Wildlifemanagementin Europe Outsidethe Sovietunion

Ø18. Wildlifemanagementin Europe outsidethe SovietUnion

SveinMyrberget

NORSKINSTITUTTFORNATURFORSKNING Wildlifemanagementin Europe outsidetheSovietUnion

SveinMyrberget

NORSKINSTITUITFORNATURFORSKNING •

ninautredning018

Myrberget, S. 1990. Wildlife management in Europe outside the Soviet Union. NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.

Trondheim, June 1990

ISBN 82-426-0085-6 ISSN 0802-3107

Classification of the publication: Norwegian: Jaktbart vilt- English: Game species

Editors: Eli Fremstad and Svein Myrberget Layout: Eva M. Schjetne Kari Sivertsen NINA, Grafisk kontor

Print Bjærum Grafiske a/s

Edition: 500

Adress: NINA Tungasletta 2 N-7004 Trondheim Tlf.: 47 + 7 58 05 00 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning 018

Abstract Referat

Myrberget, S. 1990. Wildlife management in Europe outside Myrberget, S. 1990. Viltstell i Europa utenom Sovjet-Unionen. the Soviet Union. - NINA Utredning 018: 1-47. -NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.

A review is given on principles and practices used in wildlife En oversikt er gitt over prinsipper og praksis brukt i viltstellet i management in Europe outside the Soviet Union. Emphasis is Europa, Sovjet-unionen unntatt. Vekten er lagt på jaktbare placed on game species, but some conservation measures for arter, men også noen vernetiltak for truede arter er beskrevet. threatened mammals and birds are also described. Manage- Metodene benyttet i viltstellet varierer fra land til land. De ment practices vary from country to country. The most pro- mest produktive jaktbare bestander har man i land hvor ductive game harvesting systems are found in areas where grunneierne eier jaktretten eller hvor myndigheter eller jeger- landowners control hunting rights, or where the harvest is organisasjoner strengt regulerer jaktuttaket. I en del andre strictly controlled by official authorities or hunting organiza- land hvor jaktretten er fri, er åpenbart mange viltbestander tions. In some other countries where hunting rights are free, overbeskattet, og motstanden mot jakt er økende. Det er ca. many game populations appear to be over-exploited, and 8 millioner jegere i området, dvs. 1,6 jeger pr. km2 landområ- general opposition to hunting is increasing. There are about de. 8 million hunters in the area described, i.e. 1.6 hunter per km2 land area. Emneord: Viltstell - faunavern - jakt - jegere.

Key words: Game management - wildlife - fauna protection - Svein Myrberget, Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Tungas- hunting. letta 2, 7004 Trondheim.

Svein Myrberget, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Tungasletta 2, N-7004 Trondheim, Norway.

ninautredning018

Preface

In 1987, I was invited to write a chapterfor a planned book on InternationalWildlife Management on the situationin Eu- ropeoutsidethe SovietUnion. In keepingwith my promiseto do so,the manuscriptwasdeliveredto the editorsin 1988.

However, it soon became obviousthat there would be con- siderabledifficultyin obtaining reportsfor all continents.In the autumn of 1989, the book programwas dissolved.

This report is a slightlyrevisedversionof the chapter intended for the book. Most changeshave been editorial,or are related to adjustmentsin the emphasison different management schemes.Recentinformationand referencesareadded. Some Fennoscandianmanagementpracticesaredescribedin greater detail. However, the report largelyfollows the plan and styleof the originalmanuscript.

Many personsandorganizationshavefulfilledmy requestfor information.In particularI would liketo thank E. Ueckermann (FRG)and J. Kovacs(Hungary).Among the many other per- sonswho have kindly given me information, I will mention the following: M. Adamic(Yugoslavia),R.Anderegg(Switzer- land), P. Bjurholm(Swedep), J. Bojarkski(Poland),D. Bloch (The Faeroes),J.Castroviejo(Spain),S. Eis(Denmark), A. Er- mala (Finland), H. Gossow (Austria), J. van Haaften (The Netherlands),J. Harberg (Aaland Islands,Finland), J. Harra- dine (UK), A. Krier (Luxembourg), C. Krogell (Finland), A. Merriggi (Italy), K. Perzanowski(Poland), S. Siebenga (The Netherlands),T. Serez(Turkey), M. Spagnesi(Italy), F. Spina (Italy), H. Tenedios(Greece), P. Vikberg (Finland), A. Volken (Switzerland)and J.Whelan (Ireland).A numberof colleagues havemade usefulcommentson a preliminarymanuscript,including H. Strandgaard (Denmark) and D. Potts (UK), to whom I send specialthanks. However, I am personallyre- sponsiblefor any possibleerrorsor misunderstandingspre- sentedin the report.

Amy Lightfoothasgiven valuablelinguisticassistance.Anne- BritSolbakkendidmuch of the typing; KariSivertsenandEva Schjetnetechnicallyedited the final version.The Norwegian Institutefor Nature Researchand the Directoratefor Nature Management have providedfinancialsupportfor which I am verygrateful.

SveinMyrberget

Trondheim,January1990

4 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

Contents 5 Game population distribution, status and harvest...„24 5.1 Waterfowl 24 5.2 Other small game species 25 side 5.3 Big game 26 Abstract 3 5.4 Carnivorous mammals 27 Referat 3 5.5 Economic value of hunting 28 Preface 4 6 Challenges and special problems 29 1 introduction 6 6.1 Pollution 29 1.1 Wildlife versus game 6 6.2 Human use of land and resources 30 1.2 What is wildlife management 7 7 6.3 Wildlife damage 31

2 Historical perspective 8 7 Fauna protection 32 2.1 Prehistory 8 7.1 Threatened species 32 2.2 Historical times up to 1850 8 7.2 introductions 33 2.3 Synthesis 11 7.3 Game management versusconservation 33 34 3 Authority to manage wildlife 12 8 Wildlife research 12 3.1 Official authorities 35 3.2 Hunting rights 12 9 Conduding remarks 13 3.3 The number of hunters 36 3.4 Hunting organizations 14 10 Summary 3.5 Education in wildlife management and hunting 14 • 37 il Sammendrag 4 Management systems 15 4.1 Migratory birds 15 12 References 38 4.2 Resident small game 16 4.3 Big game hunting outside Fennoscandia 19 4.4 Big game in the Fennoscandia 21 4.5 Large mammalian predators 23

nina utredning 018

1 Introduction • The definitionof "game"does not take into considerationthe purpokeof the harvest,which may be exploitationas meat, skinsor trophies.Much hunting isdone for the sakeof sport. The purposeof this reportisto presenta shortreviewof how Some speciesare controlled for various reasons.In some wildlife is managed within Europe. Emphasisis placed on countries,the pkking of eggs of certain speciesis regulated management principles. Some management practices are by game acts,e.g. in Norway and on the Faroes.Commercial also described in detail, in particularthose undertaken by sealingand whaling are not included in the categorygame centralor localauthoritiesand by hunting organizations.The hunting. reportdoesnot providemanyguidelineson how privateindi- vidualsmay aid wildlife. Specieswhich are hunted vary from countryto country and with the passageof time. As an example,the stoat (Mustela The original proposalfor this report excludedthe European erminea) and the squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) were important partof the SovietUnion(USSR).lt doesnot includeany infor- sourcesof fur in Fennoscandiauntil World War II, but are sel- mation on wildlife in Cyprus,the Azoresor Madeira. Areas dom exploited today. Eider ducks (Somateria mollissima) situatedoutside the Palearctic(e.g. Greenland) are also ex- have been protected in Norway for more than 100 years, , cluded, as are small republicslike Monaco and San Marino. while they constituteone of the most important game spe- No informationwas availablefrom Albania. ciesin Denmark. Most raptorsand owls are protectedin the majority of Europeancountries today, although they were The northern limit of Europeis 800 N at Svalbard(Norway). once heavilypersecuted. EuropeincludesIceland in the northwest,and the southern border is formed by the Mediterranean and the islandsof Many countries have compiled lists of "game" and "non- Malta and Crete (approximately350 N). The total land area, game" species.Within the latter categorya group of "pesi" exclusiveof the USSR,comprises4900 km2, and the popula- speciesmay be defined.Definitionsand their usagevaryfrom tion isabout 500 million. countryto country.An example regardingbirdsis the Game Act in Great Britain,which stipulatesa closedseasonfor Galli- The naturalhabitats,culturesand historyof Europeare asvar- formesbirds.The Wildlifeand CountrysideAct 1981 included ied as the multitude of economic and political systems. hunting regulatiorisfor some "sportingand quasi-sporting Therefore, practicesand principlesof wildlife management birds"(see RSPB1989). The last act alsolisteda number of alsodifferfrom countryto country. "pest"specieswhich may be caught or killed by authorized persons. The informationgiven is not equallycomprehensiveand de- tailedfor all partsof Europe.Thisis mainlydue to restrictions In certaincountries,laws regulatinghunting alsogovern the in the author'spersonalknowledge,which is more adequate protectionof non-hunted species.Such is the case in Nor- for Nordic countries.Much of the literaturestudiedwas writ- way, where nearly all mammals, all birds, amphibiansand ten in Englishand German. Hence, Mediterraneanareasare reptilesare referredto in the WildlifeAct. Seals,which are re- lesswell coveredthan other partsof Europe. garded as game in most other Europeancountries,are not coveredby the WildlifeAct in Norway (but sealsare regarded asgame on Svalbard). 1.1 Wildlife versus game Thisreport does not exclusivelytreat problemsdirectlyrelat- This report mainly considersspeciesrecognizedas "game", ed to game and pestspecies.Protectionmeasurespertaining i.e. speciesof birds and mammals which are hunted. The to other birds and mammals and their habitatsare alsodis- definitionalsoincludesall specieswhich were formerlyhunt- cussed,in Whichcaseemphasisis placedon faunal conserva- ed or which may be huntedin the nearfuture. tion.

In this report the term "hunting"is not restrictedto the Brit- Forpracticalreasons,the contentsof the report are confined ishinterpretation"huntingwith hounds".It includesallforms to wild living birdsand mammalswith the exceptionof mi- of harvestingwild mammalsand birds,suchasshootingand crotine rodents,bats, insectivoresand whales.The definition trapping, consistentwith the definition given in the lrish of "wildlife"isthusmuch more restrictedthan the Britishcon- WildlifeAct of 1976. The term alsocompriseshunting meth- cept,which includesallfauna and flora. ods like falconry and the use of bow and arrow, which are only permitted in a few countries (e.g. Turkey and Den- mark). © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

1.2 What is wildlife manage- game foods, and helping vulnerable populations and species. ment? Many hunters seem to believe that these are the most important measures of wildlife management, but often they are mainly of local significance. I adhere to the definition given by Giles (1978, p. 4): "Wildlife management is the science and art of making decisions and In most countries the major goal of wildlife management is to taking actions to manipulate the structure, dynamics and re- protect the naturally occurring abundance and genetic varia- lations of populations, habitats and people, to achieve speci- tion of wildlife species. The European Council Convention on fic human objectives by means of the wildlife resource". the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, which was signed at Berne in 1979, resolved that populations The most important elements of wildlife management are should be maintained at a level corresponding to ecological, manipulation of wildlife populations and their environment. scientific and cultural requirements, while taking into account Wildlife management should serve definite purposes, but economic and recreational requirements and the demands of should not be restricted to increasing hunting yields. sub-species, varieties, or other forms which are regionally en- dangered. This is now the basic goal for wildlife management As an example, let us examine the objectives of hunting and in western Europe. In principal, the same applies to all of Eu- hence of game management described by the German Hunt- rope. ing Association (DJV 1987, translated from German): Hunting is applied conservation, when used as a means of safeguard- ing the survival of a diverse animal and plant life. Hunting should exploit several game species, while endeavoring to maintain the total indigenous fauna, and at the same time ensure the balance between game populations and their na- tive habitat. Threatened species should be protected, and op- portunities should be provided for the re-establishment of species which have been eradicated. The destruction of habitat exploited by free ranging populations of game species should be prevented.

Exploitation, including taking care of meat, skins and trophies, is a fundamental aspect of game management. How- ever, hunting which is indifferent to the future of a population, or which entails cruel or inhumane methods is not game management. Major issues include planning exploitation strategies and endorsement of laws and provisions pertaining to hunting, and anti-poaching measures.

Wildlife management also involves conservation and improvement of wildlife habitats. However, human interference or alteration of habitat may benefit one species, while having negative consequences for another. The habitats of threatened species are of particular importance, Habitat management is today the most important aspect of wildlife management.

A third theme of wildlife management concerns solving or di- minishing problems caused by certain wildlife species, such as damage to forests, livestock and fisheries, and diseases common to game and livestock or human beings.

The fourth major theme of wildlife management involves practical measures for assisting specific wildlife populations, e.g. re-stocking, feeding, carnivore control, production of

ninautredning018

2 Historical perspective ers specializedon particularprey specieslike the cave bear, the woolly mammoth, primitive horsesand wild reindeer (Berger& Grönberg1931, Lindner1937, Spiess1979). The historyof hunting and wildlife management in Europe spansover 5 different Eras,but the timing variessomewhat Examinationof late stone age settlement sites from after within the continent: a) prehistoricEra,b) the Eraof Classic 10,000 B.C. indicatesthat other prey speciesbecame more Civilizationfrom 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D. followedby great so- important, includingsomewhich aresignificantgamespecies cial disturbance,c) the Eraof aristocratichuntingrightsand today (Howell1972, Clutton-Brock1981). Among thesewere exploitationof game stocksfrom800 AD. to 1850, d) the Era the red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and the of conservationawarenessand predator control until 1950, roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), while small game like hares and e) the Eraof moderngame managementand naturecon- (Lepus spp.) were probablylessexploited. Fur bearinggame servation.During period (e), managementmeasureshavein- was alsovital. Birdswere exploited to the extent permitted creasinglybeenbasedon resultsfromwildliferesearch. by available hunting techniques, and then particularlyin coastalareas(e.g. Scheel1947). Only the first three Eras(a-c) are treated in this chapter.The divisionof Erasdoesnot relateequallywell to allcountries. There isno informationon whether any kind of game management, was practiced in prehistoric times. As previously mentioned,somegame specieswere probablyexterminated. 2.1 Prehistory However,the abundanceof carvingsand paintingsmade by stoneage man in cavesand on rocks,indicatestheir magical Neanderthalman livedin Europeduringthe lastice age, and function related to fertility and hunting luck (e.g. Lindner was replacedby modern man in the great interglacialperiod 1937). about 35,000 yearsago. Both of thesetypesof human were hunters and gatherers(Cornwall 1968). They hunted large About 5,000 B.C., animal husbandryand agriculturebecame mammals, and the fauna existing at that time (the upper the mainway of livingin large partsof Europe(Clutton-Brock Pleistocene,100,000 - 10,000 B.C.) was very different from 1981). The consequenceswereenormousfor wildlifehabitat. today's(Kurten1968, Kowalski1986). Huntingand trappingcontinuedto be majoroccupations.

Among the large prey specieswhich are now extinct were the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenious), the woolly 2.2 Historical times up to 1850 rhinocerus (Coelodonta antiquitatis), the giant deer (Megalo- ceros giganteus), the auroch(Bos primigenius), the steppewi- The golden age of Greek and Roman civilization.- sent (Bison priscus) and the cavebear(Ursus spelaeus). Other Throughout the first millenium B.C. until around 500 A.D.,

- specieslike the cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea), the Greek and Rornanculture influenced most of Europe.This cavelion (Felis leo spelaea), the saigaantilope(Saiga tartari- culture was influenced by Egyptian, Babylonian,Assyrian, ca) and the caballine horse (Equus przewalskii) have disap- PhoenecianandJewish/Christiancivilization.Severalof these peared from Europe, but still exist in other areas, partly as cultureshaddevelopedsophisticatedformsof game manage- other sub-species. ment (Chalmers1936, Alison1978).

Total or partial extinction during the upper Pleistocenepri- Hunting•was regarded as sport among the aristocratsof marilyaffectedlargerherbivores,andthe carnivoresandscav- Greece, although this was ndt always highly approved. In engerswhich exploited them. These extinctionscan hardly 600 B.C., Solon prohibited Atheniansfrom hunting, in the be explained by climatic variation alone. Extinctionstook belief that hunting led to neglect of other culturalactivities placeparallelwith the expansionof prehistorichumanpopu- (Leopold 1933). He also introduced a bounty systemfor lationsand their advancementas big game hunters.There- killedwolves(Canis lupus) (Johnsen1947). fore one cannot eliminate the possibilitythat hunting may have contributed to the exterminationof some large mam- The first book about hunting was written under the title Cy- malsduringthe Pleistocene(Martin1971). negeticus by Xenophonwho livedfrom 440-354 B.C.(seeDa- kyns1897). The bookdiscusseddifferenttypesof huntingon The substantialclimaticchangeswhich took place through- popular game speciessuch as deer, wild boar and hares. out the Pleistocene,affected vegetation and fauna. During Hunting was regardedas a meansof encouragingthe physi- colderperiods,arcticanimalslikereindeer(Rangifer tarandus) cal developmentof young men and improvingtheir morals. and muskoxen(Ovibos moschatus) were evenfound in south- Hareswere often setfree after being caught, asa tokenoffer- ern Europe.In certain time periodsand in some areas,hunting to the goddessofthe hunt. © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

Around 100 A.D., the area controlled by the Roman Empire At the time of Christ there was an abundanceof game like was bounded on the north by the Donau and Rhine rivers the wolf, deer, wisent (Bison bonansus), auroch and moose and the narroweststretchof Scotland.The Romansimproved (Alces alces). JuliusCæsar (100-44 B.C.) related that the traditional hunting technology including weapons like the abundanceof game in Germany made hunting restrictions spear, the arrow, the useof traps, nets and lime sticks.Fal- superfluous(Whisker1981). conry was introduced into Europe in the 4th century A.D. (Tillisch1949, Lindner1973). With the exceptionof agriculturalland, hunting was usually open for all free men, but was largelycontrolledby families The first real hunting lawswere introduced by the Romans. and village societies(Lindner 1940). Hunters were given No one owned live game, the principleof res nullius, but a rightsof ownershipwhen preyanimalswere localizedsuchas landowner could prohibit hunting on his own land. Owner- through tracking.Thiswas alsothe casein the Nordic coun- ship rights to game first applied after the game was killed, trieswhere lawswritten down in the 11-13th centuriescon- and thisalsoappliedto illegallyhunted game (Lindner1937). firmed individualrightsto particularhunting terrain, bearsin hibernationand the nestsof birdsof prey (ØstlieS.a.).These A commonercould hunt smallgame, but rightsto deer, wolf laws alsocontained rulesfor dividing up the yield. In some and brown bear (Ursus arctos) hunting were reservedforthe partsof Sweden and in Iceland, hunting rights belongedto aristocracy,whoalsohad exclusivepriviledgesto keepcertain the landowner(Lindner1940). breeds of hunting dogs (Whisker 1981). Laws prohibiting hunting on cultivated land were enforced and game parks Beforethe fall of the westernRomanEmpire(476 A.D.), and were established. during the followIng two centuries,considerableunrest resulted in large migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes. There is no evidenceof activewildlife managementin Greek/ Therefore, hunting regulationspreviouslybound by custom Romanculture.Huntingwas not alwaysan honourablesport, no longer applied. In addition, soldiersoften relied upon as evidenced by the thousandsof animals killed in bloody game for food. In many placeswildlife populationsrapidly theatrical performancesin arenas (Auguet 1972). Most of declined. these animalswere imported from other parts of the world, but some Europeanspecieswerealsoused. In many partsof Hunting priviledges of the aristocracy.-After the fall of the Europe,ruthlesshuntingand trapping by the Romansresult- Roman Empire, a gradually increasingportion of hunting ed in the declineof severalwildlife populations.Neither did rights was taken over by the aristocracy(Leopold 1933, Christianethicsintroduce any moral obligationsfor protect- Whisker1981). The establishmentofroyal"forests"inGerma- ing wildlife populations(Whisker1981). ny from 648 A.D. was important for the development of hunting rightswithin the restof Europe.Theseforestswere Some animalsescapedfrom captivity. New specieswere in- formerlycommon landwhere the rightsto hunt somespecies troduced to Europein this manner, while other speciesex- likedeeror wild boarwere reservedforthe king and hismen. tended the rangeof their distribution.The pheasant(Phasia- A kingcould hand over hisrightsto the aristocracy,acloister, nus colchicus) is one example. Mythology states that the or a free city, which in turn might transfersome of them to pheasantwas introduced into Greecefrom Kolchisnear the the common people (Lindner 1940). After the development BlackSea by Jasonthe Argonaut around 1300 B.C. (Hill & of feudalism,which enjoyedits peakon the continent around Robertson 1988). The Romans later introduced them to 1000 A.D., most land and hunting rightswere controlledby France and Germany. The fallow deer (Cervus dama) was the king and his feudal chieftans.To the presentday, most brought from AsiaMinor and kept in game farms.Theywere Europeanhunting ritualsand termsare of Frenchoriginfrom brought to France and Germany around 400 A.D. (SOU medievaltimes(Phodpus1978). 1983). Rabbits(Oryctolagus cuniculus) only occurred in the wild in Spain, Portugaland the south of France2,300 years Anglo-saxonsinGreat Britain,originallyadheredto unwritten ago, but they were spread to most of the Mediterranean germanic laws.The oldestgeneralgame law was introduced countries by the Romans and Phoenecians(Clutton-Brock by the Danishking Knutin 1016. The law establishedthatno 1981). Doves(Columba livia) establishedsemi-feralpopula- one owned wild animals,but that the king had some'hunting tions (Lever 1987). The doormouse (Glis glis) was consid- priviledges. ered a delicacyby the Rornans,and was in recent times in Englandafter escapingfrom captivitytreated asa pest(Lever Feudalismwas establishedin England by William the Con- 1985). queror (1066-1087), who also introduced a systemof royal "forests".Rightsto private "chase"werealsomaintained.Ille- Germanic tribes.- Hunting and trapping were vital to the gal huntingwas punishablebydeath or mutilation. survivalof Germanictribesliving north of the RomanEmpire.

