F:\ALCES\Vol_39\p65\3932.PDF ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 JAREN ET AL. – MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 1 MOOSE IN MODERN INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – HOW SHOULD THE MALAWI PRINCIPLES BE ADAPTED? Vemund Jaren1, A. R. E. Sinclair2, Reidar Andersen3, Kjell Danell4, Chuck Schwartz5, Rolf O. Peterson6, R. Terry Bowyer7,8, and Göran Ericsson4 1Directorate for Nature Management, N-7485 Trondheim, Norway; 2Centre for Biodiversity Re- search, 6270 University Boulevard, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4; 3Department of Biology, Norwegian University for Science and Technology, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway; 4Department of Animal Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden; 5Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA; 6School of Forestry and Wood Products, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI 49931, USA; 7Institute of Arctic Biology, Department of Biology and Wildlife, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99775, USA ABSTRACT: Under the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, a special emphasis has been put on an integrated ecosystem approach. Some of the “Malawi principles” state that management objectives are a matter of societal choice, and that management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. A key feature of the ecosystem approach includes conservation of ecosystem structure and function on a long term basis, while seeking an appropriate balance between conservation and use of biodiversity. The role of moose in the ecosystem and how the Malawi principles can be adopted in moose management were a focus of the 5th International Moose Symposium. All invited speakers and session chairs were asked to provide a brief summary of how they considered the Malawi principles to relate to the topic of their respective papers or sessions at the Symposium. Those summaries are given in this paper. ALCES VOL. 39: 1-10 (2003) Key words: Alces alces, carnivores, ecosystem, local involvement, Malawi principles, manage- ment, society, vegetation “Moose in modern integrated ecosys- tem management” was the main confer- ence theme for the 5th International Moose Symposium in Norway 2002. In the last plenary session at the Symposium, two pa- pers specifically addressing this topic were presented, followed by a general discus- sion. As an introduction to the discussion, all invited speakers and session chairs were asked to give a brief summary of how they considered the so-called Malawi principles to relate to the topic of their respective sessions at the Symposium. Their valuable contributions to highlight this issue are pre- sented below. The Malawi Principles In a workshop organized in the African country Malawi in January, 1998, and sub- mitted to the 4th Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.9), the following 12 principles/characteristics of an ecosys- tem approach to biodiversity management were identified: 1. Management objectives are a matter of societal choice. 2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level. 3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects of their activities on adja- 8Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209, USA. MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – JAREN ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 2 cent and other ecosystems. 4. Recognizing potential gains from man- agement there is a need to understand the ecosystem in an economic context, considering, for example, mitigating market distortions, aligning incentives to promote sustainable use, and inter- nalizing costs and benefits. 5. A key feature of the ecosystem ap- proach includes conservation of eco- system structure and functioning. 6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits to their functioning. 7. The ecosystem approach should be un- dertaken at the appropriate scale. 8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag effects which characterize eco- system processes, objectives for eco- system management should be set for the long term. 9. Management must recognize that change is inevitable. 10. The ecosystem approach should seek the appropriate balance between con- servation and use of biodiversity. 11. The ecosystem approach should con- sider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous local knowledge, innovations, and practices. 12. The ecosystem approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and sci- entific disciplines. A. R. E. Sinclair: Commentary on the Malawi Principles The Malawi principles embody two fun- damental principles. Firstly, all stakeholders should be involved in the process of devel- oping conservation management plans. Underlying this is the idea that most of the biodiversity in the world lies in tropical regions that are owned and administered by developing countries. These countries must consider the development and advancement of their peoples and unless this is taken into account conservation problems will be ig- nored. In particular, we must pay attention to the mismatch where those that gain ben- efit from conservation are not the same peoples as those that bear the costs of conservation. Secondly, the Malawi princi- ples recognize that the ecosystem is the unit of management rather than individual spe- cies. Traditionally, conservation has fo- cused on single species, particularly those that are endangered. Yet all these species require habitat and other resources, often the loss of such resources being reason for the conservation problems, and so it is these resources that need to be conserved within the context