3903.p65 ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 11 OF MOOSE AND MAN: THE PAST, THE PRESENT, AND THE FUTURE OF HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH Göran Ericsson Department of Animal Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE - 901 83 Umeå, Sweden ABSTRACT: There is a gap between a growing interest to study the moose/human interface (MHI) and the actual effort made to understand this human dimension (HD) component in moose research. A content analysis of Alces 1974-2001 showed that the relative contribution of HD-papers increased until 1991 but decreased thereafter. Of 66 HD-articles published, 68% of the papers covered how “man affects moose” with hunting and collisions the single most important topics, and 15% were about “values” (economic and attitudes). Outside Alces, articles appeared that were underrepresented in Alces or in the Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop. I identify four priority HD-areas for future studies: (1) how do people react to changing moose densities and distributions?; (2) which management alternatives are acceptable for managing the urban and suburban MHI and what makes them acceptable?; (3) how important are moose to non-consumptive users?; and (4) what are the population dynamics and attributes of the consumptive moose user and what makes moose important to consumptive users? A scientific challenge is to further merge ecological and social science to integrate this in management strategies. ALCES VOL. 39: 11-26 (2003) Key words: consumptive, economy, human, literature review, moose, natural resource use, non- consumptive, science, sociology, wildlife management A major focus of wildlife management is managing the interactions between peo- ple and wildlife; e.g., moose (Alces alces). Research is a foundation for all wildlife management, and research needs to en- compass MHI to properly fulfill the needs of management. All wildlife management is based on human values, with “manage- ment” itself being a human construct (Decker et al. 2001). We manage moose and other wildlife because the society we live in views them as a resource. Studying the human dimension (HD) component of wildlife management is not new; in fact the field arose when humans made the first attempt to manage wildlife. The western world witnessed a rise of public concern over conservation issues in the 1800s (e.g., Brusewitz 1992, Decker et al. 2001). The USA saw the birth of the “wise-use” movement (e.g., Glifford Pinchot 1865-1946) and the wildlife preservation movement (e.g., John Muir 1838-1914). Although these movements’ perspectives differed widely - Pinchot envisioned a sus- tainable use and Muir envisioned preserva- tion with minimal human involvement - they agreed that human activity and behavior had to be regulated in relation to natural resource use. Out of Pinchot’s ideas grew natural resource policies which have influ- enced, and continue to influence, natural resource policy worldwide. Pinchot’s ideas resulted in policies that centered on the resource itself and promoted development and inclusion of scientific biological knowl- edge. With respect to moose, active man- agement began during the Pinchot/Muir- era when people started to recognize that human activity (i.e., hunting) had to be HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 12 regulated to prevent moose from becoming extinct. In eastern North America, moose populations went towards local extinction because of unregulated commercial and subsistence hunting during the 1800s (Wolfe 1987). In the Swedish-Norwegian union, the Parliament imposed a 10-year ban on moose hunting in 1825 when moose were at very low numbers (Brusewitz 1992). Thus, as early as the 1850s, people had started to manage moose both in Europe and North America (Karns 1998). The HD-core issues - how and why people value wildlife and wildlife manage- ment actions, and peoples’ motivations be- hind consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife - first emerged in the early 1970s (Hendee and Potter 1971). The 1970s has been termed “an era of discovery and or- ganization” (Brown and Decker 2001). Hendee (1969) and Hendee and Potter (1971) opened up and vitalized the HD-field by suggesting several topics for research such as hunting satisfaction, population dy- namics and characteristics of hunters, non- consumptive use of wildlife, and wildlife economics. Hendee thereafter stimulated the discipline with several important contri- butions about consumptive as well as non- consumptive use of game and wildlife (e.g., Potter et al. 1973, Hendee 1974, Hendee and Burdge 1974). During 1973-1984 the HD-field of wild- life continued to expand and attracted new thinkers and environments that further de- veloped the field (Brown and Decker 2001). Most of this research occurred in North America. Europe was a few steps behind: there were important non-peer reviewed national reports which were significant, but the international, peer-reviewed arena saw few, if any, contributions before the mid- 1980s (see Norling 1987). Starting in 1987, s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t p a p e r s o n t h e bioeconomics of moose came out of Swe- den and Norway (e.g., Norling 1987; Mattsson 1990 a, b; Storaas et al. 2001). In 1984, the HD-field of wildlife man- agement expanded but remained vaguely defined and largely lacked qualitative and quantitative studies (Wolfe 1987, Brown and Decker 2001). Still, 1984 was a land- mark year - for the first time there were enough papers for specific socioeconomic sessions at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference and at the Second International Moose Sympo- sium. Now, 18 years later I revisit the con- cerns and predictions that Wolfe (1987) identified at the Second International Moose Symposium in 1984. Wolf concluded “that existing information on most of the topics [e.g., how humans affect moose; values] covered is inadequate” (Wolfe 1987). How- ever, he was not that worried over the scarce existing knowledge and saw no rea- son for “embarrassment” as the discipline was young but fast emerging. His closing sentence was full of trust for the future: “Hopefully, a decade hence, the amount and quality of information will have im- proved to the point, where we can provide more definitive answers to the questions raised here” (Wolf 1987:673). What did the future actually bring? First, I address the hypothesis that the HD-com- ponent of moose management has increased between 1984 and 2001. My prediction, based on the general expansion of HD in wildlife management (Brown and Decker 2001), is that the amount of socioeconomic information about moose has increased since 1984. I test this by content analyses of published articles in Alces 1974-2001 and in the Proceedings of the International Moose Symposia 1984, 1990, 1998, and 2002 (pa- pers presented at the 2002 meeting). Also, I predict that the HD-field received rela- tively more attention in years with Interna- tional Moose Symposia (sensu Wolfe 1987). Second, testing information quality is ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 13 difficult to do objectively. I visited the peer- reviewed periodic literature dated 1984 through 2001 to see if outlets other than Alces had published HD-articles regarding moose and man. I assumed increasing outlets for moose HD-research results may indicate an improved quality as well as expansion of moose HD expertise. My prediction, based on the general expansion of the field in wildlife management (Brown and Decker 2001), is that the quality of HD and MHI information has increased since 1984 as evidenced by increasing numbers of outlets for publications. Third, I identify areas for future research in the HD/MHI field. METHODS I have organized the paper according to the most widely adopted definition of human dimensions (Decker et al. 2001). Human dimensions is how people value moose, how people want moose to be managed, and how people are affected by or affect moose or moose management decisions. I reviewed all papers in Alces Volumes 10-37, the Proceedings of the International Moose symposia 1984, 1990, 1998, and presented oral contributions at the 2002 Symposium. I classified only full-length articles, not sum- maries from workshops or abstracts. Arti- cles about moose where classified as a HD contribution if they focused on: (1) values (economic, attitudinal); (2) human effects on moose (hunting, infrastructure, and traf- fic/collisions with vehicles); (3) moose hunt- ers; or (4) miscellaneous HD-studies. To category (2) - how humans affect moose - I classified articles about selective harvest. Because of the definition adopted, study systems where humans are a driving force behind the population dynamics of moose are not included in my review (e.g., Ericsson 2001). Originally, I planned for a fifth category (moose affects man) but no articles specifically addressed the topic (be- sides vehicle collisions which I placed in category (2)). Articles describing general moose management in a particular state/ country, surrogate biology (e.g., hunter sur- veys to assess moose harvest), predator control, and potential human health impacts due to moose meat consumption were not classified as HD-articles (but see, for ex- ample, Cretê et al. 1987, Danell et al. 1989, Kim et al. 1998). Using the electronic databases Agricola, Agris, Biosis, CAB, Econlit, FSTA, and TreeCD, I searched the peer-reviewed pe- riodic literature for papers about moose and human interactions published from 1984- 2001. When testing for trends over time in the publication Alces, the number of HD-arti- cles was described as a proportion of all articles. The random variation in a time series can make it difficult to detect an underlying trend, thus smoothing is a stand- ard technique of emphasizing or describing a trend (Brown and Rothery 1993). In my case, as the publication year of a single article may be a random event, a better measure of development of HD in moose research may be a 5-year moving average. By that I implicitly assume that a single year is representative of what had been done the previous 2 years and at least 2 years there- after. I performed all statistical analyses with SAS (SAS Institute 1989). RESULTS Content Analyses Alces.— In Alces 1974-2001 (Volumes 10-37) 584 articles were published of which 11% (n = 66) were HD-articles (Table 1). In the Proceedings of the International Symposia (1984, 1990, 1998), and of arti- cles presented at the 5th International Sym- posium 2002, 9% (17 of 148) were HD- articles (Table 2). I found no difference in the proportion of HD-articles in Alces com- pared to the Proceedings (P = 0.46, t-test). HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 14 T ab le 1 . C on te nt a na ly si s o f A lc es V ol um es 1 0- 37 (1 97 4- 20 01 ). V al ue s M an a ff ec ts m oo se Y ea r/V ol . Pa pe rs H D -p ap er s H D -r at io 5- yr . m ea n Ec on om ic A tt it ud es H un tin g In fr as tr uc tu re Tr af fic M oo se h un te rs M is c 20 01 /3 7 23 4 17 % 1 1 1 1 20 00 /3 6 21 0 0% 19 99 /3 5 19 3 6% 10 % 1 2 19 98 /3 4 23 1 4% 8% 1 19 97 /3 3 19 2 11 % 12 % 1 1 19 96 /3 2 17 2 12 % 10 % 2 19 95 /3 1 26 4 15 % 11 % 1 2 1 19 94 /3 0 23 2 9% 13 % 1 1 19 93 /2 9 31 3 10 % 18 % 1 2 19 92 /2 8 22 4 18 % 16 % 4 19 91 /2 7 25 10 1 40 % 20 % 1 9 19 90 /2 6 20 1 5% 20 % 1 19 89 /2 5 19 5 26 % 18 % 1 2 1 1 19 88 /2 4 26 3 12 % 13 % 1 1 1 19 87 /2 3 14 1 7% 13 % 1 19 86 /2 2 21 3 14 % 9% 1 1 1 19 85 /2 1 26 1 4% 12 % 1 19 84 /2 0 16 1 6% 12 % 1 19 83 /1 9 17 5 29 % 11 % 4 1 19 82 /1 8 17 1 6% 11 % 1 19 81 /1 7 18 2 11 % 12 % 1 1 19 80 /1 6 31 1 3% 7% 1 19 79 /1 5 16 2 13 % 6% 2 19 78 /1 4 15 0 0% 5% ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 15 T ab le 1 . C on ti nu ed V al ue s M an a ff ec ts m oo se Y ea r/V ol . Pa pe rs H D -p ap er s H D -r at io 5- yr . m ea n Ec on om ic A tt it ud es H un tin g In fr as tr uc tu re Tr af fic M oo se h un te rs M is c 19 77 /1 3 22 1 5% 6% 1 19 76 /1 2 14 1 7% 5% 1 19 75 /1 1 26 2 8% 2 19 74 /1 0 17 1 6% 1 T ot al 58 4 66 11 % 4 6 31 1 13 4 7 % o f H D -a rt ic le s 6% 9% 47 % 2% 20 % 6% 11 % 