ninautredning018

The firstEnglishlaw pertainingto the forestand wild animals the people.Thiswasthe caseboth in Franceand in countries was introducedby Henry Il in 1184. This and later lawsstat- occupiedby Frencharmies(e.g. Bubenik1989). ed that all hunting of the most important wildlife species was a priviledge reservedfor aristocracyand the church. Hunting seasons.-Accordingto the first Englishbookabout Fencingof game forestswas permitted, and management huntingwritten by EdwardII Duke of Yorkin 1406-1413 (see within such parksincluded many types of measures(Gilbert Baillie-Grohman& Baillie-Grohman1907), traditionallimita- 1979). By the end of the 11th century there were 31 red tionson hunting methodsand hunting seasonswerealready and fallow deer parksand more than 70 hayes,i.e. lessfor- enforced at that time. Good sportsmanshipprohibited the mal enclosuresfor deer (Vandervell& Coles 1980). These shootingof pregnant animals,or femaleswith smallyoung. lawsresultedin an extreme stateof bureaucracyandthe ap- Seasonalchangesin the conditionof furs and peltswere also pointmentof knightsfor the purposeof protectingthe hunt- taken into consideration.Customsconcerningthe protection ing rightsof the king. of animalsduringthe breedingseasoncan be tracedto much older traditions,asdescribedin the Fifth Bookof Moses22:6- After 1200, violation of hunting laws was not as seriously 7 (seeGilbert& Dodds1987). punishedin England as previously.The bureaucraticsystem was graduallydissolvedby corruptionand as a consequence Regulationsfor the protection of individual wildlife species of the BlackDeath of 1348/49. Byaround 1600, mostof the were firstlegallyenforcedin Englandin 1536 (Whisker1981). royalforestshad beenturned overto privatelandownerswho However,the moosewas seasonallyprotectedin Swedenas were also given the right to control trespassingand hence early as 1351 (SOU 1983). Much older Swedishlandscape hunting on their property. In 1578-80 more than 700 deer laws enforced seasonalprotection of the squirrel (Lindner parkswereregistered(Vandervell& Coles1980). 1940). In Germany local restrictionsin hunting seasonsof brown bearsand wild boars were enforced already in 890 Hunting priviledgesoffered hunting as a meansof physical (Lindner1940). trainingand enjoymentfor the nobility.Noblemencompeted not onlyfor quantitiesof game, but alsofor the qualityof tro- Active wildlife management.- Organized management de- phies,particularlyred deer antlers.The weight and number signedto increasegame populationswasfirst initiatedin Eu- of pointsof the antlerswere carefullyrecorded,and the best rope after 1500. Most of the methods usedwere Indirect", were mounted (e.g. Bubenik1989). i.e. they were aimed at preventing habitat encroachment suchas burningcovervegetation,or disturbanceduring the Establishmentofregaland aristocratichuntingpriviledgesoc- breedingseason(Leopold1933). curredsomewhatlater in the Nordiccountriesthanin Central Europe.Hunting big game becamethe exclusiverightof the By deliberateintroductionsor escapesfrom captivity, many Swedisharistocracyin 1351 (SOU 1983). Swedishfarmers game speciesexpandedtheir distributionin Europealsobe- were completely deprived of shooting rights in 1647, and fore that time (see above). It islikely that vikings brought alsoof all trapping apart from carnivoresin 1664. The hunt- grey partridges(Perdix perdix) to Öland and Gotlandin Swe- ing rights of Swedish landownerswere renewed in 1789 den already around 500 A.D. (J. Dahlgren in Andersson (Nordell & Weinberg 1983). 1988).

In Denmarkthe king and noblemenexdusivelyheld hunting Pheasants,werekept in Great Britain in the 11th century rightsin 1537, and a death penaltywas imposedfor exten- (Vandervell& Coles1980), and were introducedinto Ireland sivepoaching(Hansen 1928). In 1781, the Danishlandown- around 1500 (Lever1987). Rabbitsgraduallyspreadto most ersgot back most of their hunting rights. Hunting rightsin of Europeafter escapingfromcaptivity(Clutton-Brock1981). Finland, Norway, and Switzerlandcontinued mainly to be Reddeer and roe deer were introducedto the Aalandislands held by farmersand other landowners,with the exceptionof around 1500 (Salo1976). Mallards(Anas platyrhynchos) were the Swedish/FinnishAalandIslands(Salo1976). bred and releasedin Englandfrom at least 1651 (Leopold 1933). The 16th and 17th centurieshavebeencalledthe goldenera of hunting(Bubenik1976). Farmersandcloisterswereforced The popularityof game introductionsand stockingincreased to assistthe aristocracyduring the hunt, which was often after 1700. Pheasantswereimported to Swedenin the begin- conducted regardlessof ripening crops. The situation was ning of the 1700's, and the wild boar was re-introducedto particularlyabusedin Franceand Germany,where aristocratic Öland in Swedenin 1731 (Berger& Gröndahl1931). The ca- priviledgeswere first revoked after the revolutionsin 1789 percaillie(Tetrao urogallus) was re-introducedto Scotlandin and 1848. After the FrenchRevolution,Codex Napoleon re- the 1800's, and stockingsof pheasant and grey partridge placed Rornanlaw and proclaimedthat game belonged to took placein severalcountries(Lever1987). Brownhares(Le-

10 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018 pus capensis) were introducedinto Irelandin the 1800's (Lev- which becameextinct in 1844 on Iceland(Greenway1967). er 1985). Royalhuntson swans(Cygnus spp.) duringthe moultingperi- od (Weismann1931) led to populationdeclines.The beaver Aroundthe sametime, activehabitat management measures (Castor fiber) was exterminated on the BritishIslesaround alsobecamemore common. Forinstant,partridgeswerewin- 1200, and in most of the remainderof Europein the period tered in indoor pens in Swedenin 1760. Salt lickswere set 1500-1800. out and cabbagewas plantedasextrafodder for game populationsin Swedenat the sametime (SOU 1983). In spite of their deficiencies,hunting laws introduced after 1000 A.D. did protect many wildlife populations,by limiting Combating predatory animals.- Much hunting was done to the number of personsallowedto hunt. When these restric- combat predatoryanimalsresponsibleforinjuringand killing tions were removed, many game populationswere quickly domesticlivestockor preferredgame species.Thewolf was a overexploited.AlreadytWo yearsafter the revolutionof 1848 major target for such measures.The last wolf was killed in in Germany,regulationsconcerningminimumsizeof hunting Englandin the 1500's, in Irelandin the 1600's, in Scotlandin areaswere introduced to reduce hunting pressure(Uecker- the 1700's (Bibikov 1988), and in Denmark in 1813 (Weis- mann 1984). mann 1931). From about 1350, all of the inhabitantsof Swe- den were obliged to contribute to the extermination of Some changesin human use of landscapeswerefavourable predators,and after 1442 all Swedishfarmerswere required to manywildlifespecies,su,chasreforestationofearlierarable by law to maintainspecialwolf nets(SOU 1983). or barrenland (e.g. Ueckermann1984). Of particularimpor- tance were plantings and other measuresto increasethe A systemof bountieswas already introduced in Englandin amount of hedgerowson agriculturalland in the 18th and the 1500's.A wolf bountywas establishedinSwedenin 1647 19th century (e.g. Nielsen et al. 1967, O'Connor & Shrubb (Johnsen1947). Otters (Lutra lutra) were controlledbecause 1986, Moore 1987). of their supposeddamageto fisheries(seeBaillie-Grohman Baillie-Grohman1907). A bountysystemdesignedto control birdsof prey and owls was introducedin Swedenin 1741 to 2.3 Synthesis increasesmall game populations(SOU 1983). Bounty systems covering a varying number of specieswere in use in Many of the game managementstrategiesusedin Europeto- manycountriesaround1800. day were developed in the 1800s, although many practical measureswereintroducedevenearlier. The effects of hunting on wildlife populations.- The effect of hunting on wildlife populationsdepended somewhat on Leopold(1933) describedthe order of successionofdifferent the effectivenessofthe methodsemployed. Trapping meth- game management measuresas follows: 1) restrictionof ods in general usewere continuallyimproving (Frank1984). hunting, 2) control of predators,3) establishmentof game The crossbowwas alreadycommon by 1100. Hunting guns parks, 4) introductionsof game, and 5) improvement of became available around 1500. By the beginning of the wildlife habitat. However,the order of successionofpoints1 1500's, the shotgun had also been developed (e.g. Brander and 2, measureswhich both started in pre-historictimes,is 1971). The practiceof usingpointingdogs wassteadilymore largely built on the fact that hunting predated animal hus- popular during the 1600's. However, truly effectivehunting bandry. weaponswere not inventedbeforethe beginningof the 19th century(e.g. Hansen1928, Danneviget al. 1983). The goals of game management had until 1850 changed from a meansof safeguardingaristocraticpriviledges,to pro- In associationwiththe developmentof more effectiveweap- tection and improvement of wildlife populations.Although ons in the 1600's, and the more widespread use of guns, publicationsconcerning animal rights date back to 1723 many wildlife populations in England, Central Europe and (Whisker1981), these attitudeswere not reflectedin histori- Spainwere overexploited(Whisker1981). The qualityof deer calgame management. trophiesdeclined(Bubenik1989).

Populationsof otter were alreadyheavilyreducedin Sweden in the 1500's.The wild boar becameextinct in Englandin the 1500's, likewisethe capercailliein Great Britainaround 1790 (Lever 1987). The last living auroch died in Poland in 1627 (Szafer1968). The only smallgame speciesto be completely eradicated by hunting was the great auk (Alca impennis),

nina utredning 018

3 Authority to manage Germany (GDR) these territories may range in size from 1,000 to 4,000 hectares. wildlife Hunting terrainin westernEuropeis largelyprivatelyowned, Wildlife management is generallycarriedout by official au- but many areasare common propertyor belong to the gov- thorities, landowners, personswith legal hunting rights at ernment (e.g. seeFACE1986). Hunting rightsusuallybelong their disposal,or even by anyone, e.g. in their gardens.To to the landowner,who makesuseof them personallyor leas- educatemanagement personellat different levelsand hunt- esthem to individualhuntersor hunting associations.Official ers, a varying number of educationalprogramshave been authoritiesmay, however,in somecountries(e.g. in Norway) started at universitiesor lower grade schools,or are orga- demand that the landownersellgame licensesto the public, nizedby differentassociations. or that propertiesarejoinedinto commonwildlife areasin order to meet the minimum area requirementsfor hunting big In thisreviewwe concentrateon game management.If other game. aspectsof wildlife management are taken into consideration, manyother authorities,associationsand privatepersonsdo a Hunting isopen to allof the citizensof Portugal,Italy,Greece formidablejob. and Turkey, in all areasexcept national parks and reserves and someagriculturalland, but regionalauthoritiesmay prohibit hunting in someareas.In some cantonsin Switzerland, 3.1 Official authorities all citizens may exercisethe right to hunt within canton boundariesaccordingto a "patent"system(DJV1987). Game management was traditionally administered by the Ministryof Agricultureand Forestry.This is still the casein In many countriesproperty must be of an establishedsizeif eastern Europe, and in some western countries including the landowner wishesto exercisehunting rights. In some West Germany (GFR), Finland,and Sweden.This is alsothe provincesof France,the municipal government administers case in Turkey (Anonymus 1986b). Today, game manage- hunting rightson all propertiessmallerthan 25 hectares.In ment isthe responsibilityof the Ministryof the Environment other parts of France,hunting rights on propertiesof less in some countrieslike UK, France,Luxembourgh,Denmark than 20, 40, 60, 80 hectaresrespectivelyare administeredby and Norway. Tasksrelatedto game managementare carried a municipal hunting association(Premier Ministre 1966). out in Iceland by the Department of Education.In Ireland Hunting territorysizeis alsoregulatedby the governmentin wildlife problemsare since 1987 handled by the Dep. of Fi- West Germany and other western countrieswhere the "revi- nance,Officeof PublicWorks(WildlifeService1989). er"systemisused.

State,canton and provincialofficesmay alsomake lawsand At the open sea,and alsoon the shorelinein manycountries, regulationsconcerning wildlife management. Law enforce- hunting isin generalopen for everyone.Certainspeciesmay ment may be delegatedto lower levelsof administration.For be hunted regardlessof hunting rights, as is the casewith example, in accordancewith the Wildlife Act of 1981, most large carnivorousmammals in Finland (Anonymus 1989b). legal decisionsconcerningwildlife in Norway are made by SwedishLappsare allowedto hunt on some privateproperty the Directoratefor Nature Management. However,manycas- belongingto others(Nordell & Weinberg 1983). esare handledat the county level(18) or by municipalgame boards(about 450). Legal provisionsin many countriesdelegate hunting rights and responsibilitiesto huntersassociations.In suchcasesprin- cipal decisionsare made through joint cooperationbetween 3.2 Hunting rights huntersassociationsand Centralor localauthorities.Thissys- tem of game managementis largelyconfined to easternEu- The hunting priviledgesof the aristocracyhave even been rope, but is also partly used in some western countrieslike maintaineduntil World War Il in partsof Yugoslaviaformerly West Germany.Hunting associationsare alsodelegatedsome belongingto Turkey (Isakovic1970, Adamic 1986a). Today, authority in Swedenand Finland,but have no officialstatus wildliferesourcesare sharedby the peopleof Yugoslaviaand in Great Britain,Denmarkand Norway. However,someof the manged by the government. This is alsothe casein other . operational expensesincurred by hunting associationsin easternEuropeancountrieseven when wildlife habitat is pri- thesecountriesarecoveredwith governmentfunds. vately owned. Hunting terrain is divided into territories(reviers)which are managed and usedby hunting clubs(New- In many countrieswith private hunting rights, the owner man 1970, Briedermann 1981, Krzemien 1987). In East must pay a generalstate hunting fee to be allowedto hunt.

12 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

In addition he may pay the statefor each licenseon felling 3.3 The number of hunters big game. (See Stensaas(1989) concerningpracticein Nor- way). Table 1 containsa surveyof the number of huntersin those countriesfor which information is available. Unfortunately Huntersand landownerswith hunting rightsare most inter- data is lackingfor somecountries,which in mostcasesprob- ested in carrying out practicalgame management schemes ablyhaverelativelyfew hunters. (e.g. Lindner1985, FACE1986). During a Swedishstudycar- ried out in 1978/79, 74% of all huntersinterviewed replied Accountingfor countriesforwhich informationislacking,the that they had participatedin practicalgame managementan total numberof huntersin Europeoutsideof the USSRisesti- averageof 6 daysannually(SOU 1983). More activeSwedish mated at about 8 million. This figure correspondsto about hunterscontributed the most time to pursuinggame man- 1.6 huntersper km2 land area, or about 1.6% of all the in- agement. In easternEurope,and those areasof western Eu- habitantsof Europe.Huntersare usuallymale;asan example ropewhere the "revier"systemhasbeen introduced,practical only 3-4% of the huntersin Sweden(SOU 1983) and 2% in wildlife management is obligatoryfor all personspossessing Norwayarefemale. hunting rights.

Table 1. Numberof huntersin differentEuropeancountries.(Basedon officialstatistics, Adamfi1984, FACE1986).

Number of Hunters Huntersper hunters per km2 1000 inhabitants

Austria 105 000 1.3 13.9 Belgium 28 000 0.9 2.8 Bulgaria 83 000 0.7 9.3 Czechoslovakia 118 000 0.9 , 7.6 Denmark 170 000 4.0 33.3 Finland 285 000 0.9 58.2 France 1 850 000 3.4 33.5 German DemocraticRep. 41 000 0.4 2.5 German FederalRep. 265 000 1.1 4.4 Great Britain 650 000 2.7 11.5 Greece 350 000 2.7 35.1 Hungary 33 000 0.4 3.1 Ireland 117 000 1.7 323 Italy 1 450 000 4.8 25.4 Luxembourg 2 500 1.0 6.8 Netherlands 33 000 1.0 2.3 Norway 200 000 0.61) 48.2 Poland 90 000 0.3 2.4 Portugal 250 000 2.7 24.6 Romania 50 000 0.2 2.2 Spain 1 050 000 2.1 27.1 Sweden 320 000 0.7 38.6 Switzerland 35 000 0.9 5.4 Yugoslavia 267 000 1.0 11.5

Total 7 842 500 2) 1.6 15.9

Svalbard not included. Except Albania, Andorra, The Channel Islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Malta, Monaco, San Marino and Turkey.

ninautredning018

As can be seen from Table 1, Denmark, France, Greece, 3.5 Education in wildlife manage- Spain,Portugaland Great Britainhavehigh densitiesofhunt- ersrelativeto total area. Thisfigure is particularlyhighin Ita- ment and hunting ly with about 5 huntersper km2. Statisticsforeasternturope and Fennoscandiaindicate less than one hunter per km2 In German speaking countries, training and education in area. wildlife management is traditionallyassociatedwith forestry programs (see Ueckermann 1984). For example, in Austria The percentageof huntersin the generalpopulationalsovar- higher educationis providedat the AgriculturalUniversityat ies geographically(Table 1). In Nordic countries,this per- Wien, and there are two junior collegeswith training pro- centageisespeciallyhigh(up to 6% in Finland).Thispercent- gramsfor professionalkeepersor conservationofficers.Hunt- age is particularlyhigh (17%) on the FinnishAaland Island ing organizationsare responsiblefortraining and education (Harberg 1988). More than 3% of the populationof Ireland of professionalhunters. and Greeceare hunters.The percentageof huntersislowerin eastern Europe, West Germany, the Netherlands and Bel- In Great Britain, Norway and Sweden, higher education in gium. wildlife managementand wildlife ecologyisalsoprimarilyof- fered by agriculturalcolleges.In some countrieslike France and Finland,there are no highereducationprogramsin wild- 3.4 Hunting organizations life management.Wildlifeecologyisoften includedasone aspect of a generaleducationin zoologyat universitiesinmost Membership in hunting associationsmay be obligatory or Europeancountries. voluntary.There are often severalnational hunting associations in each country. National federationsin countriesbe- Comprehensivetraining at lower levelsis availablein many longingto the EEC(EuropeanEconomicCommunity) are af- countriesincludingGreat Britain,Denmark, Finland,Norway filiated with FACE(Federationof HuntersAssociationsofthe and Sweden. Many young people in Great Britainbetween EEC). FACEwas establishedin 1978 with headquartersin 16 and 17 yearsof age, participatein a two year educational Brussels,andrepresents6.5 millionhunters.The International programson practicalwildlife management. Personswishing HuntersUnion, CIC (Conceil Internationalde la Chasseet la to becomeprofessionalkeepersor huntersusuallytakeon ap- Conservationde Gibier, InternationalCouncilfor Game and prenticeships. Wildlife Conservation)has influencedthe progressof game managementin Europein severalways. Hunter examinationshavebeen obligatoryin easternEurope for many years.In Poland,all huntersmust first practicein a In western Europe, membership in one or more national hunting associationfor one year. If the candidate makesa hunting associationis voluntary. One exceptkm is Finland, good impression,heor she is permittedto take a courseand where all hunters belong to a central huntersorganization a theoretical examination.All candidatesmust document a (JägernasCentralorganisation).In a municipalityall inhabi- working knowledgeof practicalwildlifemanagementand the tantswho havepaid their hunting license,forma game man- useof weapons.After three yearsas an authorizedhunter, a agement association(Anonymus1989b).-No one may be- new courseis offeredwhich qualifiesthe candidateto shoot long to more than one association. There are no male deer. In easternEuropeancountries,hunter authoriza- membershipsfeesand the organizationissubsidizedbyfunds tion isusuallyassociatedwiththe right to own a weapon. from the government hunting licensingsystem.The organization isdivided into 15 districtsand comprises297 associa- Theoreticaland practicalhunting exarninationshavebeen in- tions. troduced in severalwestern Europeancountries.Obligatory examinationswere introduced in Finland in 1964, Denmark Membershipin a hunting associationisobligatoryin eastern in 1969, Francein 1976, the Netherlandsin 1978, Sweden Europe,becausehuntingassociationscontroland dispenseall 1982, and Norway in 1987. A type of hunting examination hunting rights which are leasedfrom the government. No hasexistedin Austriasince1938. huntersareallowedto join more than one club, but they may be invited as gueststo the hunting territoryof other clubs. The content of hunting examinationsvariesfrom country to Most clubsin EastGermanyleasethe rightsto 3 to 5 hunting country (e.g. Helminen 1977, Briedermann 1981, Spitzer reviers(Briedermann1981). 1982, Swartenbroekx1985). Theoreticaland practicalaspects of wildlife management and marksmanshipmay be tested. The only requirementon Icelandisa declarationof satisfacto- ry marksmanshipfromlocalpoliceauthorities.In Swedenthe exam allowsthe purchaseofcertaintypesof guns.

