p49-61_4107.pdf ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 49 HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP? – PRODUCING MEAT IN AREAS WITH CARNIVORES Jos M. Milner1,2, Erlend B. Nilsen1,2, Petter Wabakken1, and Torstein Storaas1 1Department of Wildlife and Forestry Management, Hedmark University College, Evenstad, N-2480 Koppang, Norway. 2Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis, Department of Biology, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1050, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway ABSTRACT: Moose hunting is of considerable economic and social importance in much of Scandinavia. In some parts, such as south-east Norway, it is economically more important than sheep farming. We examine trends in moose harvesting and sheep production over a 12-year period in an area of increas- ing predator numbers and compare the meat yield before and after the re-establishment of wolves. The production of lamb meat at the county level declined, particularly from within the forest habitat, while the moose harvest showed only localized reductions. We also consider the scale of the economic loss caused by large carnivores and discuss management options for a future with carnivores. ALCES VOL. 41: 49-61 (2005) Key words: meat, wildlife harvesting, wolf predation Unlike many parts of North America where the sale of game meat is restricted or prohibited, moose (Alces alces) meat is a valuable commodity in Scandinavia. Since the 1970s the annual Norwegian moose harvest has increased over 6-fold (Statistics Norway 2004a), due to changes in forestry practices and the introduction of a selective hunting regime (Østgård 1987) in the near absence of large carnivores and with reduced competition from domestic cattle grazing (Ahlen 1975). The current yield is around 35,000-40,000 moose per year with an estimated economic value of US$ 40-55 M from meat alone (see also Storaas et al. 2001), making it by far the most economically important game species in Scandinavia (Mattsson 1990). At the lo- meat and income in rural areas, and plays an important social and cultural role. Although landowners do not legally own game animals on their land, they hold the right to hunt them and proceeds generated from hunting may of some large landowners. However, much of the meat is consumed privately and hunting rights are rarely sold for more than the meat value. Furthermore, as there is no well devel- oped Scandinavian equivalent of the North contributes little towards local employment. Consequently, much of the potential economic value of moose hunting is not realized. Sheep production in Norway has also increased since the 1970s but to a lesser extent and for different reasons. Over this period, it has been government policy to sup- port agriculture, including sheep farming, as a means of maintaining human settlements in rural Norway and stabilizing food pro- duction (Norwegian Agricultural Authority 2004, see also Zimmermann et al. 2001). The introduction of production subsidies during an era when large carnivores were virtually extinct allowed for a rise in lamb production which peaked in the early 1980s (Rogstad 2003, Statistics Norway 2004b). Changing husbandry practices also meant that lamb production became concentrated on fewer, larger farms and became less labor HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 50 intensive with little shepherding (Linnell et al. 1996, Nersten et al. 2003, Rogstad 2003). In general, ewes are over-wintered and lambed months of snow cover, and then released with their lambs to range freely in unenclosed for- est and mountain pastures during the summer months (Drabløs 1997). The current national production of lambs is about 1.4 million per year (Statistics Nor- way 2004b), with a meat value of US$ 120M approximately US$ 25 M (Rogstad 2003, Statistics Norway 2004b). However, sheep production subsidies total approximately US$ income arising from subsidies (Nersten et al. 2003). On an international scale, sheep farming in Norway is a relatively small industry, pro- viding about 9,000 full-time job equivalents nationwide, held on approximately 19,000 farms. Although both moose hunting and sheep farming occur throughout large parts of Norway, the main sheep farming districts are in the mountainous areas of Western Norway while moose hunting tends to be concentrated in the forested areas in the south-east and further north (Fig. 1). Concurrent with increases in the Nor- wegian moose harvest and lamb production, there has been a change in attitudes towards large carnivores in Europe and North America (Linnell et al. 1996, Bjerke et al. 1998, Wil- liams et al. 2002, Ericsson and Heberlein 2002). The Norwegian government has explicitly stated the goal to maintain sus- tainable, breeding populations of four large carnivore species (Miljøverndepartementet 2003-2004), following their near