of the whole ecosystem. It is no coincidence that these principles have been laid out at the conference in Malawi, one of those developing countries that are confronting the trade-off between development and environment. Whilst rec- ognizing the validity of these Malawi princi- ples, we should not ignore the constraints and limitations that still have to be ad- dressed. First, we must recognize that there are problems with time scale. The principles do refer to large spatial scales and long time periods. Nevertheless, they do not recognize that poor peoples do not conserve their resources because they dis- count the future, often the very near future of a few years or even a few months. If a peasant farmer has to cut down a tree for fuel to cook tomorrow’s meal he is in no position to consider the problem of conserv- ing the forest for next year let alone 10 or 100 years. Poverty means that people do not save for the future. In addition, the principles have not ad- dressed the problem of benefits for future generations. Indeed, future generations are unrepresented in any discussions when it comes to natural resource economics. Finally, the principles stress the need to consult and incorporate the wishes of local, indigenous peoples. However, such peo- ples, at the scale of villages, invariably think ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 JAREN ET AL. – MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 3 at the very small scale. They consider only their own local needs. Thus, the principle of large scale is in direct conflict with the principle of local involvement. Secondly, the principles have not built in any mechanism for enforcement. In es- sence, these principles are a form of social contract. Developing peoples obtain some benefit in return for conserving the re- sources that benefit the whole world. What happens if they renege on their commit- ments? They could obtain the benefit and then exhaust the biodiversity under their control. As the principles stand, there is no penalty for noncompliance in the social con- tract. Experience has shown that without such a penalty these social contracts have not worked and are unlikely to work. We must face the hard facts, no matter how unpalatable they are, that humans act in their own short-term selfish interests so that if there is no inducement to comply with a contract they will not do so. Thirdly, the principles purport to incor- porate the concept of the ecosystem. How- ever, this concept remains vague even for biologists and many components have yet to be defined. For example, what are the bounds of an ecosystem? Without some recognition of this boundary it can be tai- lored to suit the needs of anyone that wishes to exploit a system. In British Columbia this term has been used to allow mining and logging within Provincial Parks, areas pre- viously protected from exploitation, under the guise of ecosystem conservation: the new rationale is that now conservation must take into account the combined area of park and external regions together. This has allowed exploiters to obtain greater re- sources inside the park while conveniently ignoring the costs of greater conservation outside the park. Another problem lies in understanding ecosystem function. This is a term that is now frequently used in the debate on biodiversity processes and yet we do not know precisely what this term means. It can mean a number of different things and sometimes they are in conflict with each other. Thus, ecosystem function can refer to productivity, nutrient cycling, or hydrol- ogy, but it can also refer to stability, resil- ience, and robustness. Promoting high pro- ductivity could reduce resilience. We have to be precise in what we mean by ecosys- tem function in implementing conservation. Finally, the term biodiversity itself en- compasses all of living matter. As such it is not very useful. We have to address for practical purposes particular components of biodiversity that will be essential in terms of the functioning of ecosystems. How- ever, we do not yet know what those com- ponents are. Do we, for example, pay attention to the large mammals which can act as ‘umbrella species’, thus protecting all those that fall within their large scale habi- tats or, in contrast, do we protect the micro- organisms of the soil because they deter- mine all processes that feed up the trophic levels to the large mammals? We do not know the answers to these questions yet. Reidar Andersen: Malawi Principles and Moose Management – Challenges in North America, Eastern Europe / North- ern Asia, and Fennoscandia The Malawi principles focus on an eco- system approach, where management ob- jectives are a matter of societal choice and where management should be decentral- ized to the lowest possible level. The rel- evance of these principles varies through- out the moose distribution area. In many parts of Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, moose populations have declined over the last decade. The decline is most pronounced in areas with high human population density, reflecting the fact that poaching and overexploitation is the main cause of de- cline. In some cases deterioration of moose MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – JAREN ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 4 habitat may also be important. Clearly, in a situation where hunting is not a pure recrea- tional activity, and where some hunters are close to a subsistence level, each individual hunter has difficulty in seeing the benefits of ecosystem management. Thus, the Ma- lawi principles seem to be of minor rel- evance, yet the goal local managers should strive for. In North America and