14 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

SomewesternEuropeancountriesincludingGreat Britainand Italy, do not have obligatory hunter examinations.Both of 4 Management systems these countrieshave high densitiesof hunters.The Ministry of the EuropeanCouncil (CE 1985a) has ratified a proposal Management principlesmay vary from country to country, recommendingthe introductionof obligatory hunter exami- and with the speciesofanimalinvolved(e.g. Dagg S.a.).Vari- nationsin all member countries. ationoften dependson the purposeof exploitationor protection, whether the speciesismigratoryor stationaryand how hunting rightsare administered.

One comprehensivelawconcerninggame managementand hunting isfound in most countries.In Great Britainthere are five lawsconcerninghunting (SOU 1983).

In the past, hunting laws itemized all wildlife specieswhich were protected, as well as closedor open seasonsfor legal game species.When protectionor hunting seasonof a parti- cularspecieswasnot specifiedin regulations,thespecieswas regarded as legal game. Today, the opposite practice has graduallybeen introducedin all countries;and all huntingis prohibited unlessspecificallymentioned in hunting regulations.

Here "big game" comprisesall large herbivorousmammals. However,thisdefinitionis not alwaysconsistentwithhunters' language.Forexample,in Norway, roedeer are not tradition- , ally recognizedasbig game, whereasbrown bear are included.

Environmentalconservationlaws and regulationscontrolling human use and disturbanceof nature (forestry,agriculture, fishing,industry,pollution,development,recreation,trespass- ing and traffic) have significant consequencesfor wildlife management. Several veterinary regulations also apply to wild animals.

4.1 Migratory birds

The most important management tactics for pbpulations which visitseveralcountriesduring the courseof a year are: regulationof hunting pressurein different countriesand conservationand management of breeding, moulting, restingand wintering localities.

The managementof migratorybirdsis primarilya nationalre- sponsibility,but internationalcooperationisvital. In western Europeagreementsand conventionslikethe EECDirectiveof 1979 on the Conservationof Wild Birds,and the 1979 Berne Conventionareof majorimportance(Batten1987). The Ram- sar Conventionon Wetlands of InternationalImportanceas Waterfowl Habitat in 1971 has alsocontributedsignificantly to improved management of migratory birds(Klemm 1979, Smart 1987). The 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conserva- tion of Migratory Speciesof Wild Animalshashad a minimal

ninautredning018 effect becauseno bilateral or multilateral agreementshave additional 20-30% may be wounded (Lampio 1982). Many been concludedto date (UNEP, pers.comm). In total 14 Eu- duck populationsare probablyover-exploited(e.g. Harradine ropeancountrieshave signedthe Bonn Conventionin 1989. 1985, Tamisier 1985), demonstrating the importance of In 1988, 8 countrieswere partiesto the BarcelonaConven- measuresfor regulatinghunting pressure.About16% of the tion concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas autumn populationof geesein Europeis shot (Scott 1982). (Grimmett & Jones1989). Following the recent introduction of strict regulationson goosehunting, most goosepopulationshave increased(e.g. The RamsarConventiondoesnot only promotethe conserva- Mehlum & Ogilvie1984). tion of certain listedwetlands, but alsothe "wiseuse"of all wetlands. A conferenceof the Contracting Partiesin 1987 (b) Habitat management.- The ICBP(InternationalCouncil adopted the following definitionof the conceptof "wiseuse" for Bird Preservation)andthe IWRB(InternationalWaterfowl of wetlandsas "theirsustainableutilizationfor the benefit of and Wetland ResearchBureau)have worked out criteriafor human kind in a way compatiblewith the naturalproperties internationallyimportant bird areas(see Scott 1980). These of the ecosystem".Theconferencerecognizedthat compre- criteriamainly apply to waders,waterfowl and birds passing hensivenationalwetland policieswill be a long term process, through "bottle-necks"duringmigration. and hence urged that immediate action shouldbe taken to stimulatewiseuse(IWRB,pers.comm.). Registrationofsignificantwetlandareashasbeen carriedout in Europeoverseveraldecades,e.g. by the AQUA project(Lu- Managementof bird specieswhich breed in Europeand mi- ther & Rzoska1971). The first publishedsurveyof western grate to other partsof the world, cannot be regardedmerely Europeincluded 15 countriesand 500 different areas(Scott from a Europeanperspective.Hence,work hasstartedto pro- 1980). The IWRBand the ICPBhave continuedthis work of- duce an agreement under the Bonn Conventionfor western ten commissionedby the EEC. By 1986, 11 countries re- Palearcticwaterfowl,but it hasbeen recognizedthat it will be mainedto be investigated,andonly shortlistsof internation- difficult to develop such a management plan (UNEP, pers. ally significant areas were compiled for an additional 25 comm.). countries(ICBP & IWRB1987). Therefore a three year program, designedto cover all of Europe,was started in 1987, (a) Hunting regulations.- Despitethe availabilityofadequate and a comprehensivereview has already been published informationon migrationroutesof mostwetland birds,hunt- (Grimmett & Jones1989). ing pressureisnot regulatedalong European"flyways",such as is the casein North America (Scott 1982, Piersmaet al. A large number of wetland reserveshave been established, 1987, Boyd& Pirot 1989). One reasonmay be that hunting many of them as Ramsarsites. Some of these have been statisticson relevantspeciesare lackingfor severalcountries createdwith internationalhelp. Forexamplethe World Wide (seeBertelsen& Simonsen1986). Fund for Nature (WWF) has contributed to the purchaseof largewetland areasat LasMarismasin Spain. Internationalagreementson the prohibitionof non-selective trappingmethodslikenetsand baitedtrapshavebeena major stepforward. However,in severalcountries,netsarestillused 4.2 Resident small game to catchmigratorybirds(Bertelsen& Simonsen1976).The an- nualnetcatchof birdsin Italyisestimatedat 320,000 individu- Populationswhichstaywithin the boundariesof one country als,while statisticsforFranceare more than one millionbirds, throughoutthe year are here regardedas resident.However, mostof which are larks(Alaudidae).A "guestimate"donefor some indMduals may crossbordersto neighbouringcoun- the standingcomtnitteeof the BerneConvention(CE 1986), tries, or engage in short migrationswithin their own coun- indicatedthat more than 100 millionpasserinebirdswere an- try. nuallycaughtin Europe(includingCyprus),mostof them ille- gally.Alsoindiscriminateshootingof birdstakesplacein many The following is a discussionofmeasurescarriedout by pri- countries,e.g.in Malta (CIC, pers.comm.). vate individualsor organizationsto assistlocalwildlife populations.Suchaction may take placeon private,common and National regulationof hunting pressureon migratorybirdsis state property. lt is not imposed by the government, but mainly enforcedthrough closedand hunting seasons.In re- may be regulatedby legislationorencouragedby statefund- centyears,dailyor annualbag limitshavebeenintroducedin ing. somecountries(seeLampio1983). Many handbooksdescribedifferent managernentpractices About 45% of the autumn population of Europeanducksis (e.g. Coles1971), but little is knoWnabout their application. estimatedshot during the hunting season(Scott 1982). An Leopold (1933) mentionsthe following major subjects:es-

16 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018 tablishment of game reserves,control of disease,hunting, ln the early1900's, predatorcontrolwas one of the most predators,food, water and cover, and introductions.These important methods for helping small game populations. practicesarealsorelevantin Europetoday: Predatorcontrolwas encouragedby the bounty system.The populationsizeof many predator speciesdeclineddrastically The purpose of a game reserveis to produce a surplus (Hagen 1952, Bijleveld1974, Newton 1979). populationin protectedareas,which may migrate into nearby areaswhere hunting is permitted.Thissystemisnot com- Modern attitudestoward predator control are influencedby mon in Europe,but 86 game reserveshavebeen established the followingconditions:1) Protectionof birdsof preyisgiv- in Denmark for similar purposes(Jepsen1985). National en high priority.The most effectivemeansof control(poison parksand nature reservesmay also partly servesimilarpur- and traps) are most often illegal. All raptors and owls are poses,but hunting may be permitted within some national protected in most countries. 2) Researchhas shown that parks,e.g. in Norway. predators reduce populations of harvestable game (e.g. Strandgaard Asferg 1980, Korsch 1985, Potts 1986, Hudson(1986) suggestsmethodsfor reducingthe abun- Marcström et al. 1988, 1989). On the other hand, some dance of nematodesin Scottishred grouse(Lagopus lagopus studieson the effectsof predator control are not conclusive scoticus), and for exterminatingticksresponsibleforspread- (Göransson& Loman 1978, Parker1984). 3) Predatorcon- ing the diseaselouping ill". Up till now thesemethodshave trol and in particularapplying to specieslike the red fox not, however, been usedin any large-scaleway. In Sweden (Vulpes vulpes) and crows (Corvidae) which may eat eggs arcticfoxes(Alopex lagopus) have recentlybeen held in cap- and young, remainsan important aspectof game manage- tivityfor a period and treatedfor sarcopticmange. ment in many countries, e.g. in Great Britain (Hudson Rands1988). Small, adjoining, private estatesare often organized into management areas.This is an important management prac- Severalguidelineson the care and managementof wet- tice in Fennoscandia(e.g. Hamilton 1980). In Great Britain, landshave been published(e.g. GC 1981, Scott 1982, Lutz syndicatesorganizeseveralsmallerestatesin large areas.The 1986). Only major themes are mentioned here: Vegetation syndicateis responsiblefor hiring a gamekeeperand leasing like Carex, Phragmites and low bushes may be removed hunting (e.g. Waddington 1958). from inland waters by machinery or grazing animals.New wetlands may be created, and spoiledwetlands may be re- Landownerswho use or leasehunting rights may regu- stored.Water levelsmay be regulated. Fertilitymay be in- late hunting pressure.The rate at which hunting yields are creasedthrough the useof fertilizeror lime. Potentialbreed- compensated for by lower natural mortality or increased ing habitat may be improved with nest boxesand artificial production, determines the need for small game hunting breeding islands.Food resourcesfor young may be in- controls(e.g. Kalchreuter1977, 1987). Among Scottishred creasedby controllingfish or lining nutrient poor poolswith grouse, reductionsin winter mortality may compensatefor straw. Open water areasmay be maintained during winter. high hunting pressure(Watson & Jenkins1968). Several Eutrophicationlevels may be reduced by regulating hus- population models have been devisedfor small game (e.g. bandrymeans. Moss et al. 1979, Potts 1979, 1986), but little is known about sustainableharvestfor most species(Myrberget 1985, Hedge planting,sowingwild meadowsand reducedpes- Hudson& Rands1988). When hunting pheasants,it may be ticide usemay improveterrestrialhabitat (Coles1971, Ueck- wise to shoot more cocks than hens (Hill & Robertson ermann & Scholz1981, Potts 1986). Heather (Calluna vul- 1988). garis) burningis beneficialto Scottishred grouse(Watson Miller 1976, Miller 1980). In Norway burningof dwarf birch In severalareasincluding the Nordic countriesand parts of (Betula nana) may be beneficialfor better game food spe- southernEurope,small game hunting pressureisonly regu- des, suchasVaccinium spp. (e.g. Phillipset al. 1984). lated by the length of the hunting seasons,the degree of hunting enthusiasm, and the number of personsthat are Blue hares(Lepus timidus) are-often fed with grain and hay permittedto hunt. (Aarnio& Vikberg 1980). Blackgrouse(Tetrao tetrix) in Fin- landare fed oatsand wheat at 11,000 automaticfeedingsta- In some southern countrieswhere hunting rights are free, tions situatedon their display grounds (Marjakangas1985, the hunting pressureon smallgame hasincreasedrapidlyin Valkesjärvi6.1ljås 1989). Resultsare unknown (Willebrand later years, so that many stocksseem to be overexploited. 1988). This may also be a consequenceof an increasednumber of gunsin someof thesecountries. In many countries,large numbersof galliformesandmal- lardsand other animalsare introducedto provideshortterm

nina utredning018

Table2. Re-stockingofsomebirdspedesinsomewesterncountries(datapartlyfromBertel- sen& Simonsen1986).

Grey Red-legged Pheasant partridge partridge Mallard

Belgium 500 000 25 000 1 000 20 000 Denmark 450 000 50 000 0 350 000 Finland 15 000 100 0 200 France 8 000 000 1 200 000 800 000 800 000 Great Britain 9 000 000 ? ? 400 000 Ireland 100 000 ? ? 10 000 Italy 3 000 000 500 000 1) 250 000 Netherlands 50 000 ? 0 ? North Ireland 110 000 1 000 1) ? 1 000

Norway 1 000 < 500 0 • 500 Switzerland 0 0 0 0

1) Some of these red - legged partridges.

excesspopulationsfor hunting (Table 2). The pheasant is Ueckermann1981). Among smallgame specieswhichlocally the specieswhichis mostoften re-stocked.The birdsare fre- may causeconsiderabledamage are geese (Madsen 1987). quently hybridizationof the subspeciescolchicus, torquatus Small passerinesmay also damage gardens and farmland and mongolicus(G. GöranssoninAndersson1988). (e.g. Bieber & Meylan 1984, Tahon 1985, O'Connor & Shrubb1986). Releasedanimals are either raised in captivity or originate from wild livingpopulationsin other areasor countries.The On the other hand, it is important to reduce lossesof birds latter type of re-stockingis common in Italy, where at least and mammals due to agriculturemachinery and practices. 800,000 individualsare annually imported for introductim, Small changes in agriculturaland forestry practicessome- including 300,000 brown haresat a cost of 35 million U.S. times help to avoid uneccessarynegativeconsequencesfor dollars.Stockingof ptarmigan, capercaillie,and blue hare in wildlife populations. Lessintensiveuse on the outskirtsof Scandinaviahave not been of particularsignificancefor the crops, may reduce the negative effectsof pesticideson the existingindigenouspopulations(e.g. Lindlöf 1979). On the food of specieslike pheasantsand the grey partridge (e.g. other hand, introductionsof haresto Norwegian coastalis- Strandgaard1985, Potts1986, Rands1986). The capercaillie landswith no previousharepopulation,havebeenquite suc- isadaptedto primaryforesthabitat,and slightchangesin fo- cessful(Huseby& Bø1985). restrypracticescouldbe beneficial,without resultingin larger economic lossesfor the landowner (Wegge 1984). Norwe- Large-scalere-stockingsof small game have been criticized gian forestryauthoritiesnow adviseall forest owners to infor severalreasons.Many introducedanimalsdie prior to the clude wildlife management plans in their general forestry startof the huntingseason(Mikkelsen1986, Potts1986, Rob- plans(see alsoFalck& Mysterud 1988). It is also possibleto ertson & Whelan 1987), and introductionsmay lead to in- take better care of wildlife in cities and other urban areas creasedexploitationof natural populations.Introduced ani- (e.g. Gerell1982). mals may alsoinfluencethe genetic composition,behaviour and reproductivecapacityof the natural population(Hill & Experiencefrom many countrieshas demonstratedthe effi- Robertson1986, 1987, 1988). ciency of information campaignsin influencing public atti- tudes to multiple use of habitats.The best resultsare ob- (i) In many casessmallgame productioniseconomicallysub- tained when information is spread by respected ordinate to most other activitiesinvoMng natural habitats, organizationsand individualsactivelyengaged in agriculture and game management should be seen as part of multiple and forestry. useschemesfor habitat. Firstly,game populationsshouldbe managedto avoiddamage to forests,cropsand pasture(e.g.

18 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

4.3 Big game hunting outside Fen- Great Britainare estimatedby field sightingand habitatquali- noscandia ty (Prior1987). Poachingis a problem in some areas,e.g. in Ireland. In Ire- Only in Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain(e.g. Fog 1983, land most (78%) of the forestsare owned by the state(FACE Prior 1987) may landowners themselvesfreely determine 1986). Most Irishfarmsare small, 10-20 ha, and the hunting how many deer they shallshoot(Figure 1). Harvestingof red rightsaregenerallyheld by huntingclubs.About 5-600 hunt- deer on privateestatesin Great Britainis regulatedaccording ing licensesfordeer with no restrictionon the numbersper- to advice given by "The Red Deer Commissions"(Nahlik mitted to shoot, are issuedannually by the Wildlife Service 1974, Miller 1981). The sizesof the roe deer populationsin (ForestSzWildlifeService1986 a, b).

Although the Danishowners themselvesdecide how many deer they want to shoot, they have a duty to ascertainthat deer do not damage agriculturein nearby areas,e.g. they can be forced to put up deer fences.To preventdamage to forestryby red deer, the owners may demand that the deer populationmust be decimatecLNo compensationis paid by the statefor big game damage, but the state may subsidize plantingsfor managementpurposes.

In Portugal,southernItaly and Greece,deer are almostcom- pletelyprotected(e.g. Bugalhoet al. 1986), and in the Euro- pean part of Turkey,the deer istotally protected(Anonymus 1987, Serez 1990). In some cantons in Switzerlandand in north-westItaly the harvestis controlledby licensesonly.In Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium (since 1989), Luxem- bourgh and Francethe harvestis controlled by licenseand hunting ground ownership,accordingto somewhatvarying systems(Haaften 1986, Gill 1988). For example, in Iceland central authoritiesdeterminethe numbersof reindeerwhich may be shot, and municipalityauthoritiesauthorizehunters to do the culling.In Spain,ICONA (Instituto Nacionalparala Conservaciondela Naturaleza) hasthe authorityto regulate the frequencyof drive huntson privateland (Gill 1988).

In Central Europemost harvestingof big game is regulated by the "territory"system(see Figure 1), which is characterized by establishedrules for the permanent subdivisionof hunting territories(reviers)and their management. The system is basedupon hunting traditionsfrom the 1800's (Raes- Figure1 felt 1898, Bubenik1976), and was made obligatoryby law in - ManagementsystemsforcervidsinEurope.Thesymbolsdiffer- Germanyin 1934 (Ueckermann1984). entiatebetweenthe followingmainsystems:TheFennoscandian licensesystem(Norway,Sweden,Rnland),landowner-controlled A descriptionof (a) red deer management in West Germany harvest(Denmark,Great Britain,Ireland),territory(revier)sys- and (b) supplementaryinformationon other big game spe- tem of westernEurope(WestGermany,Austria,partsof Switzer- ciesisusedto illustratethe methodsemployedin the "territo- land), territorysystemofeastemEurope(EastGermany,Poland, ry"system.(Thesystemisalsoappliedto smallgame popula- Czechoslovakia,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria,Yugoslavia),var- tions). HuntingterritoriesinWest Germanymustcomprisean ied systemswitha controlby centralauthoritiesorhuntingor- area of 75-1000 hectares(DJV 1987). Territoriesof 75-150 ganizations(Iceland, the Netheriands,Belgium,Luxembourgh, hectaresare managed by landowners.Largerterritoriesare France,Spain),thepatent-system(partsof SwitzerlandandIta- managed by a hunting federation, under the leadershipof a ly), almostcompleteprotection(Portugal,SouthernItaly,Greece, committee composedof locallandownersand municipaloffi- Europeanpartof Turkey).Unshadedareas:noinformationavail- cials.There are approximatdy 50,000 hunting territoriesin able.(PartlyafterGill 1988). West Germany.

nina utredning018

During a visitto Germanyin the 1930's,Aldo Leopold(1936) - A harvestplan, which attemptsto maintainan equal num- was impressedbythe fact that in contrastto what he had ob- ber of malesand females,isapprovedby a councilappointed served in North America, Europeandeer lived on habitats for larger areas. Harvestingis controlled accordingto pre- stronglyinfluencedby humansand in the absenceof any ef- determined criteria on the sex and age distributionof the fective predators.The main goal for deer managementwas hunting yield (Figure 2). The optimum sizeof the trophy is to improvethe qualityof trophies,i.e. stag antlers.The situa- the main objectiveof regulatingthe age distribution(Drech- tion today remainslargelythe same. sler 1980), and hence is the main objectivedeterminingthe lifespanof the oldest stagsto be about 12 years. Formerly, (a) Red deer.- According to Ueckermann (1960, 1986a, major emphasiswas placed on harvestingweak or sickani- 1987), Gottschalk(1972), Bubenik (1976, 1989), Wagen- mals(e.g. Newman 1979). Now apportionsare relatedto a knecht (1981) and Jelinek(1986), the purposesof red deer certain extent to culling the weakestindividualsin each age management are: 1) to establishpopulationsin all suitable class.Antlersand mandiblesaredisplayedat obligatoryannu- habitat, 2) to regulate populationsin accordancewith other al exhibitionsto ensure that the harvesting program for economic interests,such as forestry,farming, and to avoid malesisfollowed. trafficcollisions,and3) to increasethe carryingcapacityand the quality (trophies)of the game yield. The following main - Feedingconditionsare improved to increasethe carrying measuresareusedto obtain thesegoals: capacityof a territory and the quality of individualanimals (Ueckerman & Scholtz 1971). During the winter, different - Carryingcapacityof the terrainshouldbe classifiedbyregis- kinds of fodder are made accessible(Onderscheka1986, tering borderzones,pasture,soilquality, and forestcomposi- Ueckermann1986b), preferablyto cover 50-75% of nutrition according to a system developed by Ueckermann tional requirements(Ueckermann1971). Placementof feed- (1955). The desiredspring populationis set at 1.5-2.5 deer ing stationsaidscontrolling areasinhabited by deer during per km2 dependingon the carryingcapacityof the territory. the winter, thereby reducing damage to vulnerable forest Densitiesmaybe increasedto 4 reddeer per km2by usingar- areas. tificialfeeding,and decreasedifother speciesofdeeroccurin the territory. - Practicalmeasuresare employedto preventforestdamage and include1) fencingof particularlyvulnerableforestsucces- - The spring population is estimated by counting deer at sion stages,and 2) protection of certain trees through the feeding stationsand through tracking.Individualanimalsare use of chemicalor mechanicalrepellents(e.g. Ueckermann alsoidentifiedin some areas.Harvestableproductionis esti- 1960, 1981, Reimoser1986). Reddeer inflictthe mostdam- mated as 65-70% of all adult hinds in the populationas of age to treesin Europe(Ueckermann1987). April1.

