Ungulates and Forestry

in Sweden

Göran Ericsson

Chaired Professor in Wildlife Ecology,

Dept. of Wildlife, Fish & Environmental Studies, SLU, Sweden

My Research Group;

Plant-Animal Interactions, HD and

Wildlife Management

Wallin, Ericsson, Cederlund

• Moose, roe deer, wild boar,

fallow deer, red deer - current

model animals

• Gradients and variation

• Use, impact, forestry

• Behavioral, populations,

landscape ecology, genetics,

wildlife management, Human

Dimensions of Natural Resurces

Key Features

• The ”Swedish Wildlife Management Model”

– Restoration and Sustainability

– NGO:s->Stakeholders well organized

– Private Landowners

– Utilitarian, ethical focus

• N-S Gradient -> Environmental Variation

• Forestry

• Adaptive [Moose] Management Program

– From single speciec to multispecies

– Added value for FRISK

Seasonal Latitudinal

Gradient

55N – 69N

Scandinavia; Sweden, Norway … and Finland

Legislation and habitat restoration

brought animals back

Official Moose Harvest 1900-2012

1938 8,459 1967

31,541

1982 174,709

2012 96,050

0

40,000

80,000

120,000

160,000

200,000

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000

Variation….Movement strategy

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Po

pu

lati

on

siz

e/in

dex

(lo

g)

Year

Moose

Wild boar

Bear

Wolves

The last 30 yrs;

More ungulates, more predators, more….

The Past -

The Swedish Exemple;

From Rare to …. Pests or

Disturbance or Problems

1789-1860

Freedom results in the tragedy

of the commons

• Gustavus III

• French Revolution

• All landowners right to hunt

• Cultural significance

Tragedy of the commons:

Game disappears fast in

1800’s

Sweden

1808-1818

full protection

1830

~1860

1938

~1967

Habitat management / preservation

Foto Anders Jarnemo

Foto Anders Jarnemo

Ungulates & humans – a 6,000 yr

risky story.

The Future –

Unglates Related to Forestry…

Novel

communities

Expansion, manipulation

Rebounding, more impact

Exotic species vs ecosystem

services

Exotic grazers more accepted->

Ethical dilemma.

Added value

Adaptive management

GOAL Knowledge

Actions

Observation

Evaluation

Key concepts

• Local: engage those affected to balance

local and public interest.

• Ecosystem based: a geographical areas

and a mode of operation => adaptive

managemant

Prop. 2009/10:239, NFS 2011:7)

Ecosystem approach

• Holistic view on natural resource

management

• Knowledge based (science, local & traditional)

• Humans a part of and dependent of

ecosystem services to survive

• Decentralised decision making

Solutions according to the directives

Problems in the old system

Solutions in the adaptive

system

Moose – a resource & a problem

Ecosystem approach

Adaptive management

Ecosystem based local

management

Browsing, [grazing].

Plant/tree community compostion-

biodiversity

Wildlife collissions, infrastructure

Labour intensive administration

Lack for supervision and holistic

approach

- Land owners

- Public, other interest

Framework

Level Formel rules Volontary rules

National (495 000

km2)

Regional (#21

counties)

County board

(Regional;

”Wildlife

delegations”)

Ecosystem Moose

management unit

(4-10/region/

50,000 – 100,000

ha)

Local Moose

cooperation

areas (of #

hunting groups)

Hunting groups

Animal

Competition

Population development

Manageable impact

Predators

Infrastructure

Reshaping the landscape

Climate

Cultural landscapes

Interactions to

include

Foto SLU/Jimmy Pettersson

Adaptive management to stay…

[EU] Research areas to be

• Monitoring

– Animals, impact, user groups

• Ungulate Damage in relation to

– Multispecies recovery

– Climate

• Manipulations

– Supplemental feeding

– Game farming

– Introductions

• Human Dimensions

[EU] management challenges

• Ungulate/Wildlife Management

– > Professionalism

• Urban, suburban wildlife

management

• Charistmatic species will dominate

the societal response

• More alerts, alarm

– Massdeath, vectors, zoonosis

”There is a

Bad Moon on

the Rise” -

Wish I Could

Hideaway”

Resources - SLU

• Wiebke Neumann

• Joris Cromsigt

• Navinder Singh

• Göran Spong

• Holger Dettki

• PhD-candidates

– Andrew Allen, Ida-Maria Blåhed, Anita Norman, Per Ljung, Anders Kagervall, Jonas Malmsten, et al.

• Anne-Marie Dalin

• Lars Edenius

• C-G Thulin

• Håkan Sand

• Johan Månsson

• Roger Bergström

• Kjell Danell

• John Ball

• Thomas R Palo

• Intl. Collaborators

– FIN, NO, US, Canada, RUS, Baltic, Poland, etc

Stockholm

Umeå

Swedish EPA. Formas. VR. SLU. SVA. Jägareförbundet. Wildlife & Forestry