Strength of correlation between wildlife collision data and hunting bags varies among ungulate species and with management scale

Most European ungulate species are increasing in numbers and expanding their range. For the management and monitoring of these species, 64% of European countries rely on indirect proxies of abundance (e.g., hunting bag statistics). With increasing ungulate numbers, data on ungulate-vehicle collisions (UVC) may provide an important and inexpensive, complementary data source. Currently, it is unclear how bag statistics compare with UVC. A direct comparison of these two indices is important because both are used in ungulate management. We evaluated the relationship between UVC and ungulate hunting bags across bioclimatic, regional, and local scales, using five time lags (t−3 to t+1) for the five most common wild ungulate species in Sweden. For all species, hunting bags and UVC correlated positively, but correlation strength and time lags varied across scales and among species. The two indices correlated most strongly at the local management scale. Correlation between both indices was strong for the smaller deer species and wild boar, in particular, but much weaker for moose where we found the best fit using a 2-year time lag. For the other species, indices from the same year correlated best. We argue that the reason for moose data behaving differently is that, in Sweden, moose are formally managed using a 3-year time plan, while the other species are not. Accordingly, moose hunting bags are influenced more strongly by density-independent processes than bags of the other species. Consequently, the mismatch between the two indices may generate conflicting conclusions for management depending on the method applied.

Moose or spruce: A systems analysis model for managing conflicts between moose and forestry in Sweden

Sweden has the world’s highest density of moose (Alces alces). Moose is not only a valuable game species; it also causes forest damages and traffic accidents. To avoid moose browsing, foresters respond by planting spruce (Picea abies) to an extent that reshapes the forest landscape with impacts on both production and biodiversity. To address this problem and maintain a healthy moose population in balance with the other interests, an adaptive management based on the knowledge and experiences of local hunters and landowners is advocated. However, the different stakeholders do not agree on what is an appropriate moose population, which leads to conflicts that are hard to resolve. A key problem is that it is very difficult to encompass and foresee long-term consequences of different options for moose hunting and forest management. This makes it challenging to form coherent strategies that integrate different sectorial interests at a national level. To address this issue, we have developed a systems analysis framework for integrated modeling of the moose population, forestry, and their interactions and consequences for biodiversity. We analyze the short and long-term consequences for multiple scenarios of moose hunting and forest management. Based on the results we elucidate and quantify the trade-offs and possible synergies between moose hunting and forest production. This analysis can be used to support better informed and more constructive discussions among the stakeholders in the Swedish forest sectors, and to support policies for long term sustainable forest and moose management.

The Quirky Moose

Admittedly, moose hunting generates money through the sale of licenses and permits and the hiring of guides, yet it potentially is tipping the scale against moose survival in all states but Alaska. Creating either a use or nonuse value that supports a revenue stream based on tourism and an ancillary moose-themed market could provide an alternative way to help preserve the moose. Moose are charismatic species due their visual rareness, relation to northern landscapes, and reputation as an all-American animal. Valuing the moose through the marketplace as an important capital asset makes protecting it and its habitat a more logical choice than hunting it beyond its capacity to recover ever could be.

Who benefits from ecosystem services? Analysing recreational moose hunting in Vermont, USA

Ecosystem services typically benefit multiple groups of people. However, natural resource management decisions aiming to secure ecosystem services for one beneficiary group rarely consider potential consequences for others. Here, we examine records of moose hunting in Vermont, USA, a recreational ecosystem service with at least two beneficiary groups: hunters, who benefit from recreational experiences and moose meat, and residents, who live in hunting areas and benefit from hunters’ expenditures. We ask how the allocation of hunting permits has affected (1) the total number of hunters and therefore the benefits enjoyed by this group, (2) the benefits residents received, and (3) the spatial distribution of benefits for each group. We found that changes in the allocation of permits had heterogeneous effects on the beneficiaries. For example, increasing the number of hunting permits increased the total number of hunters, but not necessarily the number of residents who potentially benefit. Also, a more balanced distribution of permits across Vermont increased the total number of potentially benefiting residents, but not those from lower socio-economic groups. Understanding these differences and interactions between beneficiary groups is necessary to distribute benefits equitably amongst them.

What can the inverse relationship between sex ratios and calf:cow ratios, tell us about compensatory responses to hunting, in moose populations exposed to wolf predation?

Moose populations with low hunting pressure tend to have high sex ratios and low calf:cow ratios and hunted ones have low sex ratios and high calf:cow ratios. What causes this inverse relationship? I suggest that when hunting is male-biased, which it is in almost all populations; 1) the number of 10 year old or older moose and the overall sex ratio is reduced, 2) the number of wolves declines because old moose are more vulnerable to predation by wolves than prime age animals and wolf numbers are linearly related to the number of old moose, and 3) the fraction of moose calves in the population and the calf:cow ratio increases because with fewer wolves, calf survival increases. This process could partially or completely compensate for moose hunting mortality in moose-wolf ecosystems.

What can the inverse relationship between sex ratios and calf:cow ratios, tell us about compensatory responses to hunting, in moose populations exposed to wolf predation?

Moose populations with low hunting pressure tend to have high sex ratios and low calf:cow ratios and hunted ones have low sex ratios and high calf:cow ratios. What causes this inverse relationship? I suggest that when hunting is male-biased, which it is in almost all populations; 1) the number of 10 year old or older moose and the overall sex ratio is reduced, 2) the number of wolves declines because old moose are more vulnerable to predation by wolves than prime age animals and wolf numbers are linearly related to the number of old moose, and 3) the fraction of moose calves in the population and the calf:cow ratio increases because with fewer wolves, calf survival increases. This process could partially or completely compensate for moose hunting mortality in moose-wolf ecosystems.