Fennoscandia, moose populations are managed at the low- est appropriate level; often at the level of forestry owners and hunters (Sweden) or local management within smaller districts (Norway and Finland). In many areas, vehicle accidents are on a level that needs consideration. If management objectives should be a matter of societal choice, fright- ened car drivers should also have a voice in setting the quotas. Two of the Malawi principles state that ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning, and at the appro- priate scale. First, what is appropriate, and how could managers decide what is the limit of ecosystem function? In several places, high density moose populations are thought to have led to reduced biological diversity, still we are lacking a clear understanding of how large herbivores, like the moose, are affecting their habitats and their function- ing. One Malawi principle states that man- agement must recognize that change is in- evitable. Change not only in management objectives, but also in population densities. While most people can agree in the princi- ples of optimal production and yield in rela- tion to the carrying capacity of the habitats and damage to other management opera- tions, we also need to realize that populations of large herbivores seldom are stable in numbers over long periods of time. In some areas, managers and others ask themselves; will large herbivores in areas lacking large carnivores stabilize at a certain density, or will large herbivores grow beyond their carrying capacity, overgraze their food re- sources, and create a highly unstable situa- tion with large temporal variation in num- bers? In that case, will reintroduction of l a r g e c a r n i v o r e s b e a b l e t o c r e a t e stabilization? Or, will hunters be able to create this stability? Obviously these two scenarios have profound effects on com- munity structure. One major conclusion from analysis of several long-term individual based popula- tion studies of large herbivores is that the population dynamics of ungulates in preda- tor-free environments are strongly influ- enced by a combination of stochastic vari- ation in the environment and population density. Both factors operate through changes in life history traits, correlated with variation in body weight, which generates delays in the response of the population to changes in the environment. In such cases it is claimed that in the absence of predation, a stable equilibrium between an ungulate population and its food resources is there- fore unlikely to exist. Consequently, no management regime should be judged in relation to the stability of moose numbers. Kjell Danell: “Moose in modern, inte- grated ecosystem management”, in Re- lation to the Malawi Principles. Some C o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e S e c t i o n o n Trophic Interactions between Moose and Vegetation Management objectives are a mat- ter of societal choice. — The food of moose constitutes, to a large extent, woody plants in boreal forests. These plants are valuable to at least 3 interest groups: moose hunters, timber industry, and nature conser- vation interests. For moose hunters, more food plants of better quality can mean more moose. For the timber industry, damage to Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) is especially negative, both in the short and long term, ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 JAREN ET AL. – MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 5 because moose can cause losses in both quantitative and qualitative terms. For na- ture conservation, heavy browsing pressure can depress populations of preferred woody species, such as aspen (Populus spp.) and rowan (Sorbus spp.). These deciduous species have a value as such, but also because they are host plants for a wide array of plant and invertebrate species. Important tasks for the future are to determine how to bring these interest groups together and to find a common procedure for discussion of the appropriate moose population level. How to find a balance between different values? Private interests versus interests of society. Management should be decentral- ized to the lowest appropriate level. — Which is the appropriate level for manage- ment? A small area may be good for solving conflicts between landowners, because then few landowners are involved, but a large area is often needed because moose mi- grate. Ecosystem managers should con- sider the effects of their activities on adjacent and other ecosystems. — So far, moose management in Fennoscandia has been very much a single species ap- proach, especially in a situation without large predators. We need to move away from single species management plans and strategies towards ecosystem management if we are to follow the Malawi principles. A key feature of the ecosystem ap- proach includes conservation of eco- system structure and functioning. — For moose we need more knowledge of its effect on ecosystem structure and func- tioning. At high densities, moose can have a much more dramatic impact on landscape features and plant succession than we gen- erally believe. In southern Sweden, high densities of ungulates cause pine forests to be replaced by spruce forests. So far, a great effort has been directed to understand the population dynamics of moose. How- ever, we need to broaden our research approaches. Chuck Schwartz: Application of the Malawi Principles to the Section on Trophic Interactions between Moose and Carnivores First, science and the application of science is a major principle. All the papers presented at the session furthered our un- derstanding of predator-moose relationships and were very much