Are Considered an International
Wildlife
Are
Considered
an
International
Resource x
Science is the Proper Tool for Discharge
of Wildlife
Policy
x
of
Wildlife
Policy
x
Democracy of Hunting. x
1
Brainerd & Kaltenborn. The Scandinavian Model: A different path to wildlife management. The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010: 52-56.

Numbers(2008)
Norway Sweden Total
Moosehunters
60,000 200,000 260,000
Moose
135,000 200,000 335,000
Mooseharvested
36,000 81,000 117,000

Norwegian moose harvest 1889-2010
National goal to stabilize harvest and populations
40000
National
goal
to
stabilize
harvest
and
populations
30000
e
d
Scientific, active management started
20000
N
umber harvest
e
Modern hunting law enacted
10000
N
Exclusive landowner
hunting rights
10000
Logging created
vast habitat postwar.
0
1889 1899 1909 1919 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009
Year
vast
habitat
postwar.

 About 5500 metric tons of moose
meat are harvested annually (36,000
)M k t l f ti b t
moose
)
.
M
ar
k
e
t
va
l
ue o
f
mea
t
i
s a
b
ou
t
US$ 40-55 M.
 Most of the meat is not sold on the
open market, but through personal
networks, or consumed by hunters
and landowners.
 Some meat is available, seasonally in
restaurants or local markets.

Important supplemental income for

Important
supplemental
income
for
many landowners, sometimes
exceeding value of other assets
(timber, etc.).
See Storaas et al. (2001) The economic value of moose in Norway - a review. Alces 37(1):97-107.

 Long history of public
participation.
 Popular activity (over 300,000
registered hunters).
 Open to anyone > 16 yr passing
hunter proficiency exam.
Sfb

S
tringent requirements
f
or
b
ig
game hunters.
◦
Annual shooting test required
◦
Annual
shooting
test
required
.
◦ Access to dog to track wounded
game.
 License and tag fees pay for state
research and management.
Statistics Norway (www.ssb.no)

 High hunter standards.
Serio s h nter commitment

Serious
hunter
commitment
(time, resources).
 Efficient methods and means.
Hunters police themselves.
Oscar Jansen
 Low wounding rates (<5%).
 High public support (>70%).
Trophy hunting not a strong motivation.

 Quotas:
◦ State sets quotas with input from
local hunters, authorities, data.
◦ Specify age and sex of moose by unit.

Management goals:

Management
goals:
◦ Balance population with forage
su
pp
l
y,
miti
g
ate forest dama
g
e
pp y, g g
and vehicle collisions.
◦ Harvest surplus of calves, yearlings.
◦ Promote herd health by weeding out
lower quality individuals.


Landowners lease land to hunting

Landowners
lease
land
to
hunting
parties, or hunt themselves.

Little turnover in hunting parties

Little
turnover
in
hunting
parties
promotes long-term tenure and
efficiency.
 Lottery style leases on state land
to qualified hunting parties.
 Regulations promote/demand
cooperation over property
boundaries.

 Willingness to pay among
potential moose hunters is
potential
moose
hunters
is
high.

Seller
’
s market References

Seller s
market
.
References
for hunters often required.

Meat prices set below

Meat
prices
set
below
market value to attract
hunters. Recognizes work
done by hunters
done
by
hunters
.

High hunter
incentives to
 Meat and lodging
components + state permit
incentives
to
harvest full quota.
components
+
state
permit
fees.

Leases often require that

Leases
often
require
that
hunters pay up front for
meat value of moose on
q
uota.
q
 Differentiated prices
p
romote selection of
Oscar Jansen
High monetary penalties
for shooting
“
wrong
p
younger, smaller animals to
promote herd health.
for
shooting
wrong
moose”.

 Pricing models vary.
Pricespaidbyhunterstolandowners*
 Pricing can favor take of
smaller/younger moose
Yearling 165+ kg
Adultcow190‐205kg
Adultbull215‐235kg
Adultcow205+kg
Adultbull236+kg
 Calves, small yearlings and
adult cows are the
Ad lt 150
175 k
Yearling129‐164kg
Adultbull160‐188kg
Adultcow175‐190kg
Adultbull189‐214kg
Yearling

165+

kg
cheapest.
 Large, productive adults
Ad l 130
150 k
Yearling90‐99kg
Yearling100‐128kg
Calf40+kg
Adultbull140‐160kg
Ad
u
lt
cow
150
‐
175

k
g
the most expensive.
 Hunters
p
rofit from takin
g
$‐ $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
Ad
u
l
tcow
130
‐
150

k
g
Hunterprice$/lb
Market value is > $10/lb.
pg
the “right” animals.
* Example taken from Bakka. D. 2001. Jaktsalg (Selling the hunt). Skogbrukets kursinstitutt. P.72.

Norwegian moose harvest 1986-2008
40000
45000
90%
100%
Harvest
% of quota
30000
35000
70%
80%
20000
25000
50%
60%
Does market value of meat help drive
15000
20000
30%
40%
Does
market
value
of
meat
help
drive
high quota achievement?
5000
10000
10%
20%
0
1
986
1987
1988
1989
19
9
0
19
9
1
1
992
1
993
1994
1995
19
9
6
19
9
7
19
9
8
1
999
2
000
2
001
20
0
2
20
0
3
20
0
4
2
005
2
006
2
007
2008
0%

 Derive added income
f h ildlif
f
rom t
h
e w
ildlif
e
resource on their
land.
land.
 Hunters manage game
hi
on t
h
e
i
r property.

Incentive to organize

Incentive
to
organize
and allow harvest on
their land.
Oscar Jansen

 Motivates landowners to
p
rovide access.
p
 Strong economic
incentive to harvest
incentive
to
harvest
animals.
Clltth

C
an se
ll
mea
t
th
ey
harvest to recoup some
costs.
 Exclusive rights eliminate
hunter competition and
conflicts.

 Highly organized, skilled
and motivated hunting
corps as management tool.
 Sale of confiscated/road-
killed meat adds to
management coffers.
 Landowner-hunter
relationship reduces need
for enforcement
for
enforcement
.
 Pricing tools stimulate
didhd
d
es
i
re
d
h
er
d
management.

 Game meat can be sold
on the open market, and
hld
h
unters/
l
an
d
owners can
profit from this.
 Meat value is a big
incentive to allow
hunting on private land
hunting
on
private
land
and is used as a tool for
management.
 Can this model be
adapted and applied
adapted
and
applied
here in North America?

Thank you for your attention!Thank you for your attention!
Any questions?Any questions?
Special thanks to Dr. Special thanks to Dr. ErlingErling Solberg for photo illustrations!Solberg for photo illustrations!