1 i nd ic at es s pe ci al th em e is su e. T ab le 2 . C on te nt a na ly si s of P ro ce ed in gs o f t he In te rn at io na l M oo se S ym po si a 19 84 , 1 99 8, 1 99 0, a nd 2 00 2. V al ue s M an a ff ec ts m oo se Y ea r/V ol . Pa pe rs H D -p ap er s H D -r at io Ec on om ic A tt it ud es H un tin g In fr as tr uc tu re Tr af fic M oo se h un te rs M is c 20 00 /5 th 55 9 16 % 1 2 2 2 2 19 98 /4 th 21 0 0% 19 90 /3 rd 22 1 5% 1 19 84 /2 nd 50 7 14 % 4 2 1 T ot al 14 8 17 9% 5 0 4 0 3 2 3 % o f H D -a rt ic le s 29 % 0% 24 % 0% 18 % 12 % 18 % HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 16 In Alces, the number of HD-articles were not simply linearly related to year (Model: #HDarticles = #Articles Year; P model = 0.23; Fig. 1). Using the moving average publication rate in the time-series analysis, the proportion of HD articles has increased over time (P model = 0.02, R 2 adj = 0.188, n = 26; Fig. 2). Inspection of Fig. 2 suggests two trends, with 1990 as the cut- off year; an increasing trend 1976-1990 and a decreasing trend 1991-1999. Of the 66 HD-articles published in Alces 1974-2001, the majority (68%, n = 45) were published in category (2) “man affects moose” (hunting, n = 31; traffic, n = 13; and, infrastructure, n = 1). The second largest contributing category was category (1) “val- ues” with 15% (n = 10) of the HD-articles. “Miscellaneous” HD-articles (category 4) with 11% (n = 7), and hunting HD-articles (3) 6% (n = 4). Outside the Alces world. —Thirty- two HD-articles were found in alternate journals published 1984-2001. A majority (66%, n = 21) of the HD-articles were from category (1), 25% (n = 8) were in category (2), 6% (n = 2) from category (3), and 1 in category (4). Articles dealing with “val- ues” were more heavily represented in the alternate literature than Alces (66% vs. 15%) Journals that published more than one peer-reviewed article in the HD-area were Arctic (n = 2), Canadian Journal of For- estry (n = 3), Journal of Wildlife Man- agement (n = 2), Scandinavian Journal o f F o r e s t E c o n o m i c s ( n = 2 ) , Scandinavian Journal of Forestry Re- search (n = 3), Society and Natural Re- sources (n = 3), and the Wildlife Society Bulletin (n = 5). Literature Review Values. — To make proper and so- cially justifiable decisions about consump- tive and non-consumptive use, values have to be assigned and moose management is no exception. When we talk about “values” we normally mean either peoples’ thoughts and actions (i.e., attitudes and behavior towards something like moose) or economic Fig. 1. The proportion of full-length human dimension articles in relation to the total number of articles in Alces 1974-2001, and in the Proceedings of the International Sympo- sia 1984, 1990, 1998, and 2002. Filled circles represent Alces, filled squares represent Pro- ceedings 1984, 1990, and 1998, open square represents articles presented at the 2002 Inter- national Symposium. Fig. 2. The proportion (5-year moving average) of full-length human dimension articles in re- lation to the total number of articles in Alces 1974-2001, and in the Proceedings of the In- ternational Symposia 1984, 1990, 1998, and 2002. Filled circles represent Alces, filled squares represent Proceedings 1984, 1990, and 1998, open square represents articles pre- sented at the 2002 International Symposium. The solid lines represent the positive trend in HD publication rate 1974-1990, the broken line the trend 1991-1999. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 Publication year Alces % H D a rt ic le s 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 Publication year Alces % H D a rt ic le s ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 17 values (Brown et al. 2001, Pierce et al. 2001). The economic value of moose can be classified into two major categories (Steinhoff et al. 1987); exercised values (direct and indirect benefits of moose) and option values (to enjoy, to experience, or to use moose in the future). Studies dealing with exercised value of moose dominate the literature. The first author to systematically iden- tify, classify, and describe the potential role of moose as a recreational resource was David Lime in 1975, although single topics had been touched upon earlier (Cobus 1972). Lime discussed several potential exercised and option values in his analysis of moose as a non-consumptive resource. In the years thereafter little new information was pub- lished aside from reviews by Bisset (1987), Wolfe (1987), and Timmermann and Buss (1998). Despite this, little up-to-date hard facts exist today about moose as a non- consumptive resource. Timmermann and Buss (1998) suggested that “attributing eco- nomic value to moose, specifically non- consumptive expenditures, is difficult.” Judging from published studies I do not fully agree. Non-consumptive use, and espe- cially valuation of wildlife, receive consid- erable attention worldwide (e.g., Decker and Goff 1987, Mattsson and Li 1993, Brown et al. 2001). Thus, the methods and tech- niques are there. I believe it is more a question of involving social science in moose research and management. Studies focusing on exercised values of moose, with special reference to moose hunting and hunters, started to appear in the mid-1980s. At the Second International Moose Conference 1984, Bisset (1987), Bluzma (1987), Norling (1987), and Wolfe (1987) provided comprehensive reviews from North America, Sweden, and Russia. Shortly thereafter followed a series of [bio]economic studies (Johansson et al. 1988; Sødal 1989; Mattsson 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Mattson and Li 1993; Ericsson et al. 2000; Storaas et al. 2001). Mattsson’s studies are inter- and intradisciplinary im- portant as they integrate ecological data with economic data, and deal with values beyond meat, license revenues, gadgets, and travel cost. Central questions in Mattsson’s work are determining the mar- ginal benefit of a moose and how this changes when the number of moose varies over time. However, few recent studies exist in this field besides work from