in line with the princi- ples. Second, the principles suggest that management be reduced to the lowest level when and where possible. With rare carni- vores, the opposite has occurred. The Endangered Species Act and the Bern Con- vention are national or international laws. They are basically top-down control rather than bottom-up. However, it was pointed out by one of the members of the audience that the principle states that authority should seek the lowest practical level. This, in the case of large rare carnivores, may in fact be at the national or international level. Finally, I summed up with the principle of ecosys- tem function and management and the fact that large carnivores are a major part of such function. Society has deemed it ap- propriate to retain or restore large carni- vores and maintain healthy systems. Con- sequently, moose managers must view their role differently than simply providing sus- tainable harvests to hunters. Rolf O. Peterson: Wolves, Moose, and the Malawi Principles The Malawi principles relate, in gen- eral, to the difficult problem of conserving the diversity of life, which underlies the human experience. Predation by large car- nivores, in particular the gray wolf, relates to the specific principles calling for mainte- nance of ecosystem structure and function as well as those recognizing the enormous MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – JAREN ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 6 importance of local human attitudes. I view the gray wolf as the most signifi- cant “stage manager” in the evolutionary “theatre” in which moose developed. From basic data on the age structure and pattern of moose vulnerability to wolf predation, we can infer that wolf predation has been the dominant agent of natural selection for moose throughout its extensive geographic range. Indeed, this notion was implied by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species. Based on ongoing simulation work shortly before his death, A. B. Bubenik (personal communication) concluded that optimal so- cial balance in moose populations was at- tained by age- and sex-specific mortality patterns similar to those produced by wolf predation. How can we maintain natural selective forces in a human-dominated world? Re- markably, gray wolves have staged a major comeback in many parts of their historic range, attributable to changing pub- lic attitudes and formal recovery programs. Yet this has accentuated a mismatch be- tween those people who bear the cost of living with wolves and those who derive the benefits. Wolf recovery prompts divisive- ness in human responses. The addition of wolves can greatly complicate human af- fairs in rural landscapes, particularly where human presence is pervasive, so the great- est hope for recovery of large carnivores lies in extensive wildland habitats. Fear of the wolf remains a key influ- ence in the public mind. Information and education programs should be management priorities anywhere wolf recovery is ongo- ing or contemplated, as local people and their beliefs will greatly affect the future of the wolf. Ecosystem processes include those that are both fast and slow, at both large and small spatial scales. The inherent nature of wolf predation, as an intensive, culling agent operating over local scales that are meas- ured in hundreds of square kilometers, is that of a highly dynamic element operating at large scales in an ecosystem. The re- sponses that are demanded from human societies, operating in relatively slow bu- reaucracies at local levels, will pose a par- ticularly interesting management challenge. R. Terry Bowyer: Relationship of Ge- netics, Physiology, Diseases, and Para- sites of Moose to the Malawi Principles Presentations in our technical session involved the Malawi Principles primarily in relation to effects of moose (Alces alces) on biodiversity, but also with respect to societal needs for consumptive uses of these large herbivores. The evolutionary history of a species holds implications for under- standing its current distribution, but also its likelihood of persisting or expanding. Thus, information on the phylogeography of moose (Hundertmark et al. 2002, 2003) and whether speciation has occurred (Boeskorov 1996, Udina et al. 2002) are data essential for the wise management of these unique large mammals. For instance, will all subspecies of moose respond in a similar manner to environmental constraints such as severe weather or various harvest regimes (Sæther 1997)? Indeed, how these large mammals cope with climatic variation (Bowyer et al. 1998, Lenart et al. 2002) could have far- reaching implications for their population dynamics and subsequent interactions with their environment, which holds implications for biodiversity. Differences in body mass among subspecies may result in variation in life-history strategies (sensu Keech et al. 2000) of moose that may necessitate differ- ent management tactics to meet societal goals. Clearly, adaptations of moose to their environment can lead to morphological dif- ferences that may be useful in their man- agement, including antler characteristics (Bowyer et al. 2001, Engan 2001), and ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 JAREN ET AL. – MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 7 digestive physiology (Kochan 2001). Knowl- edge concerning how these morphological and physiological characteristics differ among populations or subspecies will pro- mote a more complete understanding of how moose are adapted to boreal environ- ments, and thereby enhance opportunities for their sound management. Society demands the ethical treatment of mammals (Animal Care and Use Com- mittee 