• 2• 1 • 9 • 8 •, 7 • 6 5 • 4 • 3 • 2 ••• 1 ••• ••••• 0 ••••••• Figure2 Above:Agecompositionofan ideal- isedred deerpopulationof 100 indi- o • 6 • • vidualsApril 1 in West Germany. • 5 •• Dottedsquares:plannedculling.Pro- • 4 •• • 3 • videdno natural summermortality • 2 • thiswil lead to a stablestate.(After 1 • ••••••• Ueckermann 1984). Below: The •• 0 sametype-ofdatafora roedeerpop- ulation.(AfterUeckermann1982).

20 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

The West German territory system is a prototype for deer into over-huntedareas.Populationdensityand habitatquali- management in Austria, some cantons in Switzerlandand ty may affectreproductionratesof roedeer (Loudon1987). most of the countriesof easternEurope(e.g. Wagenknecht 1965, Nagy & Bencze 1973), where red deer populations Fallowand sikadeer (Sika nippon) are managed in principally and the quality of trophies are reported to have improved the sameway as red and roe deer (see e.g. Ninov 1990, Ru- (Bencze1976, Jelinek1986). However,in many areas,e.g. in mohr-Rundhof 1990). Higher percentagesof these exotic EastGermanythe huntersexperiencegreat difficultiesin fol- bopulationsare, however,often raisedin captivityor under lowingthe'recommendedplan(Briedermannet al. 1986). Ex- semi-naturalconditions. perimentshave been conducted in the Alpsto protect deer from disturbanceby touristsand to reduceforestdamage, by Wild boarsin CentralEuropeare also managed accordingto fencing deer in prime habitat during the winter (Gossow the territorysystem(Ueckermann1977, Briedermann1986). Stadlmann1985). Diseasecontrolis one aspectof the "terri- A numbercorrespondingto 100-200% of the springpopula- tory" systemwhere in some areas medicine is mixed with tion isculled,and the averageis 140-150%. Economiccarry- food at feeding stationsto combat lung and other parasites ing capacityis 0.5 -1.5 wild boarsper km2. Estimatingpopu- (e.g. Spenik1985). lationsizeisdifficult,and in somecasescullingis plannedon the basisofthe extent of crop damage, which isoften exten- Many countrieshave recentlystartedto realizethat red deer sive (Ueckerman1981, Briedermann1986). In Turkey,wild and other cervidsare not countable, althoughtheir hunting boars may be hunted year round (Anonymus 1987, Serez lawsand regulationsassumethat they are (Gill 1988). Count- 1990). ing deer isespeciallydifficultin forestterrain(Gossow1976). Thereforepopulationnumbersareoften underestimated,and Management principlesfor chamois (Rupicapra rUpicapra), underexploited(Gill 1986). Somepopulationsmayalsobe in- mouflon (Ovis aries) and ibex (Capra ibex) are similarto tentionally underestimatedor overestimated.The sex of the those for other ungulates (Wotschikovsky1977, Schröder animalshotisnot alwayscorrectlyreported. 1985). However,thesespeciesoften occupy isolatedand re- mote habitat, and local management traditionsplay an im- There are alsoseveralfundamental argumentsagainstusing portant role. One of the goalsof management isto preserve this system.Bubenik(1970, 1986) statedthat the harvesting the characteristicsof different sub-species.As an example, program does not account for population socialstructure. there are eight sub-speciesofchamoisin Europe.However, The systemmay also reduce genetic variation (Lang 1986). mostre-introductionshaveonly involvedanimalswhichorigi- Bobeket al. (1990) claim that the influenceon trophyquality nated from the alpine sub-species(rupicapra), even within obtained through genetic changes induced by selective the distributionalrange of other sub-species(Lovari1984). shooting of stags is lesspronouncedthan effectson antler Muflon is alsooften kept under semi-wildconditions,e.g. in sizefrom varyingpopulationdensityand habitatquality. the Netherlands(Litjenset al. 1989).

Some opponents contend that the program gives greater precedenceto the detailed desiresof hunters,than to more 4.4 Big game in the Fennoscandia _generallong-term goals (e.g. Wotschikowskiet al. 1986). It also discriminatesbetween the common and the wealthy The following.wild deer speciesare found in Fennoscandia: hunter (Bubenik 1989). There is an increasingpolarization moose, red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, reindeerand white- between hunting interestsand those of environrnentalpro- tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (only in Finland).Harvest tection(Wolfe & Berg1988). planningoften tendsto keepstocksbelowthe ecologicalcar- ryingcapacityof a givenarea.Significantfactorsin determin- (b) Other species.-In centraland easternEuropethe "territo- ing the "economicalcarryingcapacity"of an areaare damag- ry"systemusedfor hunting roe deer is basicallythe sameas es causedby deer to agricultureand forestry,and accidents for red deer (K8nig 1982, 1983, Ueckermann 1982). The on roadsand railwaysinvolvingdeer (e.g. Stensaas1989). number of animalsharvestedin prime areasmay be equalto the springpopulationof adult females,while only 70-90% of Management of big game in Fennoscandiamay be saidto the same figure is taken in poorer habitat. Harvestingplans belong to a "territory"system (Bubenik 1989), but many involvea pre-determinedsexand age distribution(seeFigure practicalmeasuresare different from those used in Central 2). At least110 000 roe deer are killed by automobiletraffic Europe.Althoughthere are geographicand specificvariations in West Germanyand 60 000 by agriculturalmachinery(DJV within Fennoscandiain practicalmeasuresusedwhen hunt- 1,987). In contrastto the red deer, the roe deer populationis ing quotas are set, the general procedureis as follows:The regulatedby socialmechanisms(Strandgaard1972), leading numberof hunting licensesissuedfordeer and often alsothe to an influx of animalsfrom areaswith lesshunting pressure quota compositionofthe yieldisdecidedby regionalauthori-

ninautredning018 ties.The number of licensesissuedisdetermined by the size cerningthe number, age and sexof animalsobservedduring of the population and the area. Landownersset the actual the hunt, the "Moose seen" scheme (e.g. Pedersenet al. boundariesof hunting terrains,providedthey controlan area 1988). Most of thiswork hasbeenvoluntary. which is at least equal to the size required for one license. They may sell their licensesifthey wish to do so. One prob- Until recently,the mooseyield in all three countriesincreased lem arisinghere is that the price in some casesisvery high, asa resultof controlledharvestingand habitat improvement up to 300 US dollar for one roe deer in Norway (Hagen (Figure 3). Hunting isthe greatestcauseof mortalityamong 1989). Nordic moose, and it is therefore possibleto calculatethe populationstructurewhich is conduciveto optirnal calf pro- The following examples are described:(a) management of duction (e.g. Stålfelt 1966). Harvestingis mainly aimed at the mooseand (b) modificationsapplyingto other species. calves,yearlingsand bulls,whereasreproductivefemalesare savedto a varyingextent.Thistactic resultsinhighercalf pro- (a) Moose.- The purposeof moosemanagementisto restrict duction relativeto the total winter population.One problem the number of moosein order to reducedamage to forestry, with thesecalculationsisthat they assumea fixed number of crops and traffic to an acceptablelevel, and to manipulate mooseafter hunting.Thismeansthat no considerationistak- population structure and size to obtain optimal hunting en to the fact that different populationcategoriesdo not eat yields(Myrberget 1979, Rificker& Ståffelt1986, Haagenrud equalamountsof winter food. et al. 1988). The interestof trophy huntersassumesalow priority. Hunting quotas are determined by county administra- torswho cooperatewith localrepresentatives.Fixedlimitsfor moosedensityin Finlandvary between 0.5 and 4 animalsper km2 (Nygren 1984), but suchlimitsdo not existin Sweden 150000 and Norway.

Only registered"moosehunting areas"are open for licensed hunting. One exception is the right to shoot an unlicensed number of moosecalvesduring a short open seasonin un- 100000 registeredareasof Sweden.Hunting areaswithin a particular municipalityare in most casesdefined as belonging to the Sweden same "moosemanagementdistrict".However,this definition Finland only inadequatelyconsidersecologicalrealities. 50000 In Sweden, county administrationis divided into 23 areas, Norway and playsa significantrolein the distributionof quotas. Pro- 25000 vincial moose boards propose harvesting plans for each moosedistrict.The systemissimilarin Finland. 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 In Norway, quota permitsare issuedby the County Governor accordingto a "minimum area" for each animal permitted Figure3 shot. The size of quotas is largely based on experiencesin Harvestof moosein Fennoscandia1945-86.(Mainly after Haa- earlieryears,yield statistics,andsimulationmodelsinvolving genrudet al. 1988). the size of the yield in previousyears and the number of mooseobservedduringthe previoushuntingseason(e.g.Jar- en 1988, Pedersenet al. 1988). Quotas are assignedto each The winter populationof moose has alsoincreasedin many landowner by a municipalgame board, in accordancewith areas. In some Scandinaviandistrictsthe moose population minimum areas. hasreachedan abundancewhich exceedscarryingcapacity, which has led to unacceptablyhigh levelsof damage in re- Management in Finlandincludessystematicinvestigationof cent years.Reducedreproductionhasbeen reportedin some availablepasture land and forest damage. In Finland,com- populations. Deliberate action has been taken to reduce pensation is paid for damage to forestry and agriculture, some of these populations,but considerabledoubt remains whereasin Norway and Swedenonly damage to agriculture asto how thissituationshouldbe treated (e.g. Jaren1988). may be compensatedfor. In Sweden, many populationsare counted from a helicopteror an airplane. Moose huntersin (b) Other species.-Practicalmeasuresusedto setquotasare all three countriesare provided with a questionnaire,con- largelythe same as for moose. However, non-licensedhunt-

© Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. ninautredning018

ing of roe and fallow deer is also permitted during an open duce reindeernumbersthroughintensivehunting,sothat the seasoninSweden(Nordell & Weinberg 1983). In fact, in later sizesofpopulatlonsandyieldsfluctuatefrom yearto year. yearsmost roe deer are felled by this system.In Finland,roe deer hunting isallowedonly on the ÅlandIslands. Roedeer and red deer are difficultto count, and huntingsta- tisticsfor roe deer in Norway yield figureswhich are far too Roedeer populationsare in this northernarea mainlylimited low (Myrberget 1988). Reddeer and reindeeronly give birth by climaticfactorsand snow conditions(e.g. Hjeljord1980), to one calf, and the effectof age-specificselectiveharvesting and wild reindeerdo little damage. Therefore,ecologicalcar- is not asgreat asfor the moose.It is, however, alsofor these rying capacity is the primary limiting factor for population speciesimportant to ascertainthat hunting leads to few levelsofthesespeciesina given area(Stensaas1989). motherlesscalves:

Wild reindeerare only hunted in southernNorway. Manage- In Scandinaviasnow depths may increasemortality among ment units are comprisedof about 25 more or lessnaturally roe deer during particularlyhardwinters(Hjeljord 1980), and separatedmountain ranges,each usuallymade up of several supplementaryfeeding is reccommendedunder suchcondi- municipalities (Krafft 1981). Reindeer management relies tions. Roe deer feeding programsare common in Sweden, even more heavily upon information about the relationship but little isknownabouttheir effectiveness(Sandberg1985). between population production and density, and available winter food resources(see Figure 4, Skogland1986), than The development of a small huntable population of wild other Europeanbig game management schemes.The popu- boarshasonly been permitted in the Stockholmarea, while lationiscounted and populationstructureand habitatquality boarsin all other partsof Swedenare treated as "pests".The are monitoredat 1-5 year intervals. same is the case in Finland.It has not been possible,however,to count and controlthe Swedishpopulationaccording In several reindeer areas there are continual difficultiesin to plans. maintainingsuitablewinter populations.One reasonis that herdsmaywander longdistancesinresponsetoweathercon- ditions,and it isthen difficultto organizeeffectivehunting in 4.5 Large mammalian predators an entire area. Sometimesit is necessaryto deliberatelyre- There is no common systemfor the management of brown bear, wolf, wolverine (Gulo gulo) and lynx (Lynx lynx) in Eu- rope. However,the objectiveof management in many countries is similar, namely to maintain "viable"populations(see Soulé1987) responsibleforacceptablelevelsof damage.The 16 most seriousdamage is to livestockand semi-domesticrein- cl) deer, but locallykillingof big game and damage on honey 14 bee hives are taken into consideration(e.g. Sørensenin - c 30 12 press). 10 3 Thesespecieswereformerlyheavilypersecuted,and bounties 20 8 were common. Today, most populationsare small, and are largelyprotectedagainsthunting. However,for somespecies and areas, licensehunting is permitted, e.g. in Sweden. In c 10 4 other areasan open seasonschemecontrolshunting,e.g. on lynxin Norway.

Norway is one of severalcountrieswhich have worked out a 1 2 3 4 national plan for management of large predatory species Populationdensity (n/km2) (Vaag 1987). Registrationsare a major part of this plan (Sørensenet al. 1984). The term "viable"refersto any popu- lationwhere the probabilityof declineover a 20 year period Figure4 is lessthan 15% (see population modelling by Stenseth& Estimatedannual productivity curvesfor Norwegian reindeerin Steen 1987). For thesespecies,which occur in low densities terms of numerical abundance (dotted curve) and biomass (full and uselarge home ranges,cooperationbetween neighbour- curve).The arrowsindicate the densitiesat which maximum sus- ing countriesis imperativeto ensuretheir conservation(e.g. tainable yield is obtained. (After Skogland 1986). Mysterud& Falck1989).

ninautredning018

To illustrate management of populationstreated as game, the managementof bearsin Yugoslaviamayserveas an ex- 5 Game population distri- ample (following Cicnjak& Ruff1990): In one of the repub- bution, status and har- lics(Macedonia) the hunting is not regulatedand bearsmay be hunted year-around.In the other five republicsbearsare vest carefullymanagedand hunted. Management methodsusual- ly includeregulatedbaiting/feedingsites.Systernaticobserva- Becauseofvariationsin naturalconditionsand differencesin tions of bear visitsat feeding stationsare used to estimate hunting regulations,thenumber of game speciesinEuropeis population size. In Slovenia,management includes habitat high. In Sweden,approximately 150 speciesare considered protectionfor areasknown to be importantfor denning, and game (SOU 1983). At least100 bird speciesarelegallyhunt- orchardsare planted to provideadditionalfoods.The length ed in one or anotherwestern Europeancountry(e.g. Bertel- of the hunting seasonvariesbetween republics,but usually sen & Simonsen1986). Fewer speciesare hunted in Great begins in early Septemberor October and ends in mid- or Britain,the Nordiccountriesand easternEurope.Asan exam- late May. ple, in addition to ducks,29 bird speciesmay be hunted in Hungary, but some speciesmay also be shot by specialli- Fearof the wolf isa commonfeatureof manyhuman cultures cense. (e.g. Naess & Mysterud 1987). Although there are a few known caseswhereescapedcaptivewolves,or wolvesinfect- • A relativelynew surveyof the statusof all Europeanbirdspe- ed with rabieshave attackedand killedhumans(e.g. Pimlott cieshasbeenworkedout & Sharrock1985). I am not 1975), there are no documentedcasesof attackson humans aware of any correspondingsurveyon mammals,but hand- by healthywolvesin recenttimes. On the other hand, more books such as those by Brink (1968) and Niethammer & examplesexistof humansbeing killedby brown bears(e.g. Krapp(1982) givegeneraldata on distribution.-Onlythestat- Cicnjak& Ruff1990). us and yield of the most important game speciesare de- scribedin thispaper. In the past the polar bear was heavilyhunted on Svalbard (Larsen1972). The speciesisnow protectedthrough the In- ternationalPolarBearAgreementof 1973 (seeStirling1986). 5.1 Waterfowl One man hasbeen killedby polarbearson Svalbardin recent years,and a few bearshavebeenshotin selfprotection. The mallard is the most important game speciesamong ducks(seeTable 3). However, probablyabout one halfof all Many of the managementprinciplesusedon large terrestrial mallardsshot have been raisedin captivity.Other duck spe- predatorsalsoapplyto seals(e.g. Bonner1975). A frequently ciesshotin any numbersare teal (Anas crecca), garganey(A. discussedissue is the transmissionof nematode parasites querquedula) and wigeon (A. penelope). Most of the geese from sealsto fish(e.g. Helgadottiret al. 1985). Suchparasites hunted are the greylag (Anser anser), pink footed goose (A. may be of economicimportancein commercialfisheries,and brachyrhynchos) (mostly in Great Britain) and the white- hence lead to sealculling programs,e.g. in Norway (Bjørge fronted goose (A. albifrons). The populationstatisticsmust, 1987, Wiig 1988a). however, be usedwith great caution, becausemany uncer- tain data and errorsmay be included. Some of the data are certainlyalsoout-dated.

The majorityof swan,geeseand duckspecieshaveincreased in numbersin recentyears(Mehlum & Ogilvie1984, Nilsson & Fog1984, Kalchreuter1987). However,there aresomeex- ceptionsto this rule, e.g. light-bellied brent geese (Branta bernicla hrota) (Madsen 1987). Introductions of Canada geese (B. canadensis) have resulted in large populations which are hu'ritedin Scandinaviaand Great Britain(Owen et al. 1984, Heggberget1987).