eradication due to human persecution over the last 150 years (Swenson et al. 1995, Wabakken et al. 2001, Vilà et al. 2003). Bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus) have been protected in Norway since 1973 and 1971 respectively, wolverine (Gulo gulo) since 1973 in southern Norway and 1981 in northern Norway, and lynx (Lynx lynx) since 1992 in southern Nor- way (Andersen et al. 2003). However, some controlled hunting of lynx and wolverine has been permitted under license since 1994. Wolf numbers began increasing in southern and central Scandinavia in 1991 and rose 10-fold during the following 10 years (Wabakken et reproduction in Norway occurred in 1997. One element of the policy to promote carnivores has been to pay compensation to farmers who lose domestic stock to carnivores (Kaczensky 1996, Linnell and Brøseth 2003). number of large carnivores, it has become common practice to graze domestic sheep on unenclosed forest and mountain pastures without shepherding in summer (Mysterud et al. 1996, Linnell and Brøseth 2003). Con- sequently in some regions Norwegian sheep farmers are now experiencing the highest losses of sheep per carnivore in Europe (Kaczensky 1996, Linnell 2000). Although a number of studies have investigated ways of Linnell et al. 1996, Mysterud et al. 1996, Flaten and Kleppa 1999, Krogstad et al. 2000), the problem persists. Furthermore, man is no Scandinavia, as wolves also adversely affect local moose populations (Gundersen 2003). Here we present an exploratory analysis of trends in the relative size and economic im- portance of moose hunting and sheep farming since 1990 in the county of Hedmark, South- east Norway, where carnivore numbers have been increasing. We examine changes in trends since the re-establishment of large carnivores and quantify the economic loss incurred by local landowners and communities due to a reduced moose harvest and lamb production. We then go on to discuss land management options in an environment of increasing carnivore density and the appropriateness of continuing sheep farming in some areas. We do not attempt to demonstrate causal relationships ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 51 Fig. 1. Map of Norway showing (a) the density of moose shot in 2002 (Statistics Norway 2004b) and (b) the number of sheep kept over winter in each municipality (Norwegian Agriculture Authority 2004) and the location of Hedmark County. (c) Habitat zones and location of reproducing large carnivores in Hedmark in 2003. No. over-wintering sheep per municipality No. over-wintering sheep per municipality No. over-wintering sheep per municipality Hedmark County S w ed en Hedmark County S w ed en a) b) c) Mountain zone Intermediate zone Forest zone N Fig. 1 No moose hunting allowed < 1.0 1.0 - 1.9 2.0 - 2.9 3.0 - 4.9 > 5.0 Moose harvested per 10 km2 qualifying area HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 52 between moose, sheep, and predator numbers. STUDY AREA The county of Hedmark is in south-east Norway on the Swedish border and is com- posed of 22 municipalities (Fig. 1) with a low and scattered human population density, averaging 6.8 persons / km2. The county covers about 27,000 km2 of which approximately 60% is boreal forest dominated by Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) and Norway spruce (Picea abies), managed primarily for commercial timber pro- duction. Hedmark has a relatively high moose density (>1 moose / km2 (Gundersen 2003)). It is the most important moose hunting county in Norway (Fig. 1a), accounting for 20% of the national harvest (Statistics Norway 2004a). Over 25,000 inhabitants are registered hunt- ers. By contrast, sheep farming is not a major component of the local economy except in the north of the county. There are about 45,000 over-wintering adult female sheep in the whole 1b) which provide less than 600 full-time job equivalents (Wabakken et al. 1996). But, more importantly for local rural politics, sheep farm- ing provides income or part-time employment for over 1,100 households for whom having sheep may make the difference between keeping or abandoning the farm. Although cattle farming also occurs throughout the county, there are about 7 times as many free- ranging sheep as cattle. Until recently there cattle (Zimmermann et al. 2003) so public and media interest has focused on the issue of sheep farming. The county can be divided into 3 habitat zones (Fig. 1c). The north of Hedmark is a mountainous area, characterized by a high proportion of alpine vegetation above the tree- line at about 900m above sea level. The south of Hedmark is dominated by forest with over 70% forest cover and < 0.1 % of the land area above the tree-line. Between these areas is an intermediate zone with a mixture of both forest (60% cover) and mountain habitats (Table 1). Moose density, indexed by harvest density, is highest in the forest zone and lowest in the mountain zone (Fig. 1a), while sheep densities are considerably higher in the mountain zone and than in either the forest or intermediate zone (Fig. 1b, Fig. 3). Hedmark is the only county in Norway where breeding populations of all 4 species of large carnivores occur (Fig. 1c) and has one of the largest numbers of carnivores. by proximity to the Swedish border, with dispersing individuals, particularly bears and wolves, frequently crossing into Hedmark. Overall, carnivore numbers are highest in the forest zone. Wolverines tend to occur most in the mountainous north while lynx numbers are highest in forest areas. Both wolf and bear populations occur in the area east of the Glomma River to the Swedish border. Breed- ing wolves have gradually been re-colonizing the area since 1997 but resident wolves are only found in the forest and intermediate zones. The Norwegian Parliament has declared a wolf conservation zone which was imple- mented in spring 2005, partly in southeastern Hedmark, while a bear conservation zone in Hedmark existed between 1993 and spring 2005 (Miljøverndepartementet 2003-2004). However, these zones, which incorporate suitable habitat, are essentially political de- marcations and dispersing individuals of both species can often be found in areas outside these zones. DATA & ANALYSES Local municipalities act as the executive game management authorities in Norway (Danielsen 2001). We therefore used data from hunters and sheep farmers collated at the municipality scale, by hunting teams, land- owner and grazing organizations, municipality included the number and age- and sex-class of all moose shot during the hunting season, ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 53 Table 1. Size and vegetation of the habitat zones within Hedmark County. Qualifying area (QA) is based on the land considered suitable moose habitat for the purpose of hunting license allocation population size is the proportional change in the number of moose observed per hunter per day dur- ing the hunting season between the period 1990-1996 and 1997-2002. Fig. 2. Trends in (a) number of moose shot and (b) number of lambs produced in Hedmark since 1970. A: introduction of selective hunting, B: introduction of sheep production subsidies, C: implementation of the brown bear conservation zone, D: re-establishment of breeding wolves in Norway. Habitat zone Total area (km2) Proportion forest Proportion bog Qualifying area (km2) QA /TA Change in moose pop Mountain 81,400 0.38 0.09 42,800 0.53 0.98 Intermediate 171,300 0.6 0.13 124,750 0.73 1.2 Forest 103,450 0.74 0.09 87,250 0.84 1.31 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 N o . la m b s 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 N o . m o o s e h a rv e s te d Low carnivore numbers Increasing carnivore numbers A B C C D D a) b) HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 54 Fig. 3. Trends by habitat zone in (a) number of moose shot, (b) number of ewes plus lambs released to hill and forest pastures in June, (c) percentage losses of ewes and lambs to large carnivores during summer, and (d) number of lambs per ewe in autumn. Square symbol with dashed line: forest zone, triangle with dotted line: intermediate zone, diamond with solid line: mountain zone. the number of adult sheep and lambs released onto the unenclosed forest and mountain pas- tures during the summer, the number of adult sheep and lambs lost over the summer period, the number of compensation claims made by sheep farmers for different predators, and the number and size of compensation payments made. Numbers of sheep were those of farm- ers belonging to grazing organizations only (about 90% of all sheep farmers in Hedmark; E. Maartmann, personal communications). We restricted our analysis to the time period 1990-2002 allowing a comparison of years before and after the re-colonization of wolves, - pact on both sheep and moose in Hedmark. All values are expressed in US$ assuming a constant exchange rate of 1 Norwegian kroner values using the Norwegian consumer price index (Statistics Norway, http://www.ssb. no/kpi/tab-01.html). The value of moose meat was assumed to be US$ 10.2 / kg throughout the study period, corresponding to a decrease in value in real terms from $13.4 / kg in 1990. Average stripped moose carcass weights showed a density-dependent decrease during the study period and were taken as 70 kg prior to 1994 and 68 kg since 1994 for male calves, 70 kg and 64 kg for female calves, 149 kg and 139 kg for 1.5-year-old males, 142 kg and 131 kg for 1.5-year-old females, 221 kg and 200 kg for older males, and 183 kg and 176 kg for older females prior to and since 1994, 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 m oo se sh ot /k m 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 S h e e p + la m b s / k m 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 N o . la m b s / e w e