1998). Consequently, the manner in which researchers and managers capture, restrain, and study moose and other large herbivores affects the opportunity to meet the needs of people for subsistence or rec- reational uses. Capture methods, then, must be humane, effective, and result in limited mortality of study animals and mini- mal risk to humans (Arnemo and Søli 1994, Arnemo 1995). Finally, the phylogeography of moose has implications for how moose interact with and affect their forage plants (Bowyer et al. 1997). Clearly, moose can drive successional patterns in boreal forests (Pas- tor and Naiman 1992, Pastor et al. 1993). High densities of moose can have deleteri- ous effects on biodiversity of other verte- brates (Berger et al. 2001). Nonetheless, intermediate densities of those large herbiv- ores can promote nutrient cycling in boreal forests (Molvar et al. 1993) and enhance rates of decomposition in aquatic systems (Irons et al. 1991). The ability of moose to alter successional patterns and affect trophic cascades makes them a keystone species (Simberloff 1998). Accordingly, moose offer a unique opportunity for single-species man- agement to directly affect biodiversity to achieve results that benefit those compo- nents of society seeking consumptive uses of moose and those hoping to enhance biodiversity. Göran Ericsson: Human Dimensions of Moose Management and the Malawi Principles The human dimension of moose man- agement (i.e., how people value moose, how people want moose to be managed, and how people are affected by or affect moose including management decisions [Ericsson 2003]), is a central part of the Malawi principles with respect to natural resource management in the boreal region. All wild- life management is based on human values, with “management” itself being a human construct (Decker et al. 2001). Thus, our societies manage moose (and other wild- life) because we implicitly view them as a resource. Central to the Malawi principles is that the decision-making power should be handed down to the lowest possible level. How- ever, that poses a great challenge for tradi- tional natural resource management. Not only local groups want to have a say today in natural resource management. Most importantly, several national and interna- tional stakeholder groups want to have a say, and political oversight of management has increased. Moreover, several interna- tional agreements and conventions also regu- late natural resource management (e.g., moose and other large mammals). Conse- quently, natural resource management now has to pay more attention to non-consump- tive use as well. Moose management is no longer just about setting harvest quotas. At the same time, the consumptive use of moose is still of central importance, making moose management more complex, as non-local interest tends to be centralized around non- consumptive issues. Therefore, if we de- centralize moose management to the lowest appropriate level according to the Malawi principles, we will most likely see an in- creased tension between local people’s in- terest - which tends to focus on the con- sumptive aspects of moose management - MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – JAREN ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 8 and non-locals’ interests. Because local people normally represent a small minority of any western urbanized society, the demo- cratic process easily, but often unintention- ally, overruns their interest. However, western societies now pay more attention to local groups as well (Ericsson and Heberlein 2002). Recent data from Sweden supports this and show that non-locals support the right of local people to have the final say, even in controversial management issues. When asked “I think that the local people should have the final say in large carnivore management”, 55 % of the Swedish public said that they supported this (Ericsson and Heberlein 2002). Thus, it suggests that implementation of the Malawi principles in moose management is not a controversial issue. Instead, the vast majority most likely support local moose management. Human dimensions are still a “Manage- ment Challenge” in moose management (Crichton et al. 1998). During the sessions at the 5th International Moose Symposium it became evident that Human Dimensions so far is mostly ad-hoc to “pure” moose projects. This is most unfortunate for successful im- plementation of the Malawi principles and a wise, sustainable use of moose as a multi- dimensional resource. Thus, we urgently need to involve socioeconomic expertise from the beginning when we deal with a “moose problem”, not afterwards and prob- ably most important, don’t set their agenda. Human dimensions of moose management, and a successful implementation of the Malawi principles, are far too complicated to apply a single discipline solution. Local management is here to stay, like it or not - but “John Doe” and “Sven Svensson” de- mand a voice even in moose management and research today. “Since the early 1970s, citizen participation has been emphasized in natural resource management decision mak- ing” (Lauber and Knuth 1999). Now we face the challenge to make this work in moose management. Remember that man- agement is a human construct based on human values - thus we need to involve people in the decision and implementation of moose management. A. R. E. Sinclair: Some Concluding Re- marks In conclusion, we must be honest with ourselves in recognizing that there are some fundamental problems that will either pre- vent the implementation of the Malawi prin- ciples or will allow them to be distorted and corrupted if they are not addressed. Secondly, we must be flexible in imple- mentation through the use of adaptive man- agement. Sustainable use of resources requires flexible harvest quotas rather than constant numbers. Thirdly, we have to implement programs to monitor any conservation initiatives to assess whether they are meeting their ob- jectives. Finally, we should remember that had we known what was present on many of the continents in the 1700s or 1800s we would now be in a better position to know what to conserve and how to conserve. In a hundred years time, future generations may be wishing that we had been wiser at the current time. It is certain that what we are currently doing is imperfect at best and we must be constantly asking ourselves this question: what are we doing wrong now that will impact future generations? REFERENCES ANIMAL CARE AND USE COMMITTEE. 