In addition, more than one million coots (Fulica atra), lap- wings (Vanellus vanellus), woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola) and common snipes (Gallinago gallinago) are killed.Signifi- cant numbersof jack snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus), moor- hen (Gallinula chloropus) and curlews (Numenius arquata)

Table 3. Breeding and winter population size and shooting yield of geese and ducks in Eu- rope, U.S.S.R.included (after Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). No hunting statistics from Ire- land, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Breeding Winter Yeld

Beangoose(Anserfabalis) - 200 000 5 8001) Pink-footedgoose(Anser brachyrhynchos) 150 000 6 500 White-frontedgoose(Anser albifrons) ? 430 000 18 000 Greylaggoose(Anser anser) 185 000 20 0001) Canadagoose2)(Branta canadensis) 6 000 7 000 1 500 Brentgoose(Branta bernicla) ? 200 000 3 500 Wigeon (Anas penelope) ? 1 350 000 425 000 Gadwell(Anas strepera) 145 000 87 000 38 0001) Teal (Anas crecca) 850 000 1 400 000 1 900 000 Mallard(Anas platyrhynchos) 4 000 000 9 000 000 6 000 000 Pintail(Anas acuta) 135 000 375 000 235 000 Garganey(Anas querquedula) 45 000 500 000 555 000 Shoveler(Anas clypeta) 75 000 340 000 190 000 Red-crestedpochard(Netta rufina) 1 500 50 000 8 0001) Pochard(Aythyaferina) 45 000 1 000 000 280 000 Tufted duck (Aythyafuligula) 310 000 1 350 000 265 000 Scaup(Aythya marila) 260 000 150 000 50 000 Eider(Somateria mollissima) 500 000 2 000 000 220 000 Long-tailedduck(Clangula hyemalis) 2 000 000 1 000 000 110 000 Common scoter(Melanitta nigra) 12 500 1 500 000 30 000 Velvetscoter(Melanitta fusca) 55 000 200 000 4 0001) Goldeneye(Bucephala clangula) 300 000 300 000 100 000 Red-breastedmerganser(Mergus serrator) 45 000 75 000 5 0001) Goosander(Mergus merganser) 60 000 120 000 3 0001)

Only for EECcountries. Out-dated data

are also shot (Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). Statisticson 5.2 Other small game species hunting of smallerwaders do not distinguishbetween species. Severalmillion gulls (Larus spp.) are shot. Auks and The brown hare and the rabbit are the most abundant of all other diving seabirdsare or were popular game in northern mammals hunted, and 10 million of each speciesare prob- areas. ably killed annually, although few statisticsare available. Rabbit populationsthroughout Europedeclined rapidly after Accordingto Nowak (1974), the numbersof waterfowl killed the deliberate introduction of myxomatosisin France in per unit area in France,Great Britain,Denmark and the Aa- 1952 (Moore 1987). In some partsof Great Britain,the pop- land islands(Finland)are particularlyhigh. However,hunting ulationwas reduced by 99% (Lever 1985). Numbers of rab- statisticsare lackingfor some countries(see heading Table bits have increased somewhat since. In northern Europe, 3). and some statisticsmayunderestimatethe numbersshot Scotland and the Alps, the brown hare is replaced by the (e.g. Göransson& Larsson1987). blue hare. Earlierthe red squirrel was commonly hunted. The alpine marmot (Marmota marmota) is locallyhunted in the Alps.

ninautredning018

The beaverwas almostcompletelyexterminatedin Europein resultof previousover-exploitation(Strandgaard1979). Roe the'last century. Protectionmeasuresand introductionshave deer do not occur in Ireland and Iceland. To establishroe led to improvements.Todaythere are at least50,000 individ- deer in more areasin Finland,some animalshave been re- uals in Scandinavia,where the speciesis shot and trapped leasedfromcaptivityin recentyears(Vikberg1988). (e.g. Myrberget1987). The Canadianbeaver(Castor canadensis) hasbeenintroducedto Finland(Lahti& Helminen1974). There are more than one million red deer, and 300,000 are annually killed (in Great Britain 50,000 annually, most of Anotherintroducedspeciesisthe greysquirrel(Sciurus carol- them in Scotland).Some deer specieshave been introduced inensis) on the BritishIsles(Lever1985). Escapingfrom cap- to Europe(see Lever 1985), and there are 200,000 fallow tivity, populationsof coypiu(Myocastor coypus) havebeen es- deer, 40,000 white-tailed deer (see Pulliainen Sz Sulkava tablishedin Great Britain (now erradicated),central Europe 1986) and 20,000 sikadeer. A smallsemi-wildpopulationof and Italy (Lever 1985). Muscrats(Ondatra zibethicus) have axisdeer (Cervus axis) is found in Yugoslavia,whileChinese also escapedfrom fur farms since 1905, and are today re- water deer (Hydropbtes inennis) and muntjac (Muntiacus garded as pests in large areas of Europe (Popelin 1969, muntjac) occur in Great Britain. Sika deer and red deer hy- Troostwijk1976, Danell 1977). bridsarefound in many areason the BritishIsles(Harrington 1982, Ratcliffe1987). The woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) is among the most often killed small game speciesin Europe,and more than 12 The moose is the most important big game speciesin Fen- million are shot in Great Britainalone(Bertelsen& Simonsen noscandia,where the population approaches500,000. Har- 1986), and 6 millionin France(L'OfficeNationalde la Chasse vestingvariesconsiderably,and in recentyears150-225,000 1986). At least 20 million pheasantsare killed (possibly10 havebeenkilled(seeFigure 3). Norway, Svalbardincluded,is millionin Great Britainand 6.5 millionin France).Statisticsin- the only country supportinglarger populationsof wild rein- dicate that more than one million individualsof each of the deer (Reimerset al. 1980, Krafft 1981), but some smaller followingspeciesarekilledannually:grey partridge(2 million populationsarealsofound on Iceland(Thorrisson1980), and in Francealone), red-legged partridge(Alectoris rufa) (more in Finland(Sulkava1980, Heikuraet al. 1985) where they are than 1.1 million in France), and willow ptarmigan and red protectedagainsthunting. Yieldsvary considerablyon main- grouse(Lagopus lagopus) on the BritishIslesand in Fennos- land Norway, 7-15,000 annually. candia. In addition, millionsof thrushes(Turdus spp.) including 15-25 million in France,crows(Corvidae)and small pas- Followingre-introductions,chamoisare now found in most serinesarekilled.In Francemore than half a millioncommon central and southern Europeancountries.The total popula- quails(Corturnix corturnix) are shot. tion is about 350,000, and 75,000 are harvested,most of them (25,000) in Austria. Previously,mouflon were only Grouseincludingthe capercaillie,blackgrouse(Tetrao tetrix), found on Corsicaand Sardinia(Spagnesi& Appolonio1985). hazelgrouse(Tetrastes bonasia) and rockptarmigan(Lagopus Today there are more than 70,000 individuals spread mutus) are popular game in Fennoscandia.Therock ptarmi- throughoutseveralcountries(Briedermannet al. 1989). Har- gan isthe only-wild-livinggrousespeciesonIcelandand Sval- vestinghasincreased,and10,000 mouflon are annuallyshot. bard. Populationsofwoodland grousein centralEuropehave In the Alps,ibex originatefrom a smallpopulationwhich sur- sharplydeclined (e.g. Haarstick1985); the same is the case rived there about 100 years ago. At the presenttime there for blackgrouseon the BritishIsles(McKelvie1987). are morethan 25,000 animals(Schröder1985).

Wild livingforestwisents(Europeanbison) were exterminat- 5.3 Big game ed in the 1920's. Re-introductionsof individualssurvivingin captivity(Glover1947, Krysiak1967), have resultedin a pop- The surveyof the abundanceof big game, givenin Table 4 is ulation of about two thousand animals in areas along the somewhat inadequate. Numbers have increased in some borderbetween Polandand the SovietUnion, of which near- countriesafter the estimateswere made. The estimatesare ly halflivewithin Poland. not equallyaccurate,and the figuresare not alwayscompara- ble. In the majorityof casesstatisticsreferto the springpopu- The wild boar is found in most countrieson the continent. lation,but someautumn populationsmaybe included. Numbersarevery low in Finlandand Denmark.A smallpopu- lation hasbeen establishedin Swedenafter escapesfromca- The mostabundantspeciesisthe roedeer of which there are pivity(Kristiansson1985).The wild boar is not found in Nor- more than 6 million.Two million are killedannually,most of way, on Iceland,or on the BritishIsles.The springpopulation them (700,000) in West Germany(DJV1987). At many loca- approaches500,000 individualsand 400,000 animalsare an- tions in southernmostEurope,populationsare still low as a nuallykilled(Bäumleret al. 1986).

Table 4. Popuicitionsize of big game species(1984) in different countries (data mainly after Gill 1986). ?: no information, population probably small. ??:large population.

White- Red Roe Fallow Sika tailed Rein- deer deer deer deer deer Moose deer Chamois lbex Mufflon Boar

Austria 95200 460000 370 750 112200 1900 5060 5200 Belgium 4000 21500 150 500 9000 Bulgaria 18500 142400 2800 1600 2000 32000 Czechoslovakia 48900 289300 12700 2010 430 20 1780 7700 39700 Denmark 5500 150000 10000 1000 Finland 5000 300 35000 91800 600 - France 35000 318000 600 50 53500 ? 4900 7000 GDR 45000 350000 30000 7000 65000 GFR 85000 1700000 30000 1500 10000 7000 40000 Great Britain 270000 ?? 50000? 4000 Greece 300 200 Hungary 47500 219600 9760 300? 7100- 31300 Iceland - 3500 Ireland 10000? 5000? Italy 8900 103000 6150 62560 3500 ? ?? Liechtenstein 400 600 700 Luxembourg 500? 13000? •• 1150 1180 Netherlands 1000 25000 500 300 Norway 55000 50000 40 - 85000 40000 Poland 73000 482000 4000 150 - 4600 - ? .55900 Portugal 400 200 _ Romania 45000 287000 10000 20 ?? ? 40000 Spain 100000? ?? ?? ? 28150 Sweden 2000 40000 4500 - 311000 Switzerland 22200 110800 70 67100 11600 640 Yugoslavia 25900 310400 2941 250 - 24000 360 5300 56140

Total 990000 5500000 190000 17000 36000 500000 44000 334000 17500 48000_ 475000

5.4 Carnivorous mammals along the borders to the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia. SoMe attempts have been made to re-introducethe lynx to Populationsof larger carnivoresare heavily reduced in Eu- Central Europe(Festeticset al. 1982). Small numbersof par- rope. The largest brown bear population of a maximum del lynx (Lynx pardina) occurin Spainand Portugal(e.g. De- 8,000 animalslivesin the Carpathian-Balkanarea (Sørensen libes1984). Some hundredwolverineslive in Fennoscandia. in press).Some 1,500 bearslive in Fennoscandia,while isolat- The largestotter populationsare found in northern Norway ed populationsarefound in Italy, Franceand Spain. and on the BritishIsles(Reutherand Festetics1980). The polar bearonly occurson Svalbard. A wolf populationwhich may compriseasmany as4000 individuals,inhabitsthe Carpathian-Balkanregion (Mech 1982), The common seal (Phoca vitulina) and the grey seal (Halich- and isolatedwolf populationsare found in Italy, Spain,Portu- oerus grypus) are the most common sealspecies.In 1988 a gal and Norway/Sweden.Wolvesoccupyterritoryon the bor- great proportionof common sealswas killed by a virus(e.g. ders between Soviet Union and Poland (900) and Finland Anonymus1989a). Arcticsealsare common on Svalbard,and (lessthan 100), respectively. they are observedin other northernareasduring migrations. A residualpopulationof ringed seal (Phoca hispida) alsooc- The entire population of lynx is unlikelyto be greater than cursin the BalticSea(JärvinenST.Varrio1986). 1,500 individuals,most of which are found in Fennoscandia,

nina utredning 018

The red fox is the most commonly hunted carnivore,and is The potential estirnatedvalue of hunting of approximately found in most of Europeexcept Svalbard,Icelandand Crete. 300 U.S.dollarsper hectaréforestfor landownersin England, No combined statisticsare available, but the total number is higher than the income from forestry. In EECcountries, killedcertainlyexceedsonemillion.Numbersin Fennoscandia hunting directly or indirectly creates 100,000 jobs (CE and Denmarkhavedrasticallydeclinedin recentyearsbecause 1987a), and thesefiguresmay be doubled when accounting of sarcopticmange(Lindström& Mörner 1985, Eis1989). The for allof Europe(Myrberget1990). arcticfox occurson Svalbard,Iceland, and in Fennoscandia. The speciesisregardedasthreatenedin Fennoscandia,while Hunting isthereloreof great socio-economicsignificance.1n beingcovetedgame on Svalbard.The arcticfox ishunted on manywayshuntingisalsoan important sourceof incomefor Icelandto curbactualor imagineddamagesto livestock. rural districts(CE 1987a). In eastern Europe, hunting yields must partly be soldto the government, and are exportedtO Other small and medium-sized Europeancarnivoreswhich the international market. Hunting tourism is common in are harvestedare primarilythe pine marten (Martes martes), many of thesecountries(Bubenik1989). In suchcaseshunt- beech martin (Martes foina), polecat (Putoris putoris), stoat ing alsoprocureswesterncurrency. and badger (Meles meles). The raccoon(Procyon lotor) was introducedin West Germanyaround 1930-40. Largepopula- tions are found there today, and the specieshas spread to Franceandthe Netherlands(Lever1985). The Americanmink (Mustela vison), which escaped from mink farms is now found in most of Europe.The poputationis probablygreatest in Scandinavia,the BritishIsles,and Iceland(e.g. Lever1985, Bevanger& Ålbu 1987). Populationsof raccoondog-(Nycte- reutes procynoides) originatingfrom introductionsin the So- viet Union, havespreadto mostof Europe.Thespeciesispar- ticularly abundant in Finland where 60,000 animals are annuallykilled(Helle 6.1Kauhala1987).

5.5 Economic value of hunting

In every country, venison and shot small game are legally saleable,but different regulationsmayrestrictthe sale,e.g. in time (e.g. RSPB1989). A game meat draft directivehasbeen proposedwithin the EEC-countries,but this has been met with strong criticism,e.g. from UK (BASC1989). In Turkey, only meat of wild boarsmay be sold(Anonymus1987).

Regulationsconcerningthe saleof meat and skinsof wildlife also apply to animalsfound dead, e.g. killed in traffic accidents. In Sweden, the possessorofa hunting right owns all wildlife found killed as long as he properlydisposesof the carcass.However,somespeciesaredesignatedasthe property of "thecrown"(Nordell 6.1Weinberg1983). 1nNorway, all dead game which is not killed through legal hunting, is in principlethe property of the wildlife authorities.Hence, au- thorizationof comrnercialwildlifetaxidermistsisalsodone by wildlifeauthorities.

The first-handvalue of game killed in Europeoutside USSR around1970, was calculatedto be about 100 million USdol- lars(Nlisslein1974). About 1985 the value had increasedto 700 million US dollars(Myrberget 1990). When the value of hunting is estimatedon the basisof annual hunting expens- es,the figure may be about 3,500 milliondollars.

28 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

6 Challenges and special 1988, natural poisonousalgaes(Chrysochromulina polylepis) killedmost life in the littoralzone of Skagerrak;thecausefor problems the algaefloweringis not fully known (Dahl et al. 1989). An- other threatenedseaisthe Mediterranean(e.g. Pastor1988), and severaldifferentorganizationsinthe United Nationsrati- In common with the restof the world, naturalhabitatsin Eu- fied an Action Planagainstpollutionin 1975 (e.g. CE 1987c, rope are exposedto global threatsincludingpollution,reduc- Saliba1988). To reducemarine pollutionin Europeanwaters tion of the ozone layer, the greenhouseeffect and human many agreementsand conventionshave been signed, most overpopulation(e.g. Myers 1985, Brown1990). Most of the recentlyat the SecondNorth SeaConferencein 1987, and in land area of Europe has been altered by human activities, the Haaguein 1990. through agriculture,forestry,industry,housingdevelopment and transport (e.g. Goudie 1981). Here, we will examine In the 1960's, attention was drawn to heavymetals,suchas someof the greatestthreatsto game in Europe,but alsodis- the useof alkylmercurycompoundsfor seeddressing(Borg cussa few lesssignificantproblems. et al. 1969). Thisproblem was solvedby changingmethods. Many wetland birdsdie as the resultof poisoningfrom lead in shot (e.g. Danell 1980, Bløtekjær1988). Only Denmark 6.1 Pollution hasuntil 1989 introducedlimitationson the useof lead shot for hunting or marksmanshiptraining (Anonymus 19864. Severalchemicalagentsand bondsare conveyedinto the en- Deer are locallypoisonedby fluoridedischargesfromindustry vironment to an extent which hasdirect or indirect negative (Borg 1978, Kierdorf& Kierdorf1990). Metalslikealuminium consequencesfor game populations (e.g. Murton 1971). are releasedinto the ecosystembecauseof increasingacidity Some of these are metals, pesticidek PCB, ozone, and sul- (Nyholm 1981). Long-term population effectsdue to non- phur and nitrogenoxides. lethal levelsof metal pollution are, however, poorly under- stood(e.g. Pedersen& Nybø 1989). Acid rain representsthe most seriousimmediate threat. As earlyasaround 1960, it was clearthat sulfateionsin precipi- Most environmentalpoisonsaffectgame populationsin the tation killedinvertebratesandfish in severalwatercourses.In form of reduced reproduction (Moore 1987). Reductionin Norway thousandsof lakesare now devoid of fish. Although the thicknessofegg shellsof many birdsof preyisone exam- sulfateemissionshavebeen reducedin recentyears,water re- ple (e.g. Cooke et al. 1982). PCBpollutionof the Balticand mains acid becauseof increasingdischargesof nitrate ions the North Seais responsibleforuteralfusionand reducedre- (Fjeldstad1987). Accessto nourishmentis reducedfor game productionin seals(Helle & Stenman 1987). PCBmay also specieslivingon fishand invertebratesin many watercourses, be the causeof populationdeclinesin Europeanotterpopula- but the total effect is poorlyunderstood.On the other hand, tions(Olsson& Sandegren1989). increasedemissionof nitrogen may improve habitat quality for browsingspecieslike roe deer (Ellenberg1985) in some Pollutionmay render game meat unsuitablefor human con- areas. sumption. It is a well known fact that large amountsof cadmium are absorbedin the liver and kidneysof some game Although the causesare very complicated,acid rain and ex- species(e.g. Eisler1985, Frøslieet al. 1986). After the acci- haustfrom autômobilesappear to contribute greatly to the dent at Chernobylin 1986, concentrationsofradioactivityin increasingextent of forest damage (Hutchinson & Meema game in Scandinaviawerehigh (e.g. Danellet al. 1987). Par- 1985, Schneider1986, Innes 1987). Damage is most severe ticularlyhigh concentrationsof up to 100,000 becquerellpr. in CzechoslovakiaandsouthernPoland.Extensiveand wide- kg wet weight, were demonstratedin wild reindeerin Nor- spread forest dieback has been observed in seNieralother way (e.g. Skogland1987, pers comm.). One may not rule countriesin central Europe,and to a lesserdegreein Scandi- out the possibilitythat theseconcentrationsareso high that navia(CE 1987b, Krauseetal. 1987). Acid rainaffectsdecidu- they damage genetic materialin reindeer(Skogland& Espeli- oustreesaswell asconiferousforest.Browsingbydeer makes en 1990). plantingof acid-resistanttreespeciesdifficult(Szukiel1987). Oil spillagefrom shipsor land basedindustryhaskilledthou- Different types of pollution are carried by riversto the sea. sandsof seabirds,includingabout 100,000 birdsin Skagerrak The Balticis renowned as the most polluted sea in Europe durihg the winter of 1980/81 (Anker-Nilssenet al. 1981). (e.g Lassig1987, Rapport1989). Wa-terfrom the Balticemp- Chemical treatment of oil-spill at sea may negativelyaffect ties into Skagerrakand the North Sea, and along with pollu- the marine ecosystems(Zachariassen1989), but the effects tion agentsfrom countriessurroundingthe North Seahasal- on sea bird populationsare poorly known. In countrieslike tered the ecologicalbalanceof the sea(e.g. Carlson1986). In Norway, environmentalimpact analysesare mandatory pre-

nina taredning018

requisitesto exploratory oil drilling at sea (Griffiths et al. cluding brown hare, grey partridgeand pheasant(e.g. Fryle- 1987, Anker-Nilssen1988). stam et al. 1981, Potts 1986). Habitat lossand detoriation may interact with increasedpredation in driving the game Internationalcooperation is vital in fighting pollution, and populationsdownwards(Potts1984). Severalwildlifespecies severalagreementsconcerning a variety of substancesfrom are killedby agriculturalmachinery,and this is probablythe many regionshave been ratified. For example governments main reason for the declines in populations of corncrake have agreed upon halving the pollution of the North Sea (Crex crex) (Cadbury& O'Meara 1985). from 1985 to 1995. Statisticsondischargesoftoxicwasteare regularlycollected (e.g. ECE 1987, OECD 1987). Prognosis To reduce the threat to traditional farming systems,and concerning developments in pollution levels are being henceto manywildlifespecies,the EECin 1985 (EECRegula- workedout (e.g. Alfsen& Glomsrød1986). tion 797/85) introduced the concept of "Environmentally SensitiveAreas"(ESA).This enables member Statesto pay National monitoring programs similar to those imposed in farmers in "ESA"anannual premium per ha if they manage Sweden (Bernes1985) are imperative.Although game may land in prescribedwaysto sustainwildlife. From 1987 "ESA" be used as indicatorsof environmentalpollution (e.g. Dia- could be supportedalsoby EECbudgets. However,it isdiffi- mond & Filion1987, Stokesand Piekarz1987), no major Eu- cult to securemanagementto safeguardwildlife populations ropean program on this kind of study has been initiated. A in "ESA"(Woods1989). potential project is now being evaluated by the Statistical Commissionof the ECE(United Nations EconomicCommis- Central European moorland is particularlyvulnerable, and sion for'Europe). In many countries,pollutersare forced to only vestigealpopulationsof black grouse remain in these payfor cleaningu-p. areas(Niewold & Nijland 1988). In Great Britainsheepgraz- ing has led to lossof rfioorland,and hence of lossof habitat suitableto many wildlife species,suchas red grouse(Ander- 6.2 Human use of land and resour- son & Yalden1981). ces Modern forestrytechniqueseliminateimportant environmen- tal nichesprovided by primary forest, and increasehabitat Much of the natural environment in Europeis today either coarse-patchfragmentation(BurgessEzSharpe 1981, Harris createdor heavilyinfluencedby human activity(e.g. Gossow 1984, Ahlen et al. 1986, Ellenberg1987). Herbicidesremove 1985, Strandgaard1985). Some previouslyproductivegame low bushyvegetationwhich previouslyprovidednutrient re- habitats have become wildlife desertsbecauseof urbaniza- sourcesforgame species(e.g. Lund-HøyeEtzGrønvold1988). tion, industry, power development and road building, to The capercailliehassufferedmostfrom modern forestryfrag- mentiononly a few. mentation and lossof suitablehabitat, i.e. old forestswith an abundantground layerof bilberry(Vaccinium myrtillus) (e.g. In West Germany, one million hectaresof wildlife habitat RolstadEzWegge 1987, in press,Klauset al. 1989, Gossowin were lostbetween 1953 and 1983, and today there are only press).On the other hand, browsing for moose and other 370 regionswith a 100 km2 areawhich have not been frag- cervidshasincreasedconsiderably(e.g. Ahlen 1975, Adamic mented by development and road building. These figures 1986b). correspondto about 15% of the entire area of West Germa- ny. Through these areasthere are numerousfoot pathsand Tourism and outdoor recreationalsportshave increased,re- ski,tracks. Recreationalactivity in forested regions has in- sulting in greater disturbance of wildlife habitat (e.g. creasedby 500% between 1950 and 1980, in someareasby G6tmark 1989). Examplesare camping which affectsshore- 1000%, e.g. seeVolk (1986) and CE(1987b). line habitat for birds, and skiing in Central-Europe (Volk 1986). The pressurefromtourism is particularlyheavyin the Changes in methods employed by agricultureand forestry coastalzoneof the Mediterranean(Saliba1988). have had enormousconsequencesforwildlife.About 50% of the entire area of Europeis exploitedfor agriculturalpurpos- Fisherieshavereducedthe availablefood'for severalseabird es. Modern agricultureis characterizedby monoculture.The species(Croxall et ai. 1984). Over-exploitation of herring sizeof fieldshasincreased.Chemicalsare usedto killweeds, (Clupeus harengus) is responsibleforthe decimationof puffin fungi and insects. Bushy vegetation around fields and in (Fratercula arctica) populationsalong parts of the Norwe- hedgesare removedand open ditchesand damsarefilled in. gian coast,where young puffin$have starvedto death since Fertilizerdrains into watercourseswhich become eutrophic. 1970 (Barrettet al. 1987). In 1987, the collapseof the cape- Theseagriculturalpracticesaffectseveralgame species(Mur- lin population(Mallotus villosus) in the BarentsSeahasled to ton 1971, O'Connor & Shrubb 1986, Andersson1988), in- neartotal exterminationof severalcoloniesof guillemot(Uria