Canada (New- foundland, Condon and Adamowicz 1995; Saskatchewan, Morton et al. 1995; Ontario, Sarker and Surry 1998) and the USA. (Maine, Boyle and Clark 1993). Much work needs to be done in the field of economic values and valuation. Espe- cially needed are calculations of net eco- nomic benefit that take into account con- sumptive as well as non-consumptive use of moose in relation to damage, collisions, for- estry management (Euler 1975, Boxall et al. 1996, Boxall and Macnab 2000, Courtois et al. 2001), and cost of moose management in relation to policy implementation (Ericsson et al. 2000). Also desirable are studies that address option values of moose in relation to, for example, various biodiversity goals and policies. Studies that target the asym- metric costs and benefits in moose manage- ment are also needed (Ericsson et al. 2000, Skonhoft 2002). New, updated national studies are required for all jurisdictions. Attitudes. — A good example of both human attitudes towards moose and citizen participation in moose management was the reintroduction proposal for New York State, USA, 1992. New York State used several means (public meetings at various stages, EIS, public comment period, public surveys, etc.) to ask the public if they should proceed with a moose reintroduction proposal or not (Lauber and Knuth 1997, 1998, 1999). This process of public involvement is becoming HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 18 increasingly important for moose managers and policy makers. Two stimulating papers have applied solid social science theory, addressing both beliefs and attitudes towards moose hunt- ing. Both papers go beyond the limited question “Do you support or oppose moose hunting?”. Donnelly and Vaske (1995) studied people’s beliefs and attitudes to- wards a proposed moose hunt in New Hampshire, and Whittaker et al. (2001) studied beliefs and attitudes about an urban moose hunt near Anchorage, Alaska. With respect to moose hunters, studies have addressed hunter satisfaction with management, such as the introduction of selective harvest regimes, but only for On- tario and Quebec, Canada, and for Maine, USA (Ontario, Rollins 1987, Rollins and Romano 1989, Wedels et al. 1989, Hansen et al. 1995; Quebec, Sigouin et al. 1999; Maine, Boyle et al. 1993). Thus, there is little current knowledge worldwide about the perhaps most important moose man- ager, the hunter. Man Affects Moose Hunting. — Studies, often ad-hoc to moose population studies, have addressed general topics about regulated or selective moose harvest (Child 1983, Euler 1983, Gollat and Timmermann 1983, Pierce et al. 1985, Timmermann and Gollat 1986, Cretê 1987, Child and Aitken 1989, Boer 1991, Heydon et al. 1992, Timmermann and Whitlaw 1992, Hooper and Wilton 1995, Wilton 1995, Ferguson and Messier 1996, Goudreault and Milette 1999, Lamoureux 1999, Schwartz 2002), as well as more specific topics such as demographic conse- quences of selective harvest (e.g., Baker 1975, Schwartz et al. 1992, Wilton 1992, Timmermann and Rempel 1998, Ericsson 2001), trophy-management (Smith et al. 1979), miscellaneous moose hunting “ex- periments” (Crichton 1979, 1980), impact of Native hunting (Crichton 1981, Feit 1987), moose alertness in relation to hunting (Bangs et al. 1984, Wilton and Bisset 1988, Garner et al. 1990, Ericsson and Wallin 1996, Baskin et al. 2002), moose social structure in rela- tion to hunting (Timmermann and Gollat 1994), and the impact of forest manage- ment practices (Eason 1989). Moose hunters. — Some studies have systematically examined the characteris- tics of moose hunters and human aspects of moose hunting (e.g., Timmermann 1977, Euler 1985, Norling 1987, Child and Aitken 1989, Ferguson et al. 1989, Redmond et al. 1997, Ball et al. 1999, Heikkilä and Aarnio 2001, Broman et al. 2002, Gåsdal and Rysstad 2002). However, we still know relatively little about the composition, de- mography, population dynamics, and socio- economic characteristics of the human predator. Infrastructure. – Humans consider- ably affect moose through society’s infra- structure. Collisions between moose and vehicles on roads and railroads have re- ceived attention in both Alces and other peer-reviewed journals. The contributions have evolved, along with moose population increases, from quantifying the problem to evaluating the means and efforts to reduce the number of deadly impacts (e.g., Björnstig et al. 1986, Child and Stuart 1987, Andersen et al. 1991, Becker and Grauvogel 1991, Child et al. 1991, del Frate and Spraker 1991, Jaren et al. 1991, Lavsund and Sandegren 1991, McDonald 1991, Modafferi 1991, Rattey and Turner 1991, Jolicoeur and Crête 1994, Belant 1995, Farrel et al. 1996, Garret and Conway 1999, Joyce and Mahoney 2001, Rea and Child 2002). Few studies have dealt with urban sprawl and the effect of human settlement (Schnei- der and Wasel 2000), hydroelectric projects (Ballard et al. 1988), or potential barriers to moose movements, dispersal and migration, and habitat use (McDonald 1991, Forman ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 19 and Deblinger 2000, Ball and Dahlgren 2002). All would benefit from further research. Response to other forms of human dis- turbance such as military activity (Andersen et al. 1996) and snowmobile traffic (Colescott and Gillingham 1998) have re- ceived little attention relative to the amount of studies addressing human disturbance to other deer species. Current studies usually describe moose behavioral response directly after the construction of potential barriers, but management and infrastructure plan- ners need more than snapshots of reality, thus the need for longer term data collec- tion. However, only recently have GPS and GIS-techniques been used to better under- stand the interaction of landscape and tem- poral features of moose and human infra- structure (e.g., Gundersen et al. 1998). DISCUSSION The analysis and literature review indi- cates a declining proportion of human di- mension publications in moose research and management over the last 10 years. With the exception of the 5th International Sym- posium, years with an International Sympo- sium do not seem to stimulate a higher proportion of HD-contributions (Fig. 2). Wolfe’s (1987) prediction of an expanding HD-area was fulfilled up to 1991; thereaf- ter the relative HD-publication rate in Alces has declined (Fig. 2). However, people have used outlets other than Alces and the International Symposia, but this does not fully compensate for the decreasing trend in Alces since 1991; e.g., just 5 HD-moose papers appeared in the Wildlife Society Bulletin and 2 in the Journal of Wildlife M a n a g e m e n t 1 9 8 4 - 2 0 0 2 . H o w e v e r , present data suggest that alternate journals are publishing HD-papers which are under- represented in Alces. Recently moose pa- pers written by social scientists (n = 3) have appeared in the journal “Society and Natu- ral Resources”. Publishing moose papers in alternate journals is an exciting opportunity to strengthen the interdisciplinary interface among biologists, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, political scientists, law scholars, and others. The literature review suggests there is an increasing involvement in the moose world by these other disci- plines. This undoubtedly has strengthened the quality of the HD-component in moose research since 1984, although the quantity of HD-papers has declined. It is important for the future that we continue to attract more professionals from other disciplines than natural science. A sure result of more attendees from a wider array of disciplines will be relatively more HD-contributions in Alces that will benefit moose management worldwide. Future Directions The complexity of moose management has increased since 1984, as has the need for a better understanding of human dimen- sions. This is demonstrated by the presen- tations at the 5th International Moose Sym- posium, 2002. More scientific in-depth as- sessments of public attitudes toward moose and moose management are needed as moose populations expand into new areas, and move in closer to urban areas. Hunting is a behavior, and hunters have strong attitudes about moose hunting (e.g., Rollins and Romano 1989, Hansen et al. 1995). Anti-hunting is, for most people, only an attitude - a feeling and a set of beliefs about an object like moose hunting. Attitudes are the broad structures that un- derlie behaviors. A behavior is like the tip of an iceberg, while the attitude is the part under water: one you can see, the other you must infer. Social scientists often use sur- veys to infer people’s attitudes. Attitudes become important when they are expressed in behavior. It is the behavioral expression of attitudes by the public that HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 20 often concerns managers and policy mak- ers. It thus becomes crucial to understand the beliefs and dimensions of attitudes among consumptive and non-consumptive users of moose (Whittaker et al. 2001). Moose managers need to determine what policies are acceptable to the public, and the likely degree of opposition to existing and poten- tial policies. From my data analysis and literature review I have identified several major trends specific to moose research and management that deserve top priority in the near future; 1. Moose populations continue to increase in size, expand to new areas, and in some places are being re-introduced to former habitats. In some places, such as the Baltic countries, moose populations are decreas- ing in size and distribution. How do people react to these changing moose populations? 2. With rebounding populations, moose will cause more nuisance and damage. What management alternatives are acceptable to handle conflicts between moose and hu- mans? What makes them acceptable to hunters and the general public? 3. How important are moose to non-consump- tive users in relation to other natural re- sources? 4. The consumptive use of moose will con- tinue to be of central importance. What are the motivations behind the consumptive use of moose? How does the human preda- tor function and think? What are the dy- namics of the moose hunter population? CONCLUSIONS Despite the growing interest in how humans affect the ecological system in to- day’s society, there is still a gap between this awareness and the effort made to un- derstand the human dimension of natural resource use. There is a recognized need in moose management to integrate traditional population ecology and the social sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology, and econom- ics). Among others, Crichton, Regelin, Franzmann, and Schwartz identified this as t h e “ T h e M a n a g e m e n t C h a l l e n g e ” (1998:659). To fulfill the two primary goals of moose management - development of resources and optimization of public ben- efits - we need more information about the human user. Although humans play a sig- nificant and recognized role in moose man- agement, the necessity of collecting and utilizing information about the human user has seldom been properly integrated into moose research. If we wish to manage moose optimally, we must better incorpo- rate the human dimension. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I gratefully acknowledge the Fulbright Commission and the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT) for funding. I thank the Department of Rural Sociology and the Kemp Natural Resources Station at the University of Wisconsin-Madison for providing facilities to collect and analyze these data. I thank the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sci- ences and Spatial planning (FORMAS) for support during write up and presentation of the results. Constructive comments to ear- lier versions of the paper by John P. Ball, Lars Edenius, Ed Telfer, and two anony- mous reviewers greatly improved the qual- ity of the paper. REFERENCES ANDERSEN, R., J. D. C. LINELL, and R. LANGVATN. 1996. Short term behav- ioural and physiological response of moose Alces alces to military distur- bance in Norway. Biological Conser- vation 77:169-176. , B. WISETH, P. H. PEDERSEN, and V. JAREN. 1991. Moose-train collisions: effects of environmental conditions. Alces 27:79-84. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 21 BAKER, R. A. 1975. Biological implications of a bull-only moose hunting regulation for Ontario. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 11: 464-476. BALL, J. P., and J. DAHLGREN. 2002. Brows- ing damage on pine (Pinus sylvestris and P. contorta) by a migrating moose (Alces alces) population in winter: rela- tion to habitat composition and road barriers. Scandinavian Journal of For- est Research 17:427-435. , G. ERICSSON, and K. WALLIN. 1999. Climate change, moose and their human predators. Ecological Bulletin 47:178- 187. BALLARD, W. B., A. F. CUNNING, and J. S. WHITMAN. 1988. Hypotheses of im- pacts on moose due to hydroelectric projects. Alces 24:34-47. BANGS, E. E., T. N. BAILY, and M. F. PORTNER. 1984. Bull moose behavior and move- ments in relation to harvest on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Alces 20:187- 209. BASKIN. L., J. P. BALL, and K. DANELL. 2002. Moose escape behaviour in ar- eas of high hunting pressure. Presented at the 5th International Moose Sympo- sium, Hafjell, Norway, August 2002. BECKER, E. F., and C. A. GRAUVOGEL. 1991. Relationship of reduced train speed on moose-train collisions in Alaska. Alces 27:161-168. BELANT, J. L. 1995. Moose collisions with vehicles and trains in northeastern Min- nesota. Alces 31:45-52. BISSET, A. R. 1987. The economic impor- tance of moose (Alces alces) in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:677-698. BJÖRNSTIG, U., A. ERIKSSON, J. THORSON, and P.-O BYLUND. 1986. Collisions with passenger cars and moose, Sweden. American Journal of Physical Health 76:460-462. BLUZMA, P. P. 1987. Socio-economic sig- nificance of moose in the USSR. Swed- ish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:705- 723. BOER, A. H. 1991. Hunting: a product or a tool for wildlife managers? Alces 27:79- 84. BOXALL, P. C., W. L. ADAMOWICZ, J. SWAT, M. WILLIAMS, and J. LOUVERED. 1996. A comparison of stated preference meth- ods for environmental valuation. Eco- logical Economics 18:243-253. , and B. MACNAB. 2000. Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest manage- ment: a choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1931-1941. BOYLE, K. J., and A.G. CLARK. 1993. Does getting a bull significantly increase value? The net economic value of moose hunting in Maine. Alces 29:201- 211. , R. L. DRESSLER, A. G. CLARK, and M. F. TEISL. 1993. Moose hunter preferences and setting season timings. Wildlife Society Bulletin 21:498-504. BROMAN, E., K. WALLIN, and M. BROBERG. 2002. Shortcomings and the successes of the Malawi principle in Swedish moose management. Presented at the 5th In- ternational Moose Symposium, Hafjell, Norway, August 2002. BROWN, D., and P. ROTHERY. 1993. Models in biology: mathematics, statistics and computing. John Wiley and Sons, Lon- don, England. BROWN, T. L., and D. J. DECKER 2001. Evolution of human dimension interest. Pages 23-38 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. hu- man dimensions of Wildlife Manage- ment in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. , , and W. F. SIEMER. 2001. Valuing wildlife: economic perspectives. HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 22 Pages 57-73 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Man- agement in North America. The Wild- life Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. BRUSEWITZ, G. 1992. From the Middle Ages to the present. Pages 40-49 in R. Bergström, H. Huldt, and U. Nilsson, editors. Swedish Game - Biology and Management. Svenska Jägareför- bundet, Spånga, Sweden. CHILD, K. N. 1983. Selective harvest of moose in the Omineca: some prelimi- nary results. Alces 19:162-177. , and D. A. AITKEN. 1989. Selec- tive harvests, hunters and moose in central British Columbia. Alces 25:81- 97. , S. P. BARRY, and D. A. AITKEN. 1991. Moose mortality on highways and railways in British Columbia. Alces 27:41-49. , and K. M. STUART. 1987. Vehicle and train collisions fatalities of moose: some management and socio-economic considerations. Swedish Wildlife Re- search Supplement 1:699-702. COBUS, M. 1972. Moose as an aesthetic resource and their summer feeding behavior. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 8:244-275. COLESCOTT, J. H., and M. P. GILLINGHAM. 1998. Reaction of moose (Alces alces) to snowmobile traffic in the Greysriver Valley, Wyoming. Alces 34:329-338. CONDON, B., and W. ADAMOWICZ. 1995. The economic value of moose hunting in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Forest Economics 25:319-328. COURTOIS, R., J.-P. OUELLET, and A. BUGNET. 2001. Moose hunters’ perception of forest harvesting. Alces 37:19-34. CRETÊ, M. 1987. The impact of sport hunting on North American moose. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:553-563. , F. P O T V I N , P . W A L S H , J . L . BENEDETTI, M. A. LEFEBVRE, J. P. WE- BER, G. PAILLARD, and J. GAGNON. 1987. Pattern of cadmium contamination in the liver and kidneys of moose and white-tailed deer in Québec. Science of the Total Environment 66:45-53. CRICHTON, V. F. J. 1979. An experimental moose hunt on Hecla Island, Manitoba. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 15:245-279. . 1980. Manitoba’s second experi- mental moose hunt on Hecla Island. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 16:489-526. . 1981. The impact of treaty Indian harvest on a Manitoba moose herd. Alces 17:56-63. , 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, editors. Ecology and Management of the North Ameri- can Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., USA. DANELL, K., P. NELIN, and G. WICKMAN. 1989. Cesium 137 in northern Swedish moose: the first year after the Chernobyl accident. Ambio 108-111. 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. , and G. R. GOFF, editors. 1987. Valuing Wildlife. Economic and Social Perspectives. Westview Press, Boul- der, Colorado, USA. DEL FRATE, G. G., and T. H. SPRAKER. 1991. ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 23 Moose vehicle interactions and an as- sociated public awareness program on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. Alces 27:1-7. DONNELLY, M. P., and J. J. VASKE. 1995. Predicting attitudes toward a proposed moose hunt. Society and Natural Re- sources 8:307-319. EASON, G. 1989. Moose response to hunting and 1km2 block cutting. Alces 25:63- 74. ERICSSON, G. 2001. Reduced cost of repro- duction in moose Alces alces through human harvest. Alces 37:61-69. , M. BOMAN, and L. MATTSSON. 2000. Selective versus random moose har- vesting: does it pay to be a prudent predator? Journal of Bioeconomics 2:117-132. , and K. WALLIN. 1996. The impact of hunting on moose movements. Alces 32:31-40. EULER, D. 1975. The economic impact of prescribed burning on moose hunting. Journal of Environmental Management 3:1-5. . 1983. Selective harvest, compen- satory mortality and moose in Ontario. Alces 19:148-161. . 1985. Moose and man in northern Ontario. Forestry Chronicle 61: 176- 179. FARREL, T. M., J. E. SUTTON, D. E. CLARK, W. R. HORNER, K. I. MORRIS, K. S. FINISON, G. E. MENCHEN, and K. H. COHN. 1996. Moose-motor vehicle collisions, an increasing hazard in New England. Archives of Surgery 131:377- 381. FEIT, H. A. 1987. North American Native hunting and management of moose populations. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:25-42. FERGUSON, S. H., W. E. MERCER, and S. M. OOSENBURG. 1989. The relationship between hunter accessibility and moose condition in Newfoundland. Alces 25:36-47. , and F. MESSIER. 1996. Can human predation of moose cause population cycles? Alces 32:149-162. FORMAN, R. T. T., and R. D. DEBLINGER. 2000. The ecological road-effect zone of a Massachusetts (U.S.A) suburban Highway. Conservation Biology 14:36- 46. GARNER, D. L., M. L. WILTON, and K. A. GUSTAFSON. 1990. Importance of moose immigration into a heavily hunted area from an unhunted area. Alces 26:30- 36. GARRET, L. C., and G. A. CONWAY. 1999. Characteristics of moose-vehicle colli- sions in Anchorage, Alaska, 1991-1995. Journal of Safety Research 30:219-223. GÅSDAL, O., and S. RYSSTAD. 2002. Moose hunting as a recreational common pool good. Presented at the 5th Interna- tional Moose Symposium, Hafjell, Nor- way, August 2002. GOLLAT, R., and H. R. TIMMERMANN. 1983. Determining quotas for a moose selec- tive harvest in northcentral Ontario. Alces 19:191-203. GOUDREAULT, F., and J. MILETTE. 1999. Hunting pressure and rate of increase of a moose population at a density be- low carrying capacity. Alces 35:165- 176. GUNDERSEN, H., H. P. ANDREASSEN, and T. STORAAS. 1998. Spatial and temporal correlates to Norwegian moose-train collisions. Alces 34:385-394. HANSEN, S., W. J. DALTON, and T. STEVENS. 1995. On overview of a hunter opinion survey of satisfaction with the Ontario moose management system. Alces 31:247-254. HEIKKILÄ, R., and J. AARNIO. 2001. Forest owners as moose hunters in Finland. Alces 37:89-96. HENDEE, J. C. 1969. Appreciative versus HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 24 consumptive uses of wildlife refuges: studies of who gets what and trends in use. Transactions of the North Ameri- can Wildlife and Natural Resources Con- ference 34:252-264. . 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach to game management. Wild- life Society Bulletin 2:104-113. , and R. J. BURDGE. 1974. The substitutability concept: implication for recreation and management. Journal of Leisure Research 6:157-162. , and D. R. POTTER. 1971. Human behavior and wildlife management: needed research. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 36:383-396. HEYDON, C., D. EULER, H. SMITH, and A. BISSET. 1992. Modelling the selective moose harvest program in Ontario. Alces 28:111-122. HOOPER, C. A., and M. L. WILTON. 1995. A selective moose hunt in south central Ontario. Alces 31:139-144. JAREN, V., R. ANDERSEN, M. ULLEBERG, P. H. PEDERSEN, and B. WISETH. 1991. Moose- train collisions: the effect of vegetation removal with a cost-benefit analysis. Alces 27:93-99. JOHANSSON, P.-O., B. KRISTRÖM, and L. MATTSSON. 1988. How is the willing- ness-to-pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose? An empirical study of moose-hunters in the county of Västerbotten. Journal of Environmen- tal Management 26:163-171. JOLICOEUR, H., and M. CRÊTE. 1994. Failure to reduce moose-vehicle accidents af- ter a partial drainage of roadside salt pools in Québec. Alces 30:81-89. JOYCE, T. L., and S. P. MAHONEY. 2001. Spatial and temporal distributions of moose-vehicle collisions in Newfound- land. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:281- 291. KARNS, P. D. 1998. Population distribution, density and trends. Pages 125-140 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of t h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n M o o s e . Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, D.C., USA. KIM, C., M. C. HING, and O. RECEVEUR. 1998. Risk assessment of cadmium exposure in Fort Resolution, Northwest Territories, Canada. Food Additives and Contaminants 15:307-317. LAMOUREUX, J. 1999. Effects of selective harvest on moose populations of the Bas-Saint-Laurent region, Québec. Alces 35:191-203. LAUBER, T. B., and B. A. KNUTH. 1997. Fairness in moose management deci- sion-making: the citizens’ perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:776-787. , and . 1998. Refining our vision of citizen participation: lessons from a moose reintroduction proposal. Society and Natural Resources 11:411- 424. , and . 1999. Measuring fairness in citizen participation: A case study of moose management. Society and Natural Resources 11:19-37. LAVSUND, S., and F. SANDEGREN. 1991. Moose-vehicle relations in Sweden: A review. Alces 27:118-126. MATTSSON, L. 1989. The economic value of wildlife for hunting. Scandinavian For- est Economics 30:42-61. . 1990a. Hunting in Sweden: ex- tent, economic values and structural problems. Scandinavian Journal of For- est Research 5:563-573. . 1990b. Moose management and the economic value of hunting: towards bioeconomic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5:575-581. , and C.-H. LI. 1993. The non- timber value of northern Swedish for- e s t s . A n e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s . Scandinavian Journal of Forest Re- ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 ERICSSON - HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH 25 search 8:426-434. MCDONALD, M. G. 1991. Moose movement and mortality associated with the Glenn Highway expansion, Anchorage Alaska. Alces 27:208-219. MODAFFERI, R. D. 1991. Train moose-kill in Alaska: Characteristics and relation- ship with snowpack depth and moose distribution in Lower Susitna Valley. Alces 27:193-207. MORTON, K. M., W. L. ADAMOWICZ, and P. C. BOXALL. 1995. Economic effects of environmental quality change on rec- reational hunting in northwestern Sas- katchewan: a contingent behaviour analysis. Canadian Journal of Forest Economics 25: 912-920. NORLING, I. 1987. Moose hunting in Swe- den, description and evaluation. Swed- ish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:725- 733. PIERCE, C. L., M. J. MANFREDO, and J. J. VASKE. 2001. Social science theories in wildlife management. Pages 39-56 in D. J. Decker, T. L. Brown, and W. F. Siemer, editors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management in North America. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Mary- land, USA. PIERCE, D. J., B. W. RITCIE, and L. KUCK. 1985. An examination of unregulated harvest of Shiras moose in Idaho. Alces 21:231-252. POTTER, D. R., J. C. HENDEE, and R. N. CLARK. 1973. Hunting satisfaction: game, guns or nature? Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natu- ral Resources Conference 38:220-229. RATTEY, T. E., and N. E. TURNER. 1991. Vehicle moose accidents in Newfound- land. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 73-A:1487-1491. REA, R. V., and K. CHILD 2002. Human dimension in New Hampshire’s moose management. Presented at the 5th In- ternational Moose Symposium, Hafjell, Norway, August 2002. REDMOND, G. W., A. ARSENEAULT, and C. LANTEIGNE. 1997. Using IVR technol- ogy to survey moose hunters in New Brunswick. Alces 33:75-84. ROLLINS, R. 1987. Hunter satisfaction with the selective harvest system for moose in northern Ontario. Alces 23:181-193. , and L. ROMANO. 1989. Hunter satisfaction with the selective harvest system for moose management in On- tario. Wildlife Society Bulletin 17:470- 475. SARKER, R., and Y. SURRY. 1998. Economic value of big game hunting: the case of moose hunting in Ontario. Journal of Forest Economics 4:29-60. SAS INSTITUTE. 1989. SAS/STAT®. Us- er’s guide. Version 6. Fourth edition. Volumes 1 and 2. SAS Institute Incor- porated, Cary, North Carolina, USA. SCHNEIDER, R. R., and S. WASEL. 2000. The effect of human settlement on the den- sity of moose in northern Alberta. Jour- nal of Wildlife Management 64:513- 520. SCHWARTZ, C. C. 2002. Carnivores, moose and humans: a changing paradigm of predator management. Presented at the 5th International Moose Sympo- sium, Hafjell, Norway, August 2002. , K. J. HUNDERTMARK, and T. H. SPRAKER. 1992. An evaluation of selec- tive bull moose harvest on the Kenai peninsula Alaska. Alces 28:1-14. SIGOUIN, D., S. ST-ONGE, R. COURTOIS, and J.-P. OUELLET. 1999. Change in hunt- ing activity and hunters’ perception fol- lowing the introduction of selective har- vest in Québec. Alces 35:105-123. SKONHOFT, A. 2002. Natural resource utilisation under asymmetric costs and benefits. Moose management in Nor- way. Presented at the 5th International Moose Symposium, Hafjell, Norway, August 2002. HUMAN DIMENSIONS IN MOOSE RESEARCH - ERICSSON ALCES VOL. 39, 2003 26 SMITH, C. A., J. B. FARO, and N. C. STEEN. 1979. An evaluation of trophy moose management on the Alaska Peninsula. Proceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 15:280-302. SØDAL, D. P. 1989. The recreational value of moose hunting in Norway: towards modelling optimal population density. Scandinavian Forest Economics 30:62- 78. STEINHOFF, H. W., R. G. WALSH, T. J. PETERLE, and J. M. PETULLA. 1987. Evolution of the valuation of wildlife. Pages 34-48 in D. J. Decker and G. R. Goffs, edi- tors. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives. Westview, Boul- der, Colorado, USA. STORAAS, T., H. GUNDERSEN, H. HENRIKSEN, and H. P. ANDREASSEN. 2001. The economic value of moose in Norway - a review. Alces 97-122. TIMMERMANN, H. R. 1977. The killing proficiency of moose hunters. Pro- ceedings of the North American Moose Conference and Workshop 15:12-25. , and M. E. BUSS. 1998. Population and harvest management. Pages 559- 616 in A. W. Franzmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Man- agement of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash- ington, D.C., USA. , and R. GOLLAT. 1986. Selective moose harvest in northcentral Ontario - a progress report. Alces 22:395-418. , and . 1994. Early winter social structure of hunted vs. unhunted moose population in N. Central Ontario. Alces 117-126. , and R. S. REMPEL. 1998. Age and sex structure of hunter harvested moose u n d e r t w o h a r v e s t s t r a t e g i e s i n northcentral Ontario. Alces 34:21-30. , and H. A. WHITLAW. 1992. Selec- tive moose harvest in north central Ontario. Alces 28:137-164. WEDELS, C. H. R., H. SMITH, and R. ROLLINS, 1989. Opinions of Ontario moose hunt- ers on changes to the selective harvest system. Alces 25:15-24. WHITTAKER. D., M. J. MANFREDO, P. J. FIX, R. SINNOT, S. MILLER, and J. J. VASKE. 2001. Understanding beliefs and atti- tudes about an urban wildlife hunt near Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1114-1124. WILTON, M. L. 1992. Implications of har- vesting moose during pre-rut and rut activity. Alces 28: 31-34. . 1995. The case against calling and hunting dominant moose during the main rut period - a viewpoint. Alces 31:173-180. , and A. R. BISSET. 1988. Move- ment patterns of tagged moose from an unhunted area to a heavily hunted area. Alces 24:62-68. WOLFE, M. L. 1987. An overview of the socioeconomics of moose in North America. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1:659-675.