1998. Guidelines for the capture, handling, and care of mammals as approved by the American Society of Mammalogists. Journal of Mammalogy 74:1416-1431. ARNEMO, J. M. 1995. Immobilization of free-ranging moose (Alces alces) with medetomidine-ketamine and remobil- ization with atipamezole. Rangifer 15:19-25. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 JAREN ET AL. – MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT 9 , and N. E. SØLI. 1994. Injection darts containing drugs—a potential health hazard for several years? Norsk Veterinaer 106:306-308. BERGER, J., P. B. STACEY, L. BELLIS, and M. P. JOHNSON. 2001. A mammalian preda- tor-prey imbalance: grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian Neotropical migrants. Ecological Applications 11:229-240. BOESKOROV, G. G. 1996. Chromosomal differentiation of moose (Alces ) . Doklady Akademii Nauk 348:275-278. BOWYER, R. T., K. M. STEWART, J. G. KIE, and W. C. GASAWAY. 2001. Fluctuating asymmetry in antlers of Alaskan moose: size matters. Journal of Mammalogy 82:814-824. , V. VAN BALLENBERGHE, and J .G. KIE. 1997. The role of moose in land- scape processes: effects of biogeogra- phy, population dynamics, and preda- tion. Pages 265-287 in J. A. Bissonette, editor. Wildlife and Landscape Ecol- ogy: Effects and Patterns of Scale. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA. , , and . 1998. Tim- ing and synchrony of parturition in Alaskan moose: long-term versus proxi- mal effects of climate. Journal of Mammalogy 79:1332-1344. CRICHTON, V. F. J., W. E. REGELIN, A. W. FRANZMANN, and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 1998. The future of moose management and research. Pages 655-663 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, edi- tors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. DECKER, D. J., T. L. BROWN, and W. L. SIEMER. 2001. Evolution of people- wildlife relations. Pages 3-21 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. ENGAN, J. H. 2001. Changes in the relation- ship between palmate and corvine ant- lers in moose (Alces alces) in south- eastern Norway. Alces 37:79-88. ERICSSON, G. 2003. Of moose and man: the past, the present and the future of hu- man dimensions in moose research and management. Alces 39:11-26. , and T. A. HEBERLEIN. 2002. Attityder till varg och vargjakt i Sverige. SLU Kontakt 14. ISBN 91-576-6132- 4. HUNDERTMARK, K. J., R. T. BOWYER, G. F. SHIELDS, and C. C. SCHWARTZ. 2003. Mitochondrial phylogeography of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Jour- nal of Mammalogy 84:718-728. , G. F. SHIELDS, I. G. UDINA, R. T. BOWYER, A. A. DANILKIN, and C. C. SC H W A R T Z. 2002. Mitochondrial phylogeography of moose (Alces alces): late Pleistocene divergence and popu- l a t i o n e x p a n s i o n . M o l e c u l a r Phylogenetics and Evolution 22:375-387. IRONS, J. G., J. P. BRYANT, and M. W. OSWOOD. 1991. Effects of moose browsing on decomposition rates of birch leaf litter in a subarctic stream. Cana- dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48:442-444. KEECH, M. A., R. T. BOWYER, J. M. VER HOEF, R. D. BOERTJE, B. W. DALE, and T. R. STEPHENSON. 2000. Life-history consequences of maternal condition in Alaskan moose. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:450-462. KOCHAN, T. I. 2001. Seasonal adaptation of metabolism and energy in the Pechora taiga moose Alces alces. Journal of Evolutionary Biochemistry and Physiol- ogy 37:246-251. LAUBER, T. B., and B. A. KNUTH. 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen participa- MOOSE AND INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT – JAREN ET AL. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 10 tion: a case study of moose manage- ment. Society and Natural Resources 11:19-37. LENART, E. A., R. T. BOWYER, J. VER HOEF, and R. W. RUESS. 2002. Climate change and caribou: effects of summer weather on forage. Canadian Journal of Zool- ogy 80:664-678. MOLVAR, E. M., R. T. BOWYER, and V. VAN BALLENBERGHE. 1993. Moose herbivory, browse quality, and nutrient cycling in a n A l a s k a n t r e e l i n e c o m m u n i t y . Oecologia 94:472-479. PASTOR, J., B. DEWEY, R. J. NAIMAN, P. F. MCINNES, and Y. COHEN. 1993. Moose browsing and soil fertility in the boreal forests of Isle Royale National Park. Ecology 74:467-480. , and R. J. NAIMAN. 1992. Selective foraging and ecosystem processes in the boreal forests. American Naturalist 134:690-705. SÆTHER, B.-E. 1997. Environmental stochasticity and population dynamics of large herbivores: a search for mecha- nisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:143-149. SIMBERLOFF, D. 1998. Flagships, umbrellas, and keystones: is single species man- agement passé in the landscape era? Biological Conservation 83:247-257. UDINA, I. G., A. A. DANILKIN, and G. G. BOESKOROV. 2002. Genetic diversity of moose (Alces alces L.) in Eurasia. Russian Journal of Genetics 38:951- 957.