aalge) on the Norwegiancoast(Vaderet al. 1990). Drowning lated at 100 million dollarsannually(DJV 1987). Big garrie in fishingnetsisa significantcauseof death for many seabird collisionswith trains result in delaysand inconveniencefor species,but accuratedata is lacking. Harp seal (Pagophilus railwaypersonnel. groenlandicus) populationshavealsobeen affectedby lackof food, as demonstrated by the massinvasionof sealsalong A large numberof wildlife speciesmaycauseconsiderablelo- the coastof northern Norway during the winter of 1986/87. cal damage, suchasisthe casewith damagesto aquaculture At least60,000 sealsdrownedin fishingnets(Wiig 1988b). by eiders,grey herons (Ardea cinerea), otters and seals(e.g. FAO 1989). Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) may Many birdsare killedby power lines(e.g. Bevanger1988, Be- harm Britishmusseland cocklefishing(Murton 1971). Bea- vanger & Thingstad 1988). Big game and small game may vers may by dam-building over-flow forest planting areas. be killedin large numbersby traffic(e.g. Ueckermann1964, Birdsmay be hazardousfor aircraft (e.g. Busnel& Giban Almkvistet aL 1980). Orienteering competitionsmay affect 1968). Locallyevenhoney buzzards (Pernis apivorus) may be wildlife, particularly pregnant deer and calves (Sennstam persecutedforharming bee hives(Dontshev1990). 1974, Jeppesen1987). Game farming may transportdiseases and competewith wild livinggame speciesforhabitat. In UK One frequentlyemployed measureusedto reducedamage is there are at least10,000 red deer in farms, or parks,in West reduction of population size for the species in question Germany (FRG) 25,000 fallow deer (Hansen 1988). Hydro- through increasedordinary hunting or special pest killing electricdevelopmenthasoften a negativeimpact on the hab- schemes(Putnam 1989). These measuresmay be effective itats of many wildlife species(e.g. Bevanger & Thingstad providedthat they increasetotal mortalityrates(e.g. Murton 1986). et al. 1974, Potts1981). However,control measuresmustbe specificif they are not to damage more vulnerablespecies Official game management planning may reduce the effects (Wright 1980). of permanent encroachmenton game habitat. In Norway, maps indicating particularlyvulnerable wildlife areas have A problem arisingmay be that the speciesdoing damage is been worked out for the entire country. In 1985 a master not alwaysclassifiedasgame with an open hunting season. plan was ratified for the use of Norwegian water resources This means that they can only be killed after considerable and productionof electricpower. damage hasalreadybeen observed,or in somecasesonlyby speciallyauthorized personell(e.g. RSPB1989). Threatened speciesdoingdamage may only be killedon speciallicenseis- 6.3 Wildlife damage sued by local or central wildlife authorities.In certain such cases,the killing may be done regardlessof landowneror Wildlife may alsocauseproblems.Darnagesto forestry,agri- hunting rights. For example, in Norway, individual brown cultureand animalhusbandryhavealreadybeen mentioned. bearsand wolverineswhich are supposedto be responsible for considerabledamageto livestockmaybe killedby special- A "pest"is commonly defined as "any speciesor population ly appointed teams of hunterswithin the bordersof a given which by its activitiesconflictswith man'sintereststo a level municipality. where the damage caused becomes of economic significance"(Putnam 1989). However,the matter of when thislev- Wildlife may transmit diseasesto domestic animalsor hu- el of significanceisreachedis largelyevaluatedon a subjec- mans.Someexamplesare salmonella,tularemi,anthrax, and tive basis(e.g. Troostwijk1976). The activitycausingconflict hoof and mouth disease(Borg 1978). The most dangerous may be part of the normal behaviouralrepertoireof the spe- diseaseisrabieswhich is very widespreadin Central Europe. cies,or resultfrom abnormalor unusualbehaviour,e.g. "gar- It is absentfrom the BritishIsles,Iceland, Portugal,Greece bage bears". and Scandinavia(but occurson Svalbard).In West Germany, 1000-5000 casesof rabiesare annuallyobservedamong red The most serious damage to forestry and agriculture is fox, and 150-500 in roe deer (DJV1987). In 1987, 5 million causedby big game species,suchas red deer, roe deer and samplescontainingvaccineswere laid out throughout 1/3 of wild boar (e.g. König 1976, Ueckermann 1981). Not only the entire area of West Germany, to irnmunizeanimalssuc- mammalian predatorscan kill livestockandreindeer,but also ceptibleto infection.Similartacticsare alsousedin Belgium, golden eagles (Aquila chrysanos) may kill calvesand lambs France,Italy and Austria(CE 1988), and in Finland(Wester- (e.g. Karlsen1978). ling 1989). To stop the northerly spread of rabiesin Den- mark, comprehensiveexterminationsof red fox and badger Big game animalsmay causetraffic accidents,which some- were carried out in southern Denmark (e.g. Strandgaard& timeseven lead to human mortality.In West Germany,traffic Asferg1980). accidentscausedby wildlife have resultedin damagescalcu-

nina utredning018

7 Fauna protection However, measuresundertakento help certain speciesmay be harmful to other species.Hence, certain measureswhich intend to increaseexploitedgame populations,may be detri- Earlierin this report, many examplesof protectionof certain mentalto other wildlifespecies,or to the generalproductivity speciesagainsthunting have been mentioned.In somecases of the habitat. alsohabitatconservationmeasureswere used,aswas already the casewith the last living aurochsin Polandaround 1600 (Szafer1968). 7.1 Threatened species

However,more modern conservationmeasuresbecamemore Smit & Wijngaarden(1976, 1981) list36 speciesof mammals populararound 1900, and than to a large extent inspiredby asthreatenedin Europe.Fordefinitionsof differentcategories North Americanpolicies.Nationalassociationsfor naturecon- of threat, seeFitter& Fitter(1987). Excludingthe SovietUn- servationwere founded in Great Britainin 1895, in Francein ion, the following mammalianspeciesare regardedasendan- 1902, in Germany and in the Netherlandsin 1905 (Madsen gered: Europeanmink (Lutreola lutreola), otter, monk seal 1979). (Monachus monachus) (in the Mediterranean) and mouflon (the purebred populationon Corsica). In addition to some Most conservationwork during the firstyearswas, however, speciesof whale, the following are characterizedas vulnera- relatedto sitesof particularbeauty. But protectionof charac- ble: wolf, wolverine,lynx, pardellynx, walrus (Odobemus ros- teristicecosystemsand vulnerablespecieswere alsooften tak- martis) (on Svalbard),common seal, ringed seal, grey seal, en into consideration.A famous contribution is a book by SpanW-libex(Capra pyrenaica) and red deer (sub-specieskur- Hornaday(1913) on our vanishingwildlife. sicanus on Sardinia).The following are categorized as rare species:brown bear, polarbear,genet (Genetta genetta), wild- There are many legal methodsfor protectingwildlife species cat (Felis catus) and muskox (after introductionsin Scandi- and their habitats(e.g. Ranerås1985) includingthe follow- naviaand Svalbard,seeMyrberget1987). ing: 1) protect habitat as reservesand national parks,2) protect Within the partsof Europedescribedin this paper, only one particularspeciesagainsthunting, 3) minimizethe detrimen- bird speciesisclassifiedasendangeredin the IUCN BirdRed tal effectsof human use of habitat and resources,4) ascer- Data book (seeParslow& Everet1981, ICPB& IWRP1987), tain that the total benefits of certain human activitiesare i.e. the Spanishimperialeagle (Aquila adalberta). Three spe- greater than the costs,and 5) control that the levelof out- ciesare internationallyregardedasvulnerable:the Dalmatian put of certain chemicalsare lessthan given limits.Measures pelican(Pelicanus crispus), the white-tailed eagle (Haliaëtus (1) and (2) are most commonly used. However, protected albicilla) and the peregrine (Falco peregrinus). Audouin'sgull areascoveronly smallpartsof any country, e.g. about 4% in (Larus audouinii) and roseatetern (Sterna dougallii) are rare. Fennoscandiancountries(Norderhaug & Norderhaug1986). Severalspecieshave been registeredas candidatesfor the Thereforethe management of unprotected areasis also of Red Data book. Among thern are the lesserwhite-fronted great importance.Other species-orientedmeasuresthan pro- goose(Anser erythropus), four speciesof birdsof prey,the lit- tection may be of significance(see Temple 1977). Here, tle and great bustard (Otis tetrax and 0. tarda) and the corn- measuresdirected at conservationof particularspecieswill crake. The list also includesthe probably most threatened be emphasized. bird speciesin Europe,the slender-billedcurlew (Numenius te- nuirostris) which breedsin Siberiaand is hunted during mi- International protection of threatened specieshas in later grationsoverthe Mediterranean. yearsbeen the responsibilityof IUCN's SurvivalServiceCom- mission(SSC)which was founded in 1950 and becamea full Most countriescompile national listsof threatened species. commisionin 1956 (Fitter & Fitter 1987). A milestonewas In Francethe listcontains59 threatened speciesof mammal the publicationof the two first Red Data books,on threat- and 36 birds. Seven mammals and 61 birds are listed in ened mammals and birds, in 1966. A Red Data book is de- Norway (Christensen& Eldöy 1988). In Finland, 17 mam- fined as a registerof threatenedwildlife that includesdefini- mals and 38 birdsare listed,although many of these in the tionsof the degreeof the threat (Fitter& Fitter1987). category of unsufficientlyknown (Miljöministeriet 1986). Figuresfrom differentcountriesare unfortunatelynot direct- Lateron, most Europeancountrieshave made their own na- ly comparable, because different criteria are used (e.g. tional Red Data books. Main measuresin fauna protection järvinen & Miettinen 1988). The ECEhas now starteda pro- now involve habitat protection, including wildlife reserves ject for coordinating national listsof threatened speciesin and nationalparks. Europe.

32 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

The mostsignificantthreatsto wildlifespeciestodayare alter- troductionshavebeen unsuccessful,suchasthat of wild boar ation of habitat, biocidesand measuresforpredator control. to Ireland(Lever1985), and of penguinsto northernNorway Ordinary hunting alone hardly representa seriousthreat to (Niethammer 1963). any Europeanspeciesof wildlife. Illegal collectionsof eggs and young of rare bird speciesis a problem in many areas Severalsuccessfulre-introductionshave already been men- (e.g. Cramp 1977). tioned, including the beaver in Scandinavia.Birdsof prey suchas the white-tailed eagle in Scotland(Love 1988), the Globally speaking, Europehas a low number of threatened goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Great Britain (Marquiss & species(Diamond et al. 1987). One explanationfor this is Newkin 1982) and the griffonvulture (Gyps fulvus) in France, that civilizationin Europeis ancient, and many specieswere håve also been successfullyre-introduced.Even the raven probablyalreadyexterminatedin the past. In addition, there (Corvus corax) has been re-introduced to Belgium (Lever are few isolatedoceanicislands,and no rainforestswhichon 1987). Re-introductionof ibex to Czechoslovakiaby using other continentssupportmany threatenedspecies(e.g. Soul two exotic subspecieswas, however, unsuccessful(Read& 1987). Harvey1986).

The international conventionspreviouslyitentioned are of Re-stockingis sometimes essentialfor maintaining popula- major importancefor conservationwork(Grimmett & Jones tions, as is the casewith the pheasantin the northerlyareas 1989), while the World Heritage Convention of 1972, and of its distribution.Introductionsmay alsobe usedto streng- CITESor the WashingtonConventionof 1973 on Internation- then threatenedpopulationslikethe peregrineand the eagle

al Trade in EndangeredSpeciesof Wild Animals (see Lyster • owl (Bubo bubo) in Scandinavia(Myrberget1987). In Central 1985) has hardly resultedin significantadvantagesfor Euro- Europe,introductionsareusedin attemptsto savethreatened peanwildlife, althoughthey are of great importanceon other populationsof woodland grouse (Aschenbrenner1985). Re- continents,e.g. in Third Worldcountries. introductionshave been necessaryto conservethe famous population of barbary apes (Macaca sylvanus) at Gibralter (Niethammer 1963). 7.2 IntroductIons In the past, most exotic specieswhichwere introducedacci- Successfulintroductionsof exotic speciesmay conspicuously dentally,had escapedfrom fur farms. More recently,interest alter a country'sfauna (e.g. Ebenhard1988, Whelan 1990). for farming deer specieshasincreased.Evenin a smallcoun- Re-introductionsmay build up populationswhere a species try like Denmark, there are more than 400 deer farmswith has previouslydied out. Introductionsmay be deliberate,or more than 2000 animals,mainlyfallow deer (Hansen1988). resultfrom animalsescapingfromcaptivity.The IUCN (1987) In many countriesestablishmentofsuchfarmsisstrictlycon- has passeda resolutionconcerningacceptable premisesfor trolled to protect wild living populations (see also IUCN introductions.Regulationsandlawsin many countriessevere- 1988, Hudsonet al. 1989). ly restrictintroductions.The Council of Europehasfound it necessaryto passa specialrecommendationon introduction of cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) and other non- 7.3 Game management versus nativeLeoporidae(CE1985b). conservation

Severalexamplesof successfulintroductionsof exotic species Today hunting isgenerallyacceptedasa part of conservation havealreadybeen mentioned.Introductionswereparticularly providedit exploitsrenewableresources.Biggame huntingis common in Great Britain(Linn 1979), and include 3 species regarded as necessaryin the absenceof effectivepredators. of pheasant, red-legged partridge, bobwhite quail (Colinus As previouslymentioned,huntersare often engagedin prac- virginianus), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), mandarin ticalwildlife management, much of which hasdirect positive duck (Aix galericulata), Egyptiangoose(Alopochus aegyptia- consequencesforgeneralcbnservation efforts. cus) and the red-neckedwallaby (Macropus rufogrisens) (Lev- er 1985, 1987). Speciesintroducedin other countriesare the On the other hand, one must admit that game management Californiaquail (Lophonyx californicus) and the mongoose often only considersshort-termbenefitsdesignedto increase (Herpestes ichneumon). a huntingyield. Exoticgame specieswereintroducedregard- lessof environmentalconsequences.Thenumberof gunshas European game specieslike the mute swan (Cygnus olor) been increasingrapidly in later years.Hunting may increase have also been transferredto other Europeancountries.An- pressureonspeciesalreadythreatenedby pesticidesorhabi- other example is the introductionof brown haresto Ireland, tat destruction.On the other hand, nationalparks,naturere- Swedenand Finland(Niethammer-1963). However,many in- servesandspeciesprotectionmay reduceexploitationof cer-

nina utredning018 tain viable populations.Thereforethere is alwaysa degreeof conflictof interestsbetween game managementand wildlife 8 Wildlife research conservation. Wildlife managementshouldbe basedon resultsof research. In Europethere is an increasingoppositionto hunting. Atti- In many countries,centralinstitutionsare responsibleforap- tudesagainsthunting are relatedto scientificaswell asemo- plied research,whilein othersresponsibilityrestswith univer- tional arguments.Oppositionappearsto be particularlycon- sities.One seriousproblem is that resultsof researchoften spicuous in Italy, among both landowners and never reach thoseengaged in practicalwildlife management conservationists(Spina1987). This may be due to prevailing (Pettersson1987). Wildlife management is in many cases lackof respectfor hunting laws, high densitiesof hunters,no basedon preconceivedideasabout usefulmeasures. landowners'hunting rights, little active game management, large numbersof smallbirds in the hunting yields,and lack- On the other hand wildlife researchisnot alwaysdesignedto ing hunting statistics.Two-thirdsof the population of Italy solvepracticalproblems.A scientistisgenerallyevaluatedac- areopposedto hunting, and 3/4 of the youngergeneration. cordingto purelyscientificcriteria,and respectfor appliedre- searchshouldbe increased. Antipathy concerning hunting is also increasingin parts of Scandinavia,buthunting isfar more accepted.In 1980, 18% Large-scaleresearchschemesoncentralgame speciesstarted of the populationof Sweden had a positiveattitude toward already around 1900, such as researchon deer in Germany hunting, while 54% accepted hunting practices(Ekström (see Raesfeldt1898) and on red grouse in Scotland (Com- 1981). Only 10% were directlyopposed.Aversionto hunting mittee of Inquiry on Grouse Disease 1911). Around the wasgreatestin cities,where it was regardedasan obstacleto World War II, the influencefrom North American scientific the pursuitof other outdoor recreationalactivities.Women publicationswas marked, e.g. the work done by Errington frequentlycited ethicalreasonsforopposinghunting. (1946). In the 1950's important researchprojectswere made or startedup in many Europeancountries,suchasstudieson The Committee of Ministersof the Council of Europepro- roe deer in Denmark(Andersen1953) and on tetraonid birds poseda hunter'scode of conduct (CE 1985) as a meansfor in Fennoscandiaand Great Britain (Hagen 1952, Siivonen reducingoppositionto hunting.Thiscontainedguidelinesfor 1957, Jenkinset al. 1963). Studieson general ecology and hunter behaviour,and responsibilityfor natural heritage af- ethology (e.g. Tinbergen 1951, Lack 1954) inspiredapplied fecting humanity in general. The Council of Europe (CE research. 1987a) has more recently found it necessaryto emphasize the value of hunting and its role in preservationof wildlife There is no formalizedgeneral cooperationbetween wildlife habitat researchbodiesin the differentEuropeancountries.The main purposeof the IUGB(The InternationalUnion of Game Biolo- gists)is to arrangebiennialinternationalgame researchcon- gresses,whichmost often are held in Europe.Formalizedre- gional researchcooperation schemes such as the Nordic Councilfor WildlifeResearchdoexist.The IWRBhasits head- quartersat Slimbridge,Englandand coordinatesregistration and monitoring schemeson waterfowl and wetlands. Other international organizationslike the ICBP involve scientists from many Europeancountriesin their work. Many of the congressesandsymposiaarrangedwithin Europesuchasthe grouse symposiaarranged by the World PheasantAssocia- tion, are of great significance.International ornithological and theriologicalcongressesarealsoof great value for Euro- peanscientists.

In the rapidlychangingworld of today, wildlife management requires more than ever information obtained through research.Due to more sophisticatedresearchmethodsbeing in use, many more questionsmay be asked now than before. Computersand softwareenabletestingof complex modelsof populationtheory by handlinglargedata sets.

34 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. nina utredning018

Experience, including that gained through research on moose and wild reindeerin Norway, hasshown that wildlife 9 Concluding remarks investigationsare particularlyeffectivewhen done in coope- rationwith practicalwildlifemanagement.However,more re- The managementschemesfor wildlife vary from countryto cently there isa tendencytoward financialsupportfor moni- country.This is alsothe casefor management of game spe- toring and for short term research projects. Progressin ciesand their habitats,and for game harvestingsystems.The wildlife ecology must primarily be made through long term most effectiveand productivesystemsarefound in countries programscombining theoretical,experimentaland practical where the landownerscontrol hunting rights,or where offi- research. cialsor hunting clubsstrongly regulatethe harvest(seealso Bubenik1989). Overexploitationof game stocksisoften the casein other partsof Europe.

This short review indicatesthat cooperationbetween different countriesin wildlife management shouldbe improved.I do not thereby imply that all countriesshould have similar hunting seasonsetc.,but common managementaimsof animal populationswhich crossnational boundariesare essen- tial.

Wildlifemanagementschemesseemto be built more on tradition than politicalsystems;e.g. the revier systemusedin Eastand West Germany have many aspectsin common. On the other hand, the revolutionin Portugalin 1974 hasobvi- ouslycontributedto deteriorationin controlsof hunting activities.

Many of the mesauresused in wildlife management should be scientificallyevaluated.However, constructivecriticismis largelybeyondthe scopeof this report.

