IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v265y2013icp140-148.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sharing the bounty—Adjusting harvest to predator return in the Scandinavian human–wolf–bear–moose system

Author

Listed:
  • Jonzén, Niclas
  • Sand, Håkan
  • Wabakken, Petter
  • Swenson, Jon E.
  • Kindberg, Jonas
  • Liberg, Olof
  • Chapron, Guillaume

Abstract

The increase and range extension of wolves (Canis lupus L.) and brown bears (Ursus arctos L.) in Scandinavia inevitably impacts moose (Alces alces L.) populations and, as a consequence, the size and composition of the hunter harvest must be adjusted. We used a sex- and age-structured moose population model to delineate optimal harvest strategies under predation and to compare the resulting harvest composition with the strategy commonly implemented in practice. We examined how much moose density or adult sex ratio needs to change to fully compensate for losses to predation. We found a harvest allocation pattern in commonly used practical management across calves, bulls and cows that indicated a trade-off strategy between maximising the number of shot moose, the yield biomass and the number of shot prime bulls. This strategy performed quite well with respect to all yield measures and yielded an age structure most similar to the strategies maximising harvest biomass and prime bulls. Unless predation pressure was very high, the harvest loss could be completely compensated for by allowing a higher moose density. In other situations the current hunting strategy was not possible to implement and the moose density needed to sustain predation even without hunting increases dramatically. An alternative option to balance the predation loss was to accept a more female-biased sex ratio in the winter population. Hence, it may be possible to keep 50% calves in the harvest and still obtain the same total harvest if the proportion of bulls in the harvest is increased to compensate for predation. The increase of large carnivores competing with moose hunting creates conflicts and will inevitably reduce harvest yield unless hunting strategies change. We show how increased moose density and redistribution of the harvest towards bulls can mitigate this conflict and we provide a web-based tool, where stakeholders can compare the long-term effects of alternative management decisions and eventually adjust their hunting strategy accordingly.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonzén, Niclas & Sand, Håkan & Wabakken, Petter & Swenson, Jon E. & Kindberg, Jonas & Liberg, Olof & Chapron, Guillaume, 2013. "Sharing the bounty—Adjusting harvest to predator return in the Scandinavian human–wolf–bear–moose system," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 265(C), pages 140-148.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:265:y:2013:i:c:p:140-148
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.05.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380013002809
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.05.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mattias Boman & Leif Mattsson & Göran Ericsson & Bengt Kriström, 2011. "Moose Hunting Values in Sweden Now and Two Decades Ago: The Swedish Hunters Revisited," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(4), pages 515-530, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katarina Elofsson & Tobias Häggmark, 2021. "The impact of lynx and wolf on roe deer hunting benefits in Sweden," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(4), pages 683-719, October.
    2. Kalén, Christer & Andrén, Henrik & Månsson, Johan & Sand, Håkan, 2022. "Using citizen data in a population model to estimate population size of moose (Alces alces)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Olivier Beaumais & Anne Briand & Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "What are Households Willing to Pay for Better Tap Water Quality? A Cross-Country Valuation Study," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 10051, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    2. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    3. Kalén, Christer & Andrén, Henrik & Månsson, Johan & Sand, Håkan, 2022. "Using citizen data in a population model to estimate population size of moose (Alces alces)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).
    4. Eugene E. Ezebilo, 2012. "Forest Stakeholder Participation in Improving Game Habitat in Swedish Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-16, July.
    5. Häggmark-Svensson, Tobias & Elofsson, Katarina & Engelmann, Marc & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2015. "A review of the literature on benefits, costs, and policies for wildlife management," Working Paper Series 2015:1, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department Economics.
    6. Julian E. Lozano & Katarina Elofsson & Yves Surry & George Marbuah, 2023. "Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Game Harvests in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 85(2), pages 385-408, June.
    7. Galina Williams, 2022. "Temporal stability of WTP estimates in labeled and unlabeled choice experiment for emissions reduction options, Queensland, Australia," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 24(4), pages 533-550, October.
    8. He, Xiaoyang & Poe, Gregory L., 2021. "Exploring the shelf-life of travel cost methods of valuing recreation for benefits transfer," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    9. Sabrina Dressel & Annelie Sjölander-Lindqvist & Maria Johansson & Göran Ericsson & Camilla Sandström, 2021. "Achieving Social and Ecological Outcomes in Collaborative Environmental Governance: Good Examples from Swedish Moose Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-21, February.
    10. Linas Balčiauskas & Yukichika Kawata & Laima Balčiauskienė, 2020. "Moose Management Strategies under Changing Legal and Institutional Frameworks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Dressel, S. & Ericsson, G. & Johansson, M. & Kalén, C. & Pfeffer, S.E. & Sandström, C., 2020. "Evaluating the outcomes of collaborative wildlife governance: The role of social-ecological system context and collaboration dynamics," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Lew, Daniel K. & Wallmo, Kristy, 2017. "Temporal stability of stated preferences for endangered species protection from choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 87-97.
    13. Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "A hedonic analysis of the complex hunting experience," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 51-66.
    14. Herruzo, A.C. & Martínez-Jauregui, M. & Carranza, J. & Campos, P., 2016. "Commercial income and capital of hunting: an application to forest estates in Andalucía," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 53-61.
    15. Jie He & Bing Zhang, 2021. "Current Air Pollution and Willingness to Pay for Better Air Quality: Revisiting the Temporal Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(1), pages 135-168, May.
    16. Claudio Fagarazzi & Carlotta Sergiacomi & Federico M. Stefanini & Enrico Marone, 2021. "A Model for the Economic Evaluation of Cultural Ecosystem Services: The Recreational Hunting Function in the Agroforestry Territories of Tuscany (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-15, October.
    17. Rolfe, John & Dyack, Brenda, 2019. "Testing Temporal Stability of Recreation Values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 75-83.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:265:y:2013:i:c:p:140-148. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.