The Scandinavian model: A different path to wildlife management

Full text

Fall 2010Vol. 4 No. 3
Conservation’s Debt to Hunters
How Science Gains from Studying Game
The Role of Furbearer Management
The North
American
Conservation
Model
SPECIAL ISSUE

5www.wildlife.org
© The Wildlife Society
Vol. 4 No. 3
Fall 2010
22 FEATURE STORY Overview: The North American Model
By John Organ, Shane P. Mahoney, and Valerius Geist
ROTATING FEATURES
28 Education
A Conservation Timeline
By Robert Brown
32 Ethics
The Hunter’s Ethic
By Jim Posewitz
35 Law and Policy
Wellspring of Wildlife Funding
By Steve Williams
39 Commentary
Priceless, But Not Free
By Ronald J. Regan
42 Human-Wildlife Connection
A Bountiful Harvest for Science
By Gary C. White and
Chad J. Bishop
48 Plans and Practices
Deer Control: Hunting for Balance
By Raymond J. Winchcombe
52 Plans and Practices
The Scandinavian Model
By Scott M. Brainerd and
Bjørn Kaltenborn
58 Plans and Practices
Shades of Gray: Challenges
Linked to Hunting
By Divya Abhat and
Katherine Unger
64 Human-Wildlife Connection
Predator Control: A Model Dilemma
By James M. Peek
66 Plans and Practices
New Guidelines for Furbearer
Trapping
By Bryant White et al.
72 Professional Development
Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow
By Richard McCabe
76 Education
Safety First: Hunter Education
By Susan Langlois
80 Commentary
A Personal Journey
By James E. Miller
83 Commentary
Future Challenges to the Model
By Shane P. Mahoney and
David Cobb
Special Issue: North American Model of Wildlife Conservation
Credit: Jim Peaco/NPS
Courtesy of Conservation Leaders for Tomorrow
Credit: Ken Logan/Colorado Division of Wildlife
22
42
72
More Online!
This publication is available online to TWS
members at www.wildlife.org. Through-
out the magazine, mouse icons and text
printed in blue indicate links to more
information available online.
DEPARTMENTS
6 Editor's Note
8 Guest Editorial
10 Letters to the Editor
12 Leadership Letter
13 Science in Short
16 State of Wildlife
20 Today’s Wildlife Professionals:
Richard Heilbrun and John Davis
88 New Feature
Policy Watch
Issues relevant to wildlifers
89 Field Notes
Practical tips for field biologists
90 The Society Pages
TWS news and events
96 Gotcha!
Photos submitted by readers

52 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010 © The Wildlife Society
Many once-depleted wildlife populations
in Sweden and Norway are ourishing
today. Moose (Alces alces) are a prime
example: Though nearly exterminated only a cen-
tury ago due to overhunting, concerted efforts by
Scandinavian hunter-conservationists and legisla-
tors have brought the species back from the brink
(Swedish Hunter’s Association 1992; Søilen 1995).
Today, Sweden’s annual harvest of moose totals
more than 80,000 animals, and Norway’s is nearly
40,000. This pattern of overhunting and recov-
ery may sound familiar to North Americans. In
many ways, the successes of wildlife conservation
in Scandinavia have paralleled those of the North
American Model of Wildlife Conservation.
The North American Model has been lauded as a
great success and incorporated into the policy of the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agen-
cies (Prukop and Regan 2005). Yet there is room
for improvement, as evidenced by problems such as
chronic overpopulation of deer and geese in North
America, and an inability to adequately regulate
these species through hunter harvests (e.g. Ankney
1996, Merrill et al. 2006, Connor et al. 2007).
To nd solutions to such problems, it makes sense
to observe wildlife conservation successes elsewhere
in the world. With more than 60 years of collec-
tive experience working in both North America and
Scandinavia, we believe that certain facets of the
Scandinavian approach to wildlife management,
if used wisely, may have potential application in
North America.
What is the Scandinavian Model?
We propose the following as the eight guiding
principles of the Scandinavian Model of
Wildlife Conservation:
1) No one owns living wildlife, but landown-
ers own wildlife legally harvested on their
property. Living wildlife in Scandinavia is consid-
ered a public resource (Danielsen 2001). Animals
that die of natural causes, are killed as part of
special public control measures, or are otherwise
The Scandinavian Model
By Scott M. Brainerd, Ph.D., and Bjørn Kaltenborn, Ph.D.
Scott M. Brainerd,
Ph.D., is a Wildlife
Research Coordinator
with the Alaska
Department of Fish
and Game and a
Research Scientist
with the Norwegian
Institute for Nature
Research. He
served 15 years
as the national
wildlife specialist
for the Norwegian
Association of
Hunters and Anglers.
Credit: Bjørn Kaltenborn
A DIFFERENT PATH TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
Bjørn Kaltenborn,
Ph.D., is a Senior
Research Scientist
with the Norwegian
Institute for Nature
Research.
Credit: Scott M. Brainerd
Credit: Eyvor Aas
A moose-hunting team
in Norway retrieves a kill
from the field. Like other
hunters in Scandinavia,
the group leases
moose-hunting rights
on privately owned
forest land, paying the
landowner permit fees
to harvest a set number
of animals. Moose
numbers are thriving
under this system.

53www.wildlife.org
© The Wildlife Society
not legally harvested (e.g., killed by vehicle colli-
sion or poaching) are considered property of the
state, but legally harvested wildlife is the property
of the landowner.
2) Game meat is a commercial commod-
ity that can be sold on the open market.
Though game farms for wildlife products exist
in the U.S., they are relatively rare. In Scandi-
navia, game meat is routinely sold on the open
market and is considered an important part
of the culture.
3) Landowners have exclusive rights to hunt
on their land. Scandinavian landowners have the
right to hunt on their land, and can also lease access
to other hunters. In Norway, landowners hold state
hunting licenses allocated to their properties in
accordance with plans approved by locally elected
game boards and supervised by regional wildlife
managers (Storaas et al. 2001).
4) Decision-making is decentralized through
empowerment of local stakeholders. Manage-
ment of species such as moose has been gradually
decentralized to allow more precise management in
accordance with local management goals (Danielsen
2001, Lavsund et al. 2003). As a general rule, land-
owners are given responsibility to manage game
populations on their land within a sound regulatory
framework designed to incorporate data collected
primarily by hunters.
5) Wildlife should only be killed for legiti-
mate reasons. As in the U.S. and Canada, the
primary motivations for Scandinavian hunters
are recreation and harvesting meat for the table.
Wildlife can also be legally killed in self-defense or
defense of property.
6) Wildlife is an international resource.
Norway and Sweden both work to conserve wildlife
populations internationally, participating in pan-
European and global agreements including the Bonn
Convention, the Bern Convention, RAMSAR, CITES,
and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Nor-
way recently took the lead in creating the European
Charter on Hunting and Biodiversity, which recog-
nizes the value and importance of hunting as a tool
in European wildlife conservation.
7) Science should ground decisions to
allocate wildlife resources to the public.
Scandinavia, like North America, has long relied
upon wildlife research and monitoring as the
basis for sound management. Meticulous harvest
statistics have been collected in both Norway and
Sweden for over 150 years. While most monitoring
programs have concentrated on cervids, funding
for large carnivore research has increased dra-
matically in recent years, in pace with increasing
wildlife populations.
8) Hunting is open to all citizens. Hunters in
Norway and Sweden comprise roughly 5 percent of
the population (comparable to the U.S. percentage).
They are representative of the population and do
not belong to an elite class (Statistics Norway, U.S.
DOI and U.S. DOC 2006).
A group enjoys a forest walk (above) on private land east of Trondheim, Norway. Unlike in
North America, private land is largely available to the public for hiking, berry picking, and
sometimes fishing (below). Fishing rights may also be leased from landowners.
Credit: Erling Solberg
Credit: Olav Strand

54 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010 © The Wildlife Society
Where the Models Part Ways
While the two Models share much in common,
several differences do exist arising from the dif-
ferent cultures, politics, and history of the nations
involved. In 1899, for example, when Norway was
in union with Sweden, private landowners were
granted exclusive hunting rights to all game species
on their property to avoid overharvesting of game
species by the public—a “tragedy of the commons”
situation (Søilen 1995). These rights endure today
in both countries. In addition, because landown-
ers can charge hunters for access and for the meat
they harvest, landowners have incentive to sustain-
ably manage wildlife on their property. They also
recognize the need to regulate ungulate popula-
tions, especially moose, through hunting in order
to
prevent damage to forests and crops.
Some North American conservationists regard
privatization as being in direct conict with the
Public Trust Doctrine (Williams et al. 2009). This
does not seem to be the case in Scandinavia, where
wildlife is not farmed or ranched, and landown-
ers widely provide hunting opportunities to the
public. Recent public opinion surveys in Norway
indicate that a majority of the public are highly
supportive of nature conservation and protection
as well as hunting (Norsk Gallup 2008). Thus,
we see no evidence that the fee-based system for
wildlife management in Scandinavia has been
detrimental to public support for either conserva-
tion or hunting (cf. Swenson 1983), in part due to
cultural norms and values which are not directly
translatable to other countries. Among other no-
table differences between the North American and
Scandinavian models:
A Culture of Open Access
Land ownership in many, if not most, Scandinavian
rural communities dates back many generations,
even centuries in some families. In Norway the gov-
ernment has heavily subsidized rural communities
to maintain older settlement patterns and thereby
cultural continuity. The hunting culture is thus rela-
tively intact—many urban hunters are able to return
each fall to family-owned lands to hunt.
Although more than 75 percent of land in Norway
and Sweden is privately owned, “No Trespassing”
signs are almost non-existent. Instead, private
lands in Scandinavia are generally freely open
to the public for hiking, camping, berry picking,
and to some extent shing. Physical exercise and
an appreciation of the “peacefulness of nature”
are also important components of the culture in
Scandinavia, where great emphasis is placed on
healthy lifestyles, and obesity and associated health
problems are comparatively rare.
State managed land is available for hunting. In
Norway and certain areas in Sweden, laws stipulate
that local residents have priority to use communal
areas—private land managed in the public trust—for
hunting and shing. Access to large private estates
may be limited to landowners and their friends, but
in many cases, small landowners band together to
ensure that they have enough land to meet require-
ments for harvesting a single deer or moose.
Whether on private or public land, however, hunt-
ers must have landowner permission to hunt,
obtained either through leases—which provide
exclusive access for hunting parties—or permits,
which typically give individuals short-term access
to
small game or roe deer. (A typical lease for ptar-
migan hunting on private land in southern Norway
may cost upwards of $10 per acre or more.)
Local hunters in Scandinavia generally have very
good access to hunting through informal personal
connections with landowners or through member-
ship in organized hunting clubs. Hunters without
local connections may nd it challenging to gain
access to big game hunting, and often must compete
Successful moose hunters dress their kill. They will leave the meat hanging until it
becomes dry and tender. Hunters may keep moose and other game meat for private
consumption, give or sell it to friends and acquaintances, or sell it on the open market.
Credit: Erling Solberg

55www.wildlife.org
© The Wildlife Society
for leases or permits on private or state land. Small
game hunting is generally more available. Clubs
also lease small game rights from consortiums of
landowners, and manage the wildlife and hunt-
ing on their behalf. Prots above the lease fees are
used for hunter education and wildlife caretaking
(Heberlein 2001).
Commercial Markets for Game
Key to the Scandinavian Model is that game meat—
moose, red deer, roe deer, wild reindeer, wild boar,
brown bear, and small game such as ptarmigan—
can and does have signicant
commercial value.
Hunters must pay landowners to
harvest the meat,
but can then sell it for more than what they pay,
so both landowners and hunters benet and have
incentive to sustain healthy wildlife populations.
Hunters pay landowners a fee based on the har-
vested animal’s sex, age, and slaughter weight,
from about $8 per pound for a typical moose calf
to $10.50 per pound for an older bull. These pay-
ments are roughly 10 to 20 percent less than what
one would pay in the commercial market—com-
pensation to hunters for the service they render.
Hunters also pay individual tag fees that in Nor-
way range from about $22 for a calf reindeer to
about $71 for an adult moose. Landowners typi-
cally charge hunters up front for permits, ranging
between $200 and $400 per animal. Once animals
are harvested, that amount is deducted from the
total price the hunter pays for the meat. Hunters
can then sell the meat they do not use to friends,
neighbors, or others at market price.
This system provides hunters incentive to ll their
quotas and thus recoup their investment, and may
help explain the very high achievement of national
moose quotas in particular—on the order of 80 per-
cent or more annually (Statistics Norway 2009). To
ensure quality, all privately harvested game meat
sold on the market must pass a health inspection.
In 2007, the total value of wildlife meat harvested
in Norway was 500 million Norwegian kroner (90
million U.S. dollars), with moose meat alone valued
at 300 million kroner (54 million U. S. dollars).
Fur also has commercial value in Scandinavia as it
does in North America. However, with the excep-
tion of Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) ) in the Svalbard
archipelago, commercial trapping of furbearers is
very limited, primarily due to low fur values for the
most commonly trapped species such as marten
(Martes martes) (Helldin 2000). Many trappers
indicate that wildlife management is their primary
motivation for trapping (Ødegård et al. 1994).
Conservation Funding
There is no special excise tax on rearms and
ammunition in Scandinavia akin to the Pittman-
Robertson Act funds (see page 35). However, as
in the U.S., wildlife management and research are
generally paid for by hunting license and permit
fees. In Norway these funds have been earmarked
for wildlife management and research since 1951—a
feat considering that the Norwegian Finance
Department abhors dedicated fees. Hunting and
shing are also important and steadily increasing
parts of the overall economy in Norway, contrib-
uting roughly $580 million a year (Norwegian
Agriculture and Food Department). Likewise in
Sweden, hunter license fees and dues for member-
ship in the Swedish Association for Hunters and
Wildlife Management pay for management and
research. These contributions, both in terms of
funding and local involvement
, represent con-
siderable hunter “ownership” of
Scandinavia’s
conservation system.
Working for the
Norwegian Institute
for Nature Research,
doctoral student
Christer Rolandsen
tracks a radio-
collared moose in
central Norway. As
in North America,
wildlife management
in Scandinavia is
grounded in scientific
research and
monitoring.
Credit: Erling Solberg

56 The Wildlife Professional, Fall 2010 © The Wildlife Society
Hunting Ethics
Laws and policies in Norway and Sweden em-
phasize the need for high hunter competence and
ethical standards, as in North America. Yet in Scan-
dinavia, hunting teams must have dogs available
to track wounded game, and hunters must pass
annual shooting tests before they can legally hunt
big game. These standards are reected in hunter
prociency: A recent study of 12,000 shots red at
red deer, moose, and wild reindeer in Norway indi-
cated that wounding loss for the combined sample
was less than 1 percent (Andestad 2009).
The relative concept of fair chase is balanced
against other ethical considerations, such as
achieving efcient and “clean” kills. In addition
to using dogs for hunting moose and deer species,
big game hunters in Scandinavia can use two-way
radios and other communication devices—illegal
in some U.S. states—to increase efciency. In
Sweden, hunters can gain access to remote areas
with helicopters, but the use of off-road vehicles
for recreational hunting is generally prohibited as
it is considered a disturbance to wildlife and lands.
Unlike North America and elsewhere in Europe,
obtaining trophies in Scandinavia is rarely an im-
portant objective. This may be partly explained by
the egalitarian and collectivist nature of Scandina-
vian culture, where bragging or standing out from
the group is discouraged (Daun 1996).
Public Perceptions of Hunting
Perhaps because of these high standards for
competence and ethics, as well as the important
cultural value of game meat, hunting is viewed
by an increasing majority of Norwegians (74
percent in 2008) as an acceptable and even
desirable activity (TNS Gallup 2008). One study
found that the Swedish public was highly sup-
portive of hunting when the main objectives were
recreation and meat (81 percent), but less so (33
percent) when the objectives were recreation and
sport (Heberlein and Willebrand 1998).
Public attitudes toward guns also differ signi-
cantly from those in the States. Some hunting
advocates in the U.S. warn that gun control will
impose serious limitations on hunting (Williams
et al. 2009). Ironically, Norway has rather strict
gun control laws by U.S. standards, yet gun own-
ership in Norway is the highest in Europe at 32
percent of households compared to 39 percent in
the U.S. (Kates and Mauser 2007, Gallup 2009).
Hunters without serious criminal backgrounds in
Norway generally have no trouble obtaining gun
permits since hunting is considered a legitimate
and important activity under the law. The same
holds true in Sweden, although just 15 percent of
households have guns (Kates and Mauser 2007),
which may reect the country’s higher proportion
of urban residents.
A Different Model for Success
The Scandinavian Model of Wildlife Conserva-
tion has promoted the recovery and sustained
management of many big and small game
species in Sweden and Norway. Yet this model
also has its challenges. Competing interests in
an increasingly urbanized society will continue
to place wildlife and their habitats under pres-
sure. In addition, successful recovery of large
carnivore populations brings its own headaches.
Many hunters perceive wolves, bears, and lynx to
be unwelcome competitors or adversaries, as do
agriculturalists in rural communities. As a result,
poaching of large carnivores is on the increase,
and appears to have slowed recovery of the wolf
population significantly (Liberg et al. 2010). The
Scandinavian governments have begun to dedi-
cate more resources to wildlife law enforcement
to counteract this trend.
The Scandinavian Model is the result of a strong
partnership between the states, landowners,
and the public. This “revier,” or hunting terri-
tory, system—where hunters, landowners, and
the government partner in the management of
local properties—provides real incentives for local
wildlife conservation and management (Bubenik
1989). Therefore, in areas of North America that
are dominated by private land and where game
populations are dense and hunter access is lacking
(such as in the northeastern U.S.), it may ben-
et wildlife conservation to consider the creative
implementation of a model similar to that prac-
ticed in Scandinavia, giving private landowners
incentive to allow hunters to help manage wildlife
on their property.
For a complete bibliography,
go to www.wildlife.org.