In recent years, global and national challengesconcerning the future of wildlife populationshasfortunatelyled to grow- ing awarenessof the need for good basic knowledge, increased international cooperation and generally accepted short-and long-termconservationstrategies.Huntersare in- creasinglyconsciousof the fact that game populationscan- not be managedfor the sakeof hunting alone. Thesetrends combined give hope for the future. However, many of the tasksareformidable,needinggreat effortsto be solvedon local, nationaland internationallevels.

ninautredning018

migratorybirdsin Europeishighlydependenton internation- 10 Summary al agreements,in particularthe Berne conventionof 1979, the EECBirdDirectiveof 1979 and the RamsarConventionof Thisreportpresentsa briefreviewof somepracticesandprin- 1971. ciplesof Europeanwildlifemanagement.The SovietUnion is not discussed.Emphasisisplacedon managementof hunted Game management practicesused for non-migratorysmall species(game), but conservationmeasuresinvolvingother game speciesarelargelyleft up to landowners.In somecoun- fauna are alsomentioned. The review includesall speciesof tries in central and eastern Europe, certain management birdsand mammalswith the exceptionof insectivores,bats, measuresare obligatory. Among practicesoften employed smallrodentsandwhales. are predator control, introduction of game, and feeding. Measuresforconservingor increasingthe productioncapaci- Applied methodsfor game management and hunting in Eu- ty of naturalhabitator diminishingthe negativeeffectsof hu- rope are clearly influenced by practicescommon in other man activities,areincreasinglyimportant. partsof the world. Game managementin Europetoday, has historicalrootsin.classicalGreekand Romancivilization. The most productivehuntablepopulationsare usuallyfound in countrieswhere hunting rightsare exercisedby landown- The time between 800 and 1800 A.D. may be characterized ers,or where authoritiesor hunterorganizationsstrictlyregu- as a periodwhere the exclusivehunting rightsof the aristo- late hunting yields. In countrieswhere hunting priviledges cracyexpanded,and littlewas done to protectgame species. are open for everyone, many game speciesare obviously Around 1800, the aristocracywasdeprived of hunting privi- over-exploited.In such countries,opposition to hunting is ledges,and hunting pressurewasregulatedby game authori- considerableandincreasing. ties.At the sametime, activemethodsfor conservingandin- creasing the production of game specieswere gradually Human activitiesincreasinglylead to problemsfor the pro- introduced. ductionof manygame species,andthreaten the existenceof some. These activitiesinclude agriculture,forestry, tourism Game management is practicedat many different levelsby: and industry. Pollution, such as acid precipitation and ex- central and local authorities,landowners,huntersand other haust from •automobiles,have negative consequencesfor personsinterestedin nature. To a varying extent, hunting game populationsand their natural habitats. 1nsome cases rights are associatedwith landownershiprights. Excluding conflictsarise between game management intended to in-. the SovietUnion,there are about 8 millionhuntersin Europe, creasehuntingyieldsand the interestsofconservation. or approximately1.6 huntersper km2. Membershipin hunters associationsis either voluntary or obligatory. 1n most Wildlife management increasinglyemphasizesthe impor- countries,an obligatoryhunter'sexaminationhasbeenintro- tanceof research.However,at the presenttime there isno induced. The examination involvestheoretical knowledge as ternationalorganizationto coordinatewildlife researchin lu- well asthe practicaluseof firearms. rope. Much modern game managementis a continuationof age old traditionsand biasedattitudes. Evaluationof which game speciesis most important varies throughout Europe.Economicallyspeaking,differentspecies Althoughthe threat to many game speciesand their natural of big game (larger herbivorousmammals) are of greatbst habitatsincreases,the desireto solveproblemshas also be- significance.Theinitialvalueof game felled in Europeisesti- corne stronger. Solutionsare dependent upon considerable mated at 700 millionU.S.dollars. localand nationaleffortand internationalcooperation.

In certain countries (Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland), each landowner may independentlycontrol the number of individualsofeach big game speciesto be killedon their own grounds.In other countries,quotasareestablishedbyauthor- itiesor huntersorganizations.1n most countries,hunting li- censesare issuedwithin defined hunting territories,which may be establishedby the government or voluntaryagree- mentswith landowners.

In contrastwith common practicein North America,there is no system in Europe to control the hunting pressureand yield of migratory birds along flyways.The managementof

36 © Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report. ninautredning018

satt i verk. 1 en del land i Sentral-Europaog Øst-Europaer 11 Sammendrag dog enkeltetiltakobligatoriske.Blanttiltaksomofte benyttes, er bekjempelseav rovvilt,utsettingerav vilt og utleggingav Utredningengir en kort oversiktover prinsipperog praksisi fôr. Stadigviktigereblir tiltak som tar siktepå å bevareeller europeiskviltstell.Sovjet-Unionener untatt. Hovedvektener øke terrengenesnaturligeproduksjonsevneavvilt, eller på å lagt på forvaltningenav jaktbarearter, men det er inkludert motvirkenegativefølgerav menneskeligbrukav arealene. noen tiltak for å bevareden høyerefauna. Oversiktenomfat- ter alle arter av fugler og alle pattedyr unntatt insektetere, De mestproduktivejaktbarebestanderfinner man som regel flaggermus,smågnagereog hvaler. i de land hvor grunneiernedisponererjaktretten, eller hvor myndigheterellerjeger-organsisasjonerstrengtregulererjakt- De metoder som benyttesi og de prinsippielleholdningertil uttaket.I en del land hvorjaktrettener fri, er åpenbartmange viltstellog jaktutøvelsei Europaer sterkt påvirketfra andre viltarteroverbeskattet.I disselandene er gjerne motstanden verdensdeler.Den nåværendepraksisharrøtter langt tilbake, mot jakt storog økende. bl.a. til det klassiskeHellasog Romerriket. Mennesketsulikevirksomheterførertil stadigøkendeproble- Tiden fra 800 til 1800 e.Kr.kan karakteriseressomen periode mer for produksjonenav mange viltarter og kan også true med framvekstav stormenneneseksklusivejaktretter,og med noen arterseksistens.Blantslikeaktiviteterer jordbruk,skog- liten sansfor aktivtvern om viltartene.Omkring 1800 mistet bruk, ferdsel og industri. Herunder kommer effektene på adelendisserettigheter,og dette førte til at jakttrykketmåtte viltet og dets miljø av forurensninger,som sur nedbør og reguleressentralti mange land. Samtidigble mer aktiveme- eksosfra biler. I en del tilfelleoppstår konfliktermellomvilt- toder til å bevareog øke viltproduksjoneniøkendegrad tatt i stellmed siktepå å økejaktutbyttetog genereltnaturvern. bruk. I økendegrad blirdet i viltstelletlagt vekt på forskningensre- Viltstelletdrivespå mange plan:av sentraleog lokalemyndig- sultater.Noen overnasjonalstyringeller planleggingav vilt- heter, grunneiere,jegere og andre naturinteresserte.Ivarie- forskningenfinnesimidlertid ikke i Europa.Mye av viltstellet rende grad er jaktretten knyttet til grunneier-retten.Utenom drivesennå med basisi tradisjonerog forutintatteoppfatnin- Sovjet-Unionener det omkring 8 millionerjegere i Europa, ger. dvs. 1,6 jegere pr. km2 landareal.Medlemskapi jegerforenin- ger er i varierendegrad frivillig eller obligatorisk.I de fleste Selvom truslenemot mange viltarterog deresmiljø harvært land er det nå innført en obligatoriskjeger-eksamen,som stadigøkende,synesogsåviljentil å løsemange problemerå bådeomfatter teoretiskefagog skyteferdighet. væreøkende.Men dette vil kreveen storinnsats,bådelokalt, nasjonaltoginternasjonalt. Hvilkeav de jaktbareartersom regnessomde viktigste,varie- rergjennom Europa.Økonomiskviktigster ulikearter av stor- Denne utredningener bekostetav NINA og Direktoratetfor vilt, dvs,størreplanteetendepattedyr. Førstehåndsverdienav naturforvaltning.Den er også å betraktesom et forarbeidtil det felte vilt er estimerttil 700 millionerUSdollar. et prosjektved FagligForfatterforeningomviltstellog viltfor- valtning. Enforkortet norskversjoner gitt i en artikkelseriei I noen få land (Danmark, Storbritanniaog Irland) kan grunn- "Naturen"i 1989-90. eierenefritt bestemme hvor mange av de ulikestorviltartene de vil felle på egen grunn. I andre land er jaktuttaketav stor- vilt i størreeller mindre grad regulertav myndigheteneeller av jeger-organisasjoner.I de fleste land er fellingslisensene knyttet til definerte jaktområder, som kan være fastlagt av myndigheteneellerfrivilligav grunneierene.

I motsetningtil hva somer tilfellei Nord-Amerika,finnesdet i Europaikke noe systemhvor jaktuttaketav trekkendefugler fastleggeslangstrekkruter(flyways).I forvaltningenav disse artene betyr internasjonaleavtalermye. Dette gjelder særlig Bern-konvensjonenav1979, EEC'sfugledirektivav 1979 og Ramsar-konvensjonenav1971.

• For stasjonærtsmåvilter det i stor grad opp til grunneieren ellerden som inneharjaktretten, hvilkeviltstell-tiltaksomblir

nina utredning018

12 References Bäumler,W., Postner,M. & Ueckermann,E.1986. Wirbeltiere. 5. - 1nSchwenke,W., ed. Die ForstschädlingeEuropas.Par- ey, Hamburg-Berlin. Aarnio,M. & Vikberg,P. 1980. Jänistenheinå- ja viljaruokin- Baillie-GrohmanW.H. & Baillie-Groman,A., eds. 1907. The nasta.- SuomenRiista28: 108-113. Masterof game by Edward,SecondDukeof York:the old- Adamfi,T. 1984. Az approvades a kartekonyvad teritekeEu- estEnglishbookon hunting.- Chatto& Windus,London. ropaban.- Nimrod 104: 524-525. Barrett,R.T.,Anker-Nilssen,T.,Rikardsen,F.,Valde,K., Røv,N. Adamic, M. 1986a. Wild und Jagd in Jugoslawien.- Allg. & Vader,W. 1987. The food, growth and fledgingsuccess Forst.Z. 97: 771-774. of Norwegian puffin chicksFratercula arctica in 1980- Adamic, M. 1986b. The land use changes in Sloveniaand 1983. - OrnisScand.18: 73-83. their influenceon rangeand densityof some(game) wild- BASC1989. 1988 annual report and accounts.- Shooting& life species.- pp. 588-600 in Proc.World Congr. IUFRO Conserv.(Summer):i-xvi. 18 (Ljubljana). Batten, LA. 1987. The effectivenessofEuropeanagreements Ahlen, I. 1975. Winter habitatsof mooseand deer in relation for wader conservation.- Wader Study Group Bull. 49. to land usein Scandinavia.-Viltrevy9: 45-192. Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 118-121. Ahlen, 1., Boström, U., Elmström, B. & Petterson,B. 1986. Bencze,L 1976. 6kologiskheGrundlagender Rotwildhegein Faunavård i skogbruket - allmen del. - Skogstyrelsen, Ungarn.- Wild & Hund 79,10: 225-229. Jönköping. Berger,A. & Grönberg,G. 1931. Jaktenhosskildafolk nu och Alfsen,K.H. & Glomsrød,S. 1986. Futureemissionsto air in fordom. - Natur & Kultur,Stockholm. Norway: forecastsbased on the macroeconomicmodel Bernes.,C.,ed. 1985. Monitor 1985. - National SwedishEnvi- MSG-4E.- Statist.J.UN ECE4: 219-236. ronmentalProtectionBoard,Stockholm. Alison,R.M. 1978. The earliestrecordsof waterfowl hunting. Bertelsen,J.& Simonsen,N.H. 1986. Documentationon bird - Wildl. Soc.Bull.6: 196-199. huntingandthe conservationstatusofthe speciesinvolved Almkvist,B.,Andre,T., Ekblom,S. & Rempler,S.-A.1980. Vil- situationin 1986. - Gameand WildlifeAdministrationDen- tolycksprojektet(VIOL). - Statens vågsverk, Stockholm, mark,Kalø.323 pp. 1980-05 TU 146, 117 pp. + App. Bevanger,K. 1988. Skogsfuglogkollisjonermedkraftledning- Andersen,J.1953. Analysisofa Danishroe deer population.- er i midt-norskskogsterreng.-Økoforsk.Rapp.1988,9: 1- DanishRev.Game Biol.2: 127-155. 53. Anderson,P. & Yalden,D.W. 1981. Increasedsheepnumbers Bevanger,K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1986. Vassdragsreguleringer and the lossof the heather moorlandin the PeakDistrict, og ornitologi.- ØkoforskUtredning1986,4: 1-82. England.- Biol.Conserv.20: 195-213. Bevanger, K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1988. Forholdet fugl - Andersson,S., ed. 1988. Fåglari jordbrukslandskapet.-Vår konstruksjonerforoverføringavelektriskenergi.- Økoforsk Fågelvårld,Suppl.12: 1-382. Utredning1988,1: 1-138. Anker-Nilssen,T. 1988. Metoder til konsekvensanalyserolje/ Bevanger,K.& Ålbu,Ø. 1987. Distributionalhistoryandpopu- sjøfugl.- Viltrapp.44: 1-113. lation developmentof the feral minkMustela vision Schre- Anker-Nilssen,T.,Jones,P.H. & Røstad,O.W. 1981. Age, sex ber, 1977 in Norway.- Medd. norskViltforsk.3,18: 1-22. and originsof auks(Alcidae)killedin the Skagerrakoiling Bibikow, 6.1.1988. Der Wolf. - Neue Brehm-Bacherei587. incidentof January1981. - Seabird11: 28-46. Wittenburg Lutherstadt. Anonymus1986a. Orienteringtil jægerneom: jakt og brug af Bieber,J.B.& Meylan,A. 1984. RebnetzeundVogelschutz.-Z. blyhagl.- Miljøstyrelsen,Köbenhavn. Obst-undWeinbau120,93: 516-522. Anonymus1986b. Hunting and wildlife in Turkey. - Turkish Bijleveld,M.G. 1974. Birdsofpreyin Europe.- Macmillan,Lon- Republic,GeneralDirectorateof Forestry. don. Anonymus1987. Resolutionofthe centralhunting commitee Bjørge,A. 1987. Parasiticnematodesinstomachsofgreyseals, for the 1987-1988 hunting season.- Republicof Turkey, Halichoerus grypus, and common seals,Phoca vitulina, in GeneralDirectorateof Forestry. Norwegian waters. - pp. 184-196 in CIC Coastal Seal Anonymus1989a. Das Seehundsterben1988 - Verlauf und Symp.(Oslo). Ursachen.- Seevdgel10,3: 41-42. Bløtekjær,K.1988. Blyellerstål.- DN-Rapp.1988,1: 1-75. Anonymus 1989b. Jågarenslagbok. - JågarnasCentralorg., Bobek,B., Kosobucka,M., Krazakiewies,H.,Perzanowski,K.& Östersundom. Wolf, R. 1990. Food,coverand human disturbanceasfac- Aschenbrenner,H. 1985. Rauhfusshühner.-Schaper,Hanno- tors influencingantler weight in red deer. - Trans. IUGB ver. Congr. 19 (Trondheim).In press. Auguet, R. 1972. Crueltyand civilzation:the Romangames.- Bonner,W.N. 1975. Internationallegislationand the protec- Allen& Unvin Ltd., London. tion of seals.- pp. 12-29 in Proc.Symp.SealsBaltic,1974 (Lidingd).

nina utredning 018 -

Borg. K. 1978. Viltsykdommer.(Norw. edition by G. Holt). - CE 1986. Illegal hunting and catching of protected birds.- Landbruksforlaget,Oslo. Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,T-PVS(86) 3, 10 pp. Borg,K.,Wanntorp, H., Erne,K. & Hanko,E.1969. Alkylmer- CE 1987a. Reporton the importanceof shootingfor Europe's cury poisoningin terrestrialSwedishwildlife. - Viltrevy6: ruralregions.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc.5745, 301-379. 9 1)1D. Boyd,H. & Pirot,J.-Y.1989. Flywaysandreservenetworksfor CE 1987b. Parlamentaryassemblyreport on protectingfo- water birds.- IWRBSpec.Publ.9. rests.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc.5748, 55 pp. Brander,M, 1971. Hunting & shooting.- Weidenfeld& Nicol- CE 1987c. Middelhavet og miljøet. - Naturopa Nyhetsbrev son,London. 87,1: 1-4. Briedermann,L.,ed. 1981. DieJagdin der DeutschenDemok- CE 1988. Vest-Tyskland:kampenmot hundegalskap.- Natu- ratischenRepublik.-Jagdinform.10: 1-75. ropa Nyhetsbrev88,4: 2-3. Briedermann,L. 1986. Schwarzwild.- Neumann, Neudamm- Chalmers,P. 1936. The historyof hunting. - Seeley,Service& Melsungen. Co. Ltd., London. Briedermann,L., Dittrich, G. & StUbbe,C. 1986. Entwicklung Christensen,H. & Eldøy,S. 1988. Truedevirveldyri Norge. - der Schalenwildbeständeinder DDR und Möglichkeiten DN-Rapp.1988,2: 1-99. der Bestandsregulierung.-Beit.jagdund Wildforsch.14: Cicnjak,L. & Ruff,R.L. 1990. Human-bearconflictsin Yugo- 16-32. slavia.- Trans.OUGBCongr.19 (Trondheim).In press. Briedermann,L., Dobias,K., Liess,C.& Sparing,H. 1989. Zur Clutton-Brock,J. 1981. Domesticated animals from early Herkunft und gegenwärtigen Verbreitung des Muffel- times.- Univ.TexasPress,Austin. wildes.- Beit.Jagd-undWildforsch.16: 11-19, Coles,C., ed. 1971. The complete book of game conserva- Brown,L.R.ed. 1990. Stateof the world. - Norton & Co., New tion. - Barrie& Jenkins,London. York- London. Committeeof Inquiryon GrouseDisease1911. The grousein Brink,F.H. van den 1968. Zoogdierengids.- Elsevier,Amster- health and disease;being the final report. - London. 2 - dam. vols. Bubenik,A.B.1970. KlassischeHege- KlassischerIrrtum?- Die Cooke, A.S., Bell,A.A. & Haas, M.B. 1982. Predatorybirds, Pirsch22,3:90-98. pesticidesandpollution. - Inst. TerrestrialEcol.,Hunting- Bubenik,A.B.1976. Evolutionofwildlifeharvestingsystemsin don. Europe.- Compte RenduEnvironm.Canada,Wildl. Serv., Cornwall, I.W. 1968. Prehistoricanimalsand their hunters.- Ottawa, CW 69-3140F: 110-119. Faberand Faber,London. Bubenik,A.B.1986. Grundlagender soziobiologischenHirsch- Cramp, S. 1977. Birdconservationin Europe.- Nature Con- wildbewirtschaftung.- pp. 97159 in PrinzReuss,ed. Rot- serv.Counsil,London. wild Graz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. Croxall,P., Evans,P.G.H.& Schreiber,R.W.,eds.1984. Status Bubenik,A.B.1989. Sporthuntingin continentalEurope.- pp. and conservationof the World's seabirds.- ICBPTech. 115-133 in Hudson, R.J.,Drew, K.R. & Baskin,L.M. eds. Publ.2, Cambridge. Wildlifeproductionsystems.CambridgeUniv. Press,Cam- Dagg, A.I. S.a.Wildlife management in Europe.- Otter Press, bridge- New York- PortCuster- Melbourne- Sydney. Waterloo,Ontario. Bugalho,J.F.F.,Cabral,M.J.M. & Guerreiro,A.F.B.1986. Situa- Dahl, E., Lindahl,0., Paasche,E. & Throndsen,J. 1989. The tion of red deer in Portugal.- pp. 195-201 in PrinzReuss, Chrysochromulina polylepsis bloom in Scandinavianwa- ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. tersduringspring1988. - In E.M. Cospered. A novelphy- Burgess,R.L.& Sharpe,P.M. 1981. Forestislanddynamicsin toplanktonbloom. Springer,Hamburg. man-dominatedlandscapes.-Springer-Verlag,Berlin. Dakyns,N.C. 1897. The works of Xenophon. (Transl.from Busnel,R.-G. & Giban,J. 1968. Colloquele problèmedesoi- Greek).- MacMillianPubl.Co., London.3 Vols. seauxsur les aerodromes,Nice 25-27 novembre 1963. - Danell, K. 1977. Dispersaland distributionof the muskratin Inst.Nat. Res.Agronom. Sweden.- Viltrevy10: 1-26. Cadbury,C.J.& O'Meara, M. 1985. The declineof the corn- Danell, K. 1980. Konsekvenseravblyhagelanvändingförvat- crake(Crex crex) in Europe.- pp. 754-756 -inActa Congr. tenfåglaroch deras miljö. - SverigesLantbruksuniv.,Inst. Int. Om. 18 (Moscow). Viltekologi,Rapp.4: 1-51. Carlson,H. 1986. Quality statusof the North Sea. - Dt. hy- Danell, K., Nelin, P. Wickman, G. & Bergman,R. 1987. Ce- drogr. Z. Erg.B16: 1-424. cium i älg efterTjernobyl-olyckan.-Viltnytt 24: 36-40. CE 1985a. On the training of hunters.- Council of Europe, Dannevig, L.C., Elman,R. & Stålbrand,K.M. 1983. Teknolo- Strasbourg,Rec.R(85) 17, 5 pp. giskForlagsstorebokom jakt. - TeknologiskForlag,Oslo. CE1985b. On the introductionof the Americancottontailrab- Delibes,M. 1984. Distributionand ecologyof the lberiancar- bit (Sylvilagus sp.) into Europe.- Councilof Europe,Stras- nivores:a short review. - pp. 359-378 in Trans. Congr. bourg, Rec.R(85) 14, 2 pp. IUGB15 (Trujillo).

39 ninautredning018

Diamond,A.W. & Filion,F.L.1987. The valueof birds.- ICBP, Frylestam,B.,Gerell, R. & Göransson,G. 1981. Fältviltetoch Cambridge. miljön.- Naturvårdsverket,Rapp.1447: 1-35. Diamond, A.W., Schreiber,R.L.,Attenborough,D. & Prest,I. Frøslie,A., Haugen,A., Holt, G. & Norheim, G. 1986. Levels 1987. Savethe birds.- CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge of cadmium in liver and kidneysfrom Norwegian cer- - London- New York. vides.- Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.37: 453-460. DJV1987. HandbuchJagd1987. - D. Hoffrnann,Mainz. GC 1981. Wildfowl management of inland waters. - Game Dontschev,S. 1990. Massnahmenzum Vogelschutzin Bul- Conserv.Publ.3: 1-108. garien.- Trans.IUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim).In press. GC 1986. Game in winter: feeding & management.- Game Dreschler,H. 1980. Ober die Beweihbildungbei Rothirschen Conserv.,Fordingbridge. im "RotwildringHorz"in der Jahren1959-1978. - Z. Jagd- Gerell, R. 1982. Faunavårdi stadsmiljö.- Naturvårdsverket, wiss.26: 207-209. Rapp.1622: 1-56. Ebenhard,T. 1988. Introducedbirdsand mammalsand their Gilbert, F.F. & Dodds, D.G. 1987. The philosophyand prac- ecologicaleffects.- SwedishWildl. Res.13: 1-107. ticeof wildlifemanagement.- KriegerPubl.Co., Malabar. ECE1987. EnvironmentstatisticsinEuropeand North Ameri- Gilbert, J.M. 1979. Hunting and hunting reservesinMediae- ca. - Statist.StandardsandStudies39. val Scotland.- J.Donald, Edinburgh. Eis,S., ed. 1989. Jægernekanvære med til at bremseudbre- Giles,R.H.1978. Wildlifemanagement.- Freeman& Co., San delsenaf skabhosdanskeræve.- Vildtinformation89: 1- Fransisco. 3. Gill, R.M.A. 1986. Der gegenwårtige Stand und die Bewirt- Eisler,R. 1985. Cadmium hazardsto fish,wildlife, and inver- schaftung des europäischen Rotwildes. pp. 9-24 in tebrates:a synopticreview. - US Fish.Wildl, Serv., Biol. Prinz Reuss,ed. RotwildGraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Rep.85(1.2): 1-46. Paris. Ekström,S., ed. 1981. Vilt och jakt: socialaoch ekonomiske Gill, R.M.A. 1988. Monitoring the status of Europeanand vården. - Jordbruksdep.,Stockholm,Ds Jo 1981: 5, 159 North Americancervids.- FinalRep.UNEP/GemsProsject pp. ST/4101-84-02 (PP/2551), 195 pp. Ellenberg,H. 1985. Immissions- herb layerproductivity- roe Glover, R. 1947. The wisent or Europeanbison.- J. Mamm. deer population dynamics: an ecological perspective.- 28: 233-242. pp. 1055-1061 in Trans.Congr. IUGB(Brussels)18. Gossow,H. 1976. Wildökologie:Begriffe,Methoden, Ergeb- Ellenberg,H. 1987. Fülle - Schwund - Schutz:Was will der nisse,Konsequenzen.-BLV,München. Naturschutzeigentlich?- Heimat 94: 289-300. Gossow,H. 1985. Wildtier-Schutzund Jagdtier-Hegein der Errington,P.L.1946. Predationand vertebratepopulations.- ProduktionslandschaftMitteleuropas.- pp. 73-86 in Trans. Quart. Rev.Biol.21: 144-177. Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels). FACE1986. Federationof huntersassociafionsofthe EEC.- Gossow,H. in press.Human land use activitiesand grouse: FACE,Brussels. positiveand negativeactivities.- Proc.Int. GrouseSymp. Falck, M.M. & Mysterud, I. 1988. Viltbruk i skogbruket.- 4 (Lam). Landbruksforlaget,Oslo. Gossow,H. & Stadlmann, G. 1985. Red deer management FAO 1989. Reportof the EIFACworking'partyon prevention and the useof overwinteringenclosures.-pp. 1069-1072 and controlof bird predationin aquacultureand fisheries in Trans.Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels). operations.- EIFACTech.Pap.51: 1-79. Gottschalk,J.S.1972. The German huntingsystem,WestGer- Festetics,A.,Berg,F.C.von & Sommerlatte,M. 1982. The re- many, 1968. - J.Wildl. Manage. 36: 110-118. introductionof the lynx in the easternAlps - a model of Goudie,A. 1981. The human impact.- Blackwell,Oxford. wildlife protectionand research.- pp. 353-357 in Trans. Greenway,J.C. Jr. 1967. Extinctand vanishingbirds of the Congr. IUGB14 (Dublin). world. - Dover, New York. Fitter, R. & Fitter, M. 1987. The road to extinction. - IUCN/ Griffiths,D.J., Øritsland, N.A. & Øritsland,T. 1987. Marine UNEP,Gland. mammalsand petroleumactivitiesinNorwegianwaters.- Fjeldstad,H., ed. 1987. Overvåkingsresultater1986. - SFT, Fisken& Havet B 1987,1: 1-179. Oslo. Grimmett, R.F.& Jones,T. 1989. Important bird areasin Eu- Fog, J., ed. 1983. Politikensjagtbok. - PolitikensForlag, rope. - ICBPTech. Publ.9. København. Göransson,G. & Larsson,T.-B. 1987. Hunting bags in Swe- Forest& WildlifeService1986a. Wildlife & the law. - Station- den - officialgame statisticsversusan enquiry. - p. 69 in ery Office,Dublin. Abstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow). Forest& Wildlife Service1986b. Reportfor 1986. - Minister Göransson,G.& Loman,J. 1978. Bojaktpå kråka- ett experi- for Energy,Dublin. ment. - Viltnytt 9: 35-40. Frank,H. 1984. DasFallenbuch.Ninth ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Götmark, F. 1989. Effekterav friluftslivpå fågelfaunan.- Na- Berlin. turvårdsverketRapp.3682: 1-62.

40 nina utredning018

Haaften, J.L.van 1986. Rotwild und seineHege in den Nie- Hepburn, I.R. 1984. Migratory bird hunting in European derlanden.- pp. 202-206 in PrinzReuss,ed.RotwildGraz Communitycountries.- FACE,Brussels. (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. Hilden, 0. & Sharrock,J.T.R.1985. A summaryof recentavi- Haagenrud,H., Morow, K., Nygren, K. & Stålfeldt,F. 1988. an changesin Europe.- pp. 716-736 in Acta Congr. Int. Managementof moosein Nordiccountries.- Swed.Wildl. Orn. 18 (Moscow). Res.,Suppl.1: 635-642. Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1986. Hand reared pheasants:how Haarstick,K.-H. 1985. The re-introductionof the capercaillie, do they comparewith wild birds. - Game Conserv.Ann. Tetrao urgallus L., in the Harzfrom 1975-1983, an experi- Rep.17: 76-84. ment and a contributionfor protectingspeciesofthe Low Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1987. Hand reared pheasants:how Saxon forestry administration,Western Germany. - pp. they affect productivity.- Game Conserv.Ann. Rep. 18: 385-400 in Proc.WPA Int. GrouseSymp.3 (York). 65-69. Hagen, H. 1989. Rå-dyr rådyrjakt?- Jakt& Fiske118,8: 54- Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1988. The pheasant:ecology,man- 55. agement and conservation.- BSPProff. Books,Oxford Hagen,Y. 1952. Rovfugleneogviltpleien.- Gyidendal,Oslo. London- Edinbourgh. Hamilton, H. 1980. Jaktvårdsområdenasutveckling åfter Hjeljord,0. 1980. Viltbiologi.- Landbruksforlaget,Oslo. 1938. - pp. 111-118 in Haglund, B. ed. Jågarenochvild- Hornaday, W.T. 1913. Our vanishing wildlife. New York naden. Sv.Jågareförbundet,Stockholm. Zool. Soc.,New York. Hansen, H.B. 1988. Dyrehaverog hjortefarmei Danmark. - Howell,F.C. 1972. Earlyman. - Time-LifeInc., Amsterdam. DanskeViltunders.44: 1-62. Hudson, P. 1986. Red grouse. - The Game Conserv.Trust, Hansen,P. 1928. Kongevildtog ædelvildt.- Schæffers,Kold- Fordingbridge. ing. Hudson, P.J.& Rands,M.R.W. 1988. Ecologyand manage- Harberg, J. 1988. Jakten interesserarmånga ålånningar. - ment of gamebirds.- BSPProff.Books,Oxford - London- Jågaren37(6): 27-28. Edinbourgh. Harradine,J. 1985. Duck shootingin the United Kingdom.- Hudson,R., Drew, K.R.& Baskin,L.M. 1989. Wildlifeproduc- Wildfowl 36: 81-94. tion systems.- Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge- New Harrington, R. 1982. The hybridisationof red deer (Cervus York- PortCluster- Melbourne- Sidney. elaphus L. 1758) and japanesesikadeer (C. nippon Tem- Huseby,K. & Bø, T. 1985. Vellykkautsetting av hare. - pp. minck 1838). - pp. 559-571 in Trans. Congr. IUGB 14 132-137 in Praktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF (Dublin). - DN - MVA, Oslo. Harris, LD. 1984. The fragmented forest. - Univ. Chicago Hutchinson,T.C. & Meema, K.M., eds. 1985. Effectson at- Press,Chicago- London. mosphericpollutantson forests,wetlandsand agricultural Heberlein,T.A. 1990. Economicvaluesof wildlife:their rele- ecosystems.-Springer-Verlag,Berlin. vance to wildlife managers. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 ICBP& IWRB1987. Important bird areasin Europe.- Magyar (Trondheim).in press. MadartaniEgyesulet,Visegrad. Heggberget; T.M. 1987. Utviklingenav den norskebestan- Innes,J.L.1987. Air pollutionand forestry.- For.Comm. Bull. den av kanadagjessinntil1984. - Fauna40: 1-9. 70: 1-28. Helgadottir,S., Peterson,A. & Bergmann,S. 1985. Selirog Isakovic,I. 1970. Game managementin Yugoslavia.-J.Wildl. hringormar.- Landvern,Reykjavik. Manage. 34: 800-812. Helle, E. & Kauhala, K. 1987. Supikoiranleviämishistorieja IUCN 1987. The IUCN positionstatementon translocationof kantojennykytilaSuomessa.-SoumenRiista34: 7-21. livingorganisms.- IUCN, Gland, 20 pp. Helle, E. & Stenman, 0. 1987. Reproductionand population IUCN 1988. Captivebreeding- the IUCN policystatement.- size in the Baltic ringed seal. - Int. Council Explor.Sea, Species10:27-28. C.M. 1987,4: 1-8. Jaren,V. 1988. Elgforskningogelgforvaltning.- Direktoratet Helminen, M. 1977. Hunter qualificationand educationpro- for naturforvaltning,Trondheim. grams in Finland.- Trans. NA Wildl. Nat. Res.Conf. 42: Jelinek, R. 1986. Rotwildbewirtschaftungin Hegegemeins- 100-103. chaften. - pp. 38-69 in Prinz Reuss,ed. RotwildGraz (A) Heikura,K., Pulliainen,E., Danilov, P.J.,Erkinaro,E., Markov- 19-22. Jun1986. CIC, Paris. sky, V.A., Bljudnik, L., Sulkava,S. & Lindgren, E. 1985. Jenkins,D., Watson,A. & Miller, G.R. 1963. Populationstud- Wild forestreindeer,Rangifer tarandus fennicus Lønnb.,its ies on red grouse, Lagopus lagopus scoticus (Lath.) in historicaland recent occurranceand distributionin Fin- northeastScotland.- J.Anim. Ecol.32: 317-376. land and the KarelianASSR(USSR)with specialreference Jeppesen,J.L. 1987. The disturbing effects of orienteering to the development and movementsof the Kuhmol(Fin- and hunting of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). - Danish land) - Kamennojozero(USSR)subpopulation.- Aquilo Rev.Game Biol.13,3: 1-24. Ser,Zool. 23: 22-45.

41 ninautredning018 jepsen, P.U., ed. 1985. Vildtreservaterneog vandfuglene. - König, R. 1983. Abschussplanung und Bejagung des Landbrugsmin. Vildtforvaltning, Vildtreservatkontoret, rnånnlichenRehwildesnach Altersklassen.-pp. 137-150 Kalø. in Hofmann, R.R. ed. WildbiologischeInformationen fQr Johnsen,S.1947. Ulven.- pp. 268-228 in Føyn,B.and Huus,J. den Jäger.Jagd + Hege AusbildungsbuchIl. Seconded. eds.NorgesdyrelivI. Cappelen,Oslo. EnkeVerlag,Stuttgart. Järvinen,0. & Varvio, S.-L 1986. Pronenessto extinctionof Lack,D. 1954. The natural regulationof animal numbers.- small populationsof seals:demographicand genetic sto- OxfordUniv. Press,Oxford. chastieityvs.environmentalstress.-FinnishGameRes.44: Lahti.S. & Helminen, M. 1974. Castor fiber and C. canaden- 6-18. sis in Finland.- ActaTheriol.19: 177-189. fårvinen, 0. & Miettinen, K. 1988. Sista paret ut? Om na- Lampio,T. 1982. Hunting rationalization- a tool for manage- turvårdensbiologi-.-Miljdforlaget,Helsingfors. •ment of waterfowl populations.- pp. 107-112 in Proc. Kalchreuter,H.1977. Die Sachemit der Jagd.- BLV,Miinchen Tech. Meet. WesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Par- - Bern- Wien. is). Kalchreuter,H. 1987. Wasserwildim Visier.- BLV,München - Lampio,T. 1983. Waterfowl hunting in Europe,North Ameri- Wien - Zürich. ca and some African and Asiancountriesin 1980-81. - Karlsen,S.1978. Tap av bufeog reinog våre,ørnersforholdtil IWRBSpec.Publ.3: 1-35 dissedyra.- Viltrapp.6: 1-59. Lang,G. 1986. Genetik und Cerviden.- pp. 405-422 in Prinz Kierdorf,U. & Kierdorf,H. 1990. Chronicfluoridetoxicosisin Reuss,ed.RotwillCraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. game animals.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 (Trondheim). In Larsen,T. 1972. Norwegian polar bear hunt, management press. and research.- pp. 159-164 in Herrero, S. ed. BearPro- Klaus,S.,Andreev,A.V.,Bergmann,H.-H., MüIler, F.,Porkert,J. ceedings.IUCN, Morges. & Wieser,J.1989. DieAuerhühner.Seconded. - Die Neue Lassig,J.,ed. 1987. Firstperiodicassessmentofthe state of Brehm-Blicherei86,Ziemsen,WittenbergLutherstadt. the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1980- Klemm,C. de 1979. legal aspectsof habitat preservationfor 1985; backgrounddocument. - BalticSea Environ.Proc. westernPalearcticwaterfowl.- pp. 192-201 in Proc.Tech. 17B. MeetingWesternPalearcticMigr.BirdManage.2 (Paris). Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. - Schribner'sSons, Korsch, J. von 1985. Ober den Einfluss einer New York. Prådatorenbejagungauf Auerwildpopulationenin zwei Leopold,A. 1936a. Deer and Dauerwaldin Germany. J. For. Schwarzwaldrevieren.-Allg. Forst-u. Jagd-Ztg.156: 106- 34: 366-375, 460-466. 111. Leopold,A. 1936b. Notes on game administrationin Germa- Kowalski,K. 1986. Die Tierweldt des Eiszeitalters.- Wissers- ny. - Arn.Wildl. 25,6: 85, 92-93. chaft.Buchverlag,Darmstadt. Lever,C. 1985. Naturalized mammalsof the world. - Long- Krafft,A. 1981. Utbredelseog bestandsstørrelseavvillrein. - man, BurntMill. Viltrapp.18: 1-92. Lever,C. 1987. Naturalized birds of the world. - Longman, Krause,G.H.M., Arndt, U., Brandt,C.J.,Bucher,J.,Kenk,G. & BurntMill. Matzner, E. 1987. Forestdeclinein Europe:development Lindlöf, B. 1979. Bortkastadepengar at plantera ut bu- and possiblecauses.-pp. 647-668 in Martin, H.C. ed. Acid roppfdddaskogsharar.-SvenskJakt17: 886-888. precipitation.ReidelPubl.Co., Dordrecht- Boston. Lindner,K. 1937. Die Jagdder Vorzeit.- Gruyter& Co., Berlin Kristiansson,H.1985. Vildsvinetsbiologioch skadegörelse.- - Leipzig. Zool. Inst.Univ.Lund,unpubl.slutrapp.37 pp. Lindner,K. 1940. Die Jagdin frühen Mittelalter. - Gruyter & Krysiak,K.1967. The historyofthe Europeanbisonin the Bia- Co., Berlin. lowiezaforestand the resultsofitsprotection.- ActaTheri- Lindner,K. 1973. Beitrågezu Vogelfangund Falknereiim Al- ol. 12: 323-332. tertum. - Gruyter,Berlin- New York. Krzemien,M.P. 1987. XVIII CongressofInternationalUnionof Lindner, K. 1985. Zum SelbstverståndnisderJåger.- Repr. GameBiologistsKrakow- PolandAugust1987. - Mysliwiec, Jagdund Hund (15-18), 15 pp. Krakow. Lindström,E. & Mörner, T. 1985. The spreadingof sarcoptic Kurt&I, B. 1968. Pleistocenemammalsof Europe.- Weiden- mange among Swedishred foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) in re- feldt & Nicolson,London. lationto fox populationdynamics.- Rev.Ecol.(TerreVie) König, E. 1976. Wildschadenproblemebei der Waldverjun- 40: 211-216. gung. - Schweiz.Z. Forstwesen127:40-57. Linn, I.J., ed. 1979. Wildlife introductionsto Great Britain.-

König, R. 1982. Zur Planung des weiblichen Rehwildbes- Nature Conserv.Council,London. • tandes.- pp. 113-126 in Hofmann, R.R.ed. Wildbiologis- Litjens,B.E.J.,Pelzers,E. & Haaften, J.L.van 1989. Die Ent- che InformationenfürdenJäger.Jagd+ HegeAusbildungs- wicklung_vonMuffelwildpopulationenin Gatterrevierenin buch I. Seconded. EnkeVerlag,Stuttgart. den Niederlanden.- Z. Jagdwiss.35:213-220.

42 nina utredning018

Loudon,A.S.I. 1987. The influenceof foresthabitatstructure Miller, I., ed. 1981. Red deer management. - Red Deer on growth, body size and reproductionin roe deer (Ca- Comm., Inverness. preolus capreolus L.). - pp. 559-567 in Wemmer, C.M. ed. Miller, G.R. 1980. The burning of heather moorlandfor red Biologyand management of the Cervidae. Smithsonian grouse.- Bull.Ecol.11: 725-733. Inst.Press,Washington-London. Moore, N.W. 1987. The bird of time. - Cambridge Univ. Lovari,S. 1984. The biology and management of mountain Press,Cambridge. ungulates.- Helm Ltd., London. Moss, R., Weir, D. & jones, A. 1979. Capercailliemanage- Love,J.A.1988. The reintroductionof white-tailedsea eagle ment in Scotland.- WPAWoodland GrouseSymp.1: 140- to Scotland:1975-1987. - Res.& Surveyin nat. Conserv., 155. NCC 12: 1-48. Murton, R.K.1971. Man and birds.- Collins,London. Lund-Høje,K. & Grønvold, S. 1987. Glyphosateapplication Murton, R.K.,Westwood,N.J. & Isaacson,A.J.1974. A study in forest- ecologkal aspects.- Scand.J. For. Res.2: 455- of wood-pigeon shooting: the exploitation of a natural 468. animalpopulation.- J.Appl. Ecol.11: 61-82. Luther,H. & Rzoska,J.1971. ProsjectAQUA:a sourcebookof Myers, N., ed. 1985. The GAIAAtlasof planet management inland waters proposedfor conservation.- IBPHandbook for to day'scaretakersoftomorrow'sworld. 7 GAIABooks 21. BlackweHSci.Publ.,Oxford - Edinburgh. Ltd., London. Lutz, W. 1986. Wasserflächenund Wasserflugwild.- Parey, Myrberget, S., ed. 1979. Moose management in Fennoscan- Hamburg- Berlin. dia. - Medd. norskViltforsk.3,8: 1-68. Lyster,S.1985. Internationalwildlife law. - GrotiusPubl.Ltd., Myrberget, S. 1985. Is hunting mortality compensatedfor in Cambridge. grouse populations, with special reference to willow Madsen,F.K.1979. Naturfredningssagenshistoriei Danmark. grouse?- pp. 329-336 in Trans. IUGB Congr. 17 (Brus- - OdenseUniversitetsforlag. sels). Madsen, J. 1987. Statusand management of goosepopula- Myrberget, S. 1987. Introductionof mammals and birdsin tionsin Europe,with specialreferenceto populationsrest- Norway includingