ungulates and forestry in sweden göran ericsson
TRANSCRIPT
Ungulates and Forestry
in Sweden
Göran Ericsson
Chaired Professor in Wildlife Ecology,
Dept. of Wildlife, Fish & Environmental Studies, SLU, Sweden
My Research Group;
Plant-Animal Interactions, HD and
Wildlife Management
Wallin, Ericsson, Cederlund
• Moose, roe deer, wild boar,
fallow deer, red deer - current
model animals
• Gradients and variation
• Use, impact, forestry
• Behavioral, populations,
landscape ecology, genetics,
wildlife management, Human
Dimensions of Natural Resurces
Key Features
• The ”Swedish Wildlife Management Model”
– Restoration and Sustainability
– NGO:s->Stakeholders well organized
– Private Landowners
– Utilitarian, ethical focus
• N-S Gradient -> Environmental Variation
• Forestry
• Adaptive [Moose] Management Program
– From single speciec to multispecies
– Added value for FRISK
Official Moose Harvest 1900-2012
1938 8,459 1967
31,541
1982 174,709
2012 96,050
0
40,000
80,000
120,000
160,000
200,000
1900 1925 1950 1975 2000
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Po
pu
lati
on
siz
e/in
dex
(lo
g)
Year
Moose
Wild boar
Bear
Wolves
The last 30 yrs;
More ungulates, more predators, more….
1789-1860
Freedom results in the tragedy
of the commons
• Gustavus III
• French Revolution
• All landowners right to hunt
• Cultural significance
Tragedy of the commons:
Game disappears fast in
1800’s
Sweden
1808-1818
full protection
1830
~1860
1938
~1967
Key concepts
• Local: engage those affected to balance
local and public interest.
• Ecosystem based: a geographical areas
and a mode of operation => adaptive
managemant
Prop. 2009/10:239, NFS 2011:7)
Ecosystem approach
• Holistic view on natural resource
management
• Knowledge based (science, local & traditional)
• Humans a part of and dependent of
ecosystem services to survive
• Decentralised decision making
Solutions according to the directives
Problems in the old system
Solutions in the adaptive
system
Moose – a resource & a problem
Ecosystem approach
Adaptive management
Ecosystem based local
management
Browsing, [grazing].
Plant/tree community compostion-
biodiversity
Wildlife collissions, infrastructure
Labour intensive administration
Lack for supervision and holistic
approach
- Land owners
- Public, other interest
Framework
Level Formel rules Volontary rules
National (495 000
km2)
Regional (#21
counties)
County board
(Regional;
”Wildlife
delegations”)
Ecosystem Moose
management unit
(4-10/region/
50,000 – 100,000
ha)
Local Moose
cooperation
areas (of #
hunting groups)
Hunting groups
Animal
Competition
Population development
Manageable impact
Predators
Infrastructure
Reshaping the landscape
Climate
Cultural landscapes
Interactions to
include
[EU] Research areas to be
• Monitoring
– Animals, impact, user groups
• Ungulate Damage in relation to
– Multispecies recovery
– Climate
• Manipulations
– Supplemental feeding
– Game farming
– Introductions
• Human Dimensions
[EU] management challenges
• Ungulate/Wildlife Management
– > Professionalism
• Urban, suburban wildlife
management
• Charistmatic species will dominate
the societal response
• More alerts, alarm
– Massdeath, vectors, zoonosis
Resources - SLU
• Wiebke Neumann
• Joris Cromsigt
• Navinder Singh
• Göran Spong
• Holger Dettki
• PhD-candidates
– Andrew Allen, Ida-Maria Blåhed, Anita Norman, Per Ljung, Anders Kagervall, Jonas Malmsten, et al.
• Anne-Marie Dalin
• Lars Edenius
• C-G Thulin
• Håkan Sand
• Johan Månsson
• Roger Bergström
• Kjell Danell
• John Ball
• Thomas R Palo
• Intl. Collaborators
– FIN, NO, US, Canada, RUS, Baltic, Poland, etc
Stockholm
Umeå
Swedish EPA. Formas. VR. SLU. SVA. Jägareförbundet. Wildlife & Forestry