in a u tu m n 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 % to ta l e w e + la m b s lo s t a) b) c) d) ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 55 respectively (Statistics Norway 2004a). The between a minimum of US$ 5 / kg in 1990 to a maximum of US$ 6.2 /kg in 2002 (Statistics - tion, meant a decrease in value from US$ 6.7 / - ation in autumn lamb weights between years (Steinheim et al. 2001, 2004), for simplicity we have assumed a constant stripped lamb carcass weight over time but varying between municipalities from 17 kg in the forest zone to 19.5 kg in the mountain zone (Steinheim et al. 2001). We have assumed that all lambs rounded up in autumn are slaughtered rather than used for stock replacement. A generalized linear mixed modeling ap- proach (McCullagh and Nelder 1989), in which effects, was used to evaluate the trends which were investigated by habitat zone. The Wald 2 distribution. RESULTS Regional Trends in Moose Hunting An average of 6,600 moose (range 4,958 - 8,215) have been shot annually in Hedmark since 1990 (Fig. 2a), yielding over 880 tonnes of meat per year. Assuming all meat was sold, this represents a value of US$ 7.5 M - 14.6 M per year. There has been considerable variation in the number of moose shot per year, both at the county level (Fig. 2a) and when a comparison 2 12,267 = 244.4, P < 0.001; Fig. 3a). Inter-an- nual variation was greatest in the forest zone, showing a sharp decline in harvest yield in 1994-95 followed by a recovery to pre-de- cline levels. However, there was no evidence of a difference in the number of moose shot per year in the periods before (1990 - 1996) and after (1997 - 2002) the re-establishment of wolves in any habitat zone (mountain: 2 1,60 = 0.45, P 2 1,73 = 0.27, P 21,136 = 0.09, P = 0.77) and moose were not affected by any other large carnivore species. There were, nonetheless, clear differences in the number of moose shot /km2 qualifying area between habitat zones 2 2,277 = 42.83; P < 0.001), with considerably higher yields in the forest zone than in either the intermediate or mountain zone in all years. in moose densities between the habitats. Fur- thermore, the number of moose seen per day by hunters increased over the study period in the forest and intermediate zones but not in the mountain zone (Table 1). Consequently, hunting yield than the presence of wolves, at the regional scale. Regional Trends in Lamb Production in Hedmark has remained steady at around 46,000 ewes (range 43,673 - 48,375), while the total number of lambs produced and surviv- 2 1,247 = 7.20; P = 0.007), falling from a peak of over 80,000 in the early 1990s to 70,000 in 2000 (Fig. 2b). The decline, from 1,280 tonnes of meat in 1990 to 1,130 tonnes in 2002 is equivalent to a 12% reduction in annual production, or a loss of 150 tonnes per year over 13 years, worth almost US$ 1M at 2002 prices. The decline in lamb yield corresponds with a decrease over time in the number of 2 1,247 = 23.29; P < 0.001) and a dramatic increase over time in the proportion of lambs going missing 2 1,247 = 82.23; P < 0.001; Fig. 3c). Compensation claims for both sheep and lambs lost to large carnivores in Hedmark increased over 5-fold in real terms between 1990 and 2002, with claims paid amounting to - tion, rising to US$ 1.7M in 2002 (Fylkesman- nen i Hedmark, unpublished data). This was despite a decrease in compensation payment per head in both actual and real terms between 1990 and 2002. Most of the compensation paid HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 56 out was for claims against bear (23%), lynx (19%), and wolverine (17%) predation, with only 6% due to wolves and a further 34% in The rate at which autumn lamb yield de- zones, being considerably greater in the forest zone than in the mountains (habitat zone-year 2 2,243 = 15.83; P < 0.001). Al- though all habitat zones have shown a steady increase in losses of both ewes and lambs since 1990 as carnivore numbers have increased 2 1,247 = 88.79; P < 0.001), proportional losses have been highest in the forest zone (habitat 2 2,243 = 8.35; P = 0.015; Fig. 3c), reaching over 20% of lambs in 2002. This, combined with lower ewe productiv- ity within the forest zone (average number of lambs per ewe in June is 1.48 in forest zone compared with 1.65 in mountain zone; 2 2,246 = 7.66; P = 0.022) and lower autumn weights of lambs that have spent the summer grazing in forest areas (Steinheim et al. 2001), is reducing the viability of sheep production in the forest zone relative to other parts of the county. Relative Value of Moose Hunting and Sheep Production Within the forest zone, the value of moose meat is nearly 2.5 times greater than the value of lamb meat (including compensation for lost animals) (Fig 4). By contrast, in the mountain zone, the lamb meat produced has over 5 times the value of moose meat. The total value of moose and lamb meat together is considerably lower in the intermediate zone than in either of the other areas (averaging US$ 474 /km2, compared with US$ 859 /km2 and US$ 793 /km2 in the mountain and for- est zones, respectively, over the last 5 years), with the value of moose meat being 1.5 times greater than lamb meat. However, income from sheep farming is considerably enhanced by government production subsidies. Although subsidy pay- ments have gradually been eroded since the 1970s, in 2002, total expenditure on sheep production subsidies amounted to approxi- mately US$ 1.3 M in the forest zone, US$ 1.6 M in the intermediate zone and US$ 3.0 M in the mountain zone (Fylkesmannen i Hedmark, unpublished data). This has the ef- fect of raising the total moose and lamb value to US$ 1,347 /km2, US$ 1,043 /km2, and US$ 613 /km2 in the mountain, forest, and intermediate zones, respectively, in 2002. Of this, 90%, 41%, and 52%, respectively, was contributed by sheep enterprises. In all zones, total meat value decreased between 1990 and 2002 after adjusting for greater in the forest and intermediate zones than in the mountain zone (Fig. 4). Trends over source in each habitat type and consequently the forest and intermediate zones were af- fected by the relatively greater devaluation of moose meat than lamb meat. By contrast, the effect of increasing carnivore numbers in these zones was relatively minor because lamb meat was a less important component of the total meat value, and losses were gener- ally compensated. Consequently, the overall economics have not been strongly affected by increasing carnivore numbers. However, as discussed below, this may not be the case for individual landowners. Local Impact of Carnivores impact on moose hunting yield is the wolf, but within Hedmark, at the regional and even municipality scales, no effect of predation was apparent. However, in localized parts of the study area and for individual landowners within a wolf territory, wolves may have a profound economic impact. For example, Gundersen (2003) suggests 27% of moose calves per year (24 - 31% ± 2 SE) are killed by the Koppang wolf pack, in central Hedmark. This equates to approximately 100 moose ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 57 per year. To minimize any decline in moose numbers due to predation, the landowners in that area have voluntarily imposed a restriction on the number of moose shot per year (Fig. 5). This has cost them over US$ 150 /km2 from the loss of meat sales alone. In addition, some landowners have experienced a considerable loss of rental income from the letting of cabins and small game hunting since the arrival of the wolf (C. Mathiesen, personal communica- tion). Rising numbers of other carnivores have had a less dramatic effect on rental income because it is mainly wolves that pose a threat to hunting dogs. Sheep and lamb numbers expressed at the regional scale also hide the trends at the scale of individual carnivore territories. Brown bears kill more sheep in Hedmark than other carnivores but the annual removal of some problem bears has not halted the increase in sheep losses (Zimmermann et al. 2003). Within wolf territories, many farmers have but high predation rates have forced some to abandon sheep production, either switching to cattle or alternative enterprises. However, the alternatives, one of which may be moose hunting (Storaas et al. 2001), are somewhat limited and sheep farmers only rarely have hunting rights for the areas they graze. DISCUSSION The increase in carnivore numbers expe- rienced throughout the 1990s in Norway has stimulated a reappraisal of land management strategies and considerable debate about op- tions for the future. It is clear that as carnivores have increased, sheep production in Hedmark has declined, particularly where sheep are released into forest habitat for summer graz- ing. However, our data cannot demonstrate a causal link between the two. By contrast, the moose harvest has shown no such change due to a low bear density, the lower vulnerability of moose to carnivores such as lynx and wol- verine, and a greater variability in population size and yield between years. Although some commentators comparing the current moose hunting yield with the yield 10 years earlier note a drop which they attribute to wolves, our data suggest that at a regional scale this was largely a result of a decline in moose population size before the arrival of wolves. Nonetheless, at the spatial scale of the wolf territory, some landowners have experienced a considerable economic loss due to reduced sustainable hunting yields (Nilsen et al. 2005). This is also true of other game species and areas beyond Hedmark (Aanesland and Holm 2003). In Norway, natural summer mortality of lambs in the absence of carnivores is assumed to be around 4% (Drabløs 1997), while lamb losses in some parts of the forest zone in south- ern Hedmark are in excess of 20% (Norwegian Institute of Land Inventory, http://beite.nijos. Fig. 4. Value per km2 of moose and sheep meat (assuming all meat is sold) and compensation from sheep lost to large carnivores in three habitat zones for the period 1990-2002, adjusted 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Moose meat Compensation Lamb meat Moose meat Compensation Lamb meat U S $ /k m 2 Forest Intermediate Mountain HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 58 no/kart.htm). This is one of the highest rates of sheep loss per carnivore in Europe (Kaczensky 1996, Linnell 2000) and raises ethical ques- tions about the appropriateness of releasing lambs onto unenclosed land in summer. Since it is government policy to maintain breeding populations of large carnivores, including demarcation of a zone for wolf reproduction, it can be expected that carnivores will remain in most of these areas. Consequently, unless changes are made, sheep losses and declines in lamb production are likely to continue (Sagor et al. 1997), particularly in forest habitat where carnivore numbers are higher and dense vegetation restricts prey vigilance. This presents a dilemma for the govern- ment which wants to promote both large carnivores and the rural population, without trading one off against the other. There are a number of ways in which sheep losses could be reduced (Kaczensky 1996, Linnell et al. wolf territories, few measures have been taken. This is primarily because radical changes to the current husbandry system of extensive and are likely to be costly (Linnell and Brø- seth 2003). It appears that using shepherds or guarding dogs could prevent much of the predation but would increase production costs compared to current practice (Krogstad et al. 2000, Linnell 2000). Furthermore, there is no tradition of using dogs in this way in Norway and using children, as in former times, is no longer realistic without payment. If such measures are not implemented for economic reasons, it may be that in some habitats it is no longer appropriate to continue sheep production. If, for example, sheep zone, the primary economic loss to the area would be the loss of the production subsidy payments which amounts to about US$ 1.3 M per year. However, this represents an equal saving to the government. Could this money instead be used to promote alternative economic activities associated with moose hunting and ecotourism or widen compensa- tion schemes? Here, the principal challenge would be to ensure that the individuals who were keeping sheep do not lose out. Currently farmers are eligible for compen- sation for any of their domestic stock killed by large carnivores (Kaczensky 1996). However, landowners are not eligible for compensa- tion for losses of moose hunting yield. If the government wants to continue its policy of keeping rural areas populated, maybe it should consider widening the terms under which compensation is offered. However, it should be noted that compensation payments do not always improve tolerance towards carnivores, especially where emotional stress is caused (Naughton-Treves et al. 2003). Furthermore, it would be undesirable if the effect was to shift compensation payments from many small farmers to fewer, relatively large landowners. A more appropriate approach may be for af- fected municipalities to receive some kind of economic impact of having large carnivores in the area. A second approach may be to explore ways of increasing the yield, and conse- quently income, from moose hunting, if a higher moose population density could be sustained. To do this, measures would have to be taken to prevent, alleviate, or pay for forest damage (Johansson et al. 1988, Fig. 5. Number of moose shot per year within the Koppang wolf territory showing a voluntary restriction on the size of the hunt since 2000 (from Gundersen 2003). 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 N o. of m oo se sh ot Calves Yearlings Cows Bulls ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 59 Storaas et al. 2001, Gundersen 2003) or time and money invested in growing addi- tional moose fodder such as willow. How- ever, a high density moose population is also accidents (Johansson et al. 1988, Gundersen et al. 1998, Storaas et al. 2001) and have adverse effects on biodiversity, so additional costs would be incurred in mitigation measures. Thirdly, there may be opportunities to realize a greater proportion of the existing value of moose. Although moose meat makes a considerable contribution to the household for many hunters (Mattsson 1990), much of the value is never converted into cash. Further- more, in addition to the meat value, hunting has a recreational value (Mattsson 1990) which is currently barely realized. Consequently, and guiding businesses and promoting moose hunting to non-residents, as long as access to local hunters is not compromised. Optimiz- ing the allocation of moose hunting between individual hunters could also help maximize the value of moose (Mattsson 1990). Apart from hunting tourism, there appears to be scope, as yet unrealized, for promoting eco- tourism, specializing in wildlife viewing or wolf-tracking. For example, in Romania, the Carpathian Large Carnivore Project has dem- onstrated that considerable tourism revenue can be brought into an area by promoting its association with large carnivores (http://www. clcp.ro/etour/eco-prog.htm). In Norway, while tourism in areas such as Hedmark is marketed by focusing on outdoor pursuits, no mention is made of the large carnivores. It appears that in some parts of Hedmark it may not be possible to maintain the status quo in sheep production for much longer. Expansion of moose enterprises and eco-tour- ism may have the potential to provide some alternative income if moose management can be implemented appropriately and in such a way that farmers, as well as landowners, can ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Erling Maartmann, Jorunn Stub- sjøen, Atle Mysterud, Odd Reidar Fremming, Christian Mathiesen, Geir Steinheim, and Hege Gundersen for useful comments, discus- sions, and access to unpublished data. JMM Norwegian Research Council (NFR 96061). REFERENCES AANESLAND, N., and O. HOLM. 2003. Rovdyr og Jaktinntekter. (Carnivores and Hunt- ing Income) Report nr. 27, Norges Landbrukshøgskole, Ås, Norway. (In Norwegian.) AHLÉN, I. 1975. Winter habitats of moose and deer in relation to land use in Scandinavia. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 9: 45-192. ANDERSEN, R., J. D. C. LINNELL, H. HUSTAD, and S. BREINARD, editors. 2003. Large Predators and Human Society. A guide to Co-existence in the 21th century. Report nr. 25, NINA, Trondheim, Norway. BJERKE, T., O. REITAN, and S. R. KELLERT. 1998. Attitudes toward wolves in southeastern Norway. Society and Natural Resources 11: 169–178. DANIELSEN, J. 2001. Local community based moose management plans in Norway. Alces 37: 55-60. DRABLØS, D. 1997. The story of the Norwe- gian sheep. Anniversary review of the Norwegian Sheep and Goat Breeders 1947-1997. Norwegian Sheep and Goat Breeders, Oslo, Norway. ERICSSON, G., and T. A. HEBERLEIN. 2002. “Jagare talar naturens sprak” (Hunters of outdoor activities and attitudes toward wildlife among Swedish hunters and the general public. Zeitschrift für Jagdwis- senschaft 48: 301-308, Suppl. S. FLATEN, O., and S. KLEPPA. 1999. En økono- misk analyse av forebyggende tiltak mot rovvilttap I saueholdet. (An economic HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP – MILNER ET AL. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 60 analysis of protective measures to reduce sheep depredation.) Report nr. 1999/1, Norsk institt for landbruksøkonomisk forskning, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian). GUNDERSEN, H. 2003. Vehicle collisions and wolf predation: Challenges in the manage- ment of a migrating moose population in southeast Norway. Ph.D. Thesis, Univer- sity of Oslo, Norway. _____, H. P. ANDREASSEN, and T. STORAAS. 1998. Spatial and temporal correlates to Norwegian moose-train collisions. Alces 34: 385-394. JOHANSSON, P.-O., B. KRISTRÖM, and L. MATT- SON. 1988. How is the willingness to pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose? An empirical study of moose- hunters in the county of Vasterbotten. Journal of Environmental Management 26: 163-171. KACZENSKY, P. 1996. Large Carnivore - Live- Trondheim, Norway. KROGSTAD, S., F. CHRISTIANSEN, M. SMITH, O. C. RØSTE, N. AANESLAND, R. H. TILLUNG, and L. THORUD. 2000. Forebyggende tiltak mmot rovviltskader på sau: gjeting og bruk av vokterhund I Lierne. (Protec- tive measures to reduce sheep depreda- tion: shepherding and use of guarding dogs in Lierne). NINA fagrapport 041, Trondheim, Norway. (In Norwegian with English summary). LINNELL, J. D. C. 2000. Norwegian brown bears: holders of an unwanted world record. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 1: 4-5. _____, and H. BROSETH. 2003. Compensation for large carnivore depredation of domes- tic sheep 1994-2001. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 6: 11-13. _____, M. E. SMITH, J. ODDEN, J. E. SWEN- SON, and P. KACZENSKY. 1996. Carni- vores and sheep farming in Norway. 4. Strategies for the reduction of carnivore Oppdragsmelding 443: 1-118. MATTSON, L. 1990. Hunting in Sweden: Extent, economic values and structural problems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 563-573. MCCULLAGH, P., and J. A. NELDER. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. Chapman and Hall, London, U.K. MILJØVERNDEPARTEMENTET. 2003-2004. Rov- vilt i norsk natur. – Stortingsmelding 15. Department of Environmental Protection, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian). MYSTERUD, I., A. O. GAUTESTAD, and I. MYSTER- UD. 1996. Carnivores and sheep farming in Norway. 6. Comments on shepherding as preventive measure. Report to Depart- ment of Biology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. NAUGHTON-TREVES, L., R. GROSSBERG, and A. TREVES. 2003. Paying for tolerance: Rural and compensation. Conservation Biology 17: 1500-1511. NERSTEN, N.K., A. HEGRENES, O. SJELMO, and K. STOKKE. 2003. Saueholdet i Norge - utvikling, politikk og virkemidler. Note 2003-10, NILF, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian). NILSEN, E.B., T. PETTERSEN, H. GUNDERSEN, J.M. MILNER, A. MYSTERUD, E.J. SOLBERG, H.P. ANDREASSEN, and N.C. STENSETH. 2005. Moose harvesting strategies in the presence of wolves. Journal of Applied Ecology 42: 389-399. NORWEGIANAGRICULTURAL AUTHORITY (Statens landbruksforvaltning). 2004. Årsrapport 2003 (Annual Report 2003). Report nr. 3/2004. (In Norwegian). ØSTGÅRD, J. 1987. Status of moose in Norway Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 63-68. ROGSTAD, B., editor. 2003. Norwegian Agri- culture. Status and Trends 2003. Norwe- gian Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oslo, Norway. SAGOR, J.T., J.E. SWENSON, and E. ROSKAFT. ALCES VOL. 41, 2005 MILNER ET AL. - HUNTING MOOSE OR KEEPING SHEEP 61 1997. Compatibility of brown bear Ursus arctos and free-ranging sheep in Norway. Biological Conservation 81: 91-95. STATISTICS NORWAY (Statistisk sentralbyrå). 2004a. Jaktstatistikk 2002 (Agricultural Statistics 2002) Oslo–Kongsvinger. (In English and Norwegian). _____. 2004b. Jordbruksstatistikk 2002 (Hunt- ing Statistics 2002) Oslo–Kongsvinger. (In English and Norwegian). STEINHEIM, G., Y. REKDAL, Ø. HOLAND, and T. ÅDNØY. 2001. Produksjon av lammekjøtt på utmarksbeite: Hvorfor varierer vektene så mye fra område til område, og fra år til år? (Production of lamb meat on upland grazings: Why do weights vary so much from area to area, and from year to year?). Pages 33-39 in V. Jaren and J. P. Løvstad, editors. Utmarksbeite og store rovdyr (Upland grazing and large carnivores). Report to Norges Forskningsråd, Oslo, Norway. (In Norwegian). _____, R. B. WELADJI, T. SKOGEN, T. ÅDNØY, A. O. SKJELVÅG, and Ø. HOLAND. 2004. Cli- matic variability and effects on ungulate body weight: the case of domestic sheep. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41: 525-538. STORAAS, T., H. GUNDERSEN, H. HENRIKSEN, and H. P. ANDREASSEN. 2001. The economic val- ue of moose – a review. Alces 37:97-107. SWENSON, J. E., P. WABAKKEN, F. SANDEGREN, A. BJÄRVALL, R. FRANZÉN, and A. SÖDERBERG. 1995. The near extinction and recovery of brown bears in Scandinavia in relation to the bear management policies of Norway and Sweden. Wildlife Biology 1: 11-25. VILÀ, C., A-K. SUNDERQUIST, Ø. FLAGSTAD, J. SEDDON, S. BJÖRNERFELDT, I. KOJOLA, A. CASULLI, H. SAND, P. WABAKKEN, and H. ELLEGREN. 2003. Rescue of a serverely bottlenecked wolf (Canis lupus) popula- tion by a single immigrant. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 270: 91-97. WABAKKEN, P., E. MAARTMANN, J. BERG, and H. C. GJERLAUG. 1996. Forvaltning av fredet rovvilt i Hedmark i 1995 - Bestandsregis- trering, forebyggende tiltak, skadedocu- mentasjon og erstatniger. (Management of protected carnivores in Hedmark in 1995 - Population size, preventive measures, documentation of damage and compensa- tion.) Miljøvernavdelingen, Fylkesman- nen i Hedmark, Report 3/95. _____, H. SAND, O. LIBERG, and A. BJÄRVALL. 2001. The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978-1998. Ca- nadian Journal of Zoology 79: 710-725. WILLIAMS, C.K., G. ERICSSON, and T. A. HE- BERLEIN. 2002. A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintro- duction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin 30: 575–584. ZIMMERMANN, B., P. WABAKKEN, and M. DÖ T T E R E R. 2001. Human-carnivore interactions in Norway: How does the re-appearance of large carnivores affect Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76 1/2: 137-153. _____, _____, and _____. 2003. Brown bear- zone in Norway: are cattle a good alterna- tive to sheep? Ursus 14: 72-83. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /All /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /CHS /CHT /DAN /DEU /ESP /FRA /ITA /JPN /KOR /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken voor kwaliteitsafdrukken op desktopprinters en proofers. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /PTB /SUO /SVE /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents for quality printing on desktop printers and proofers. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /NoConversion /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /NA /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure true /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles true /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /NA /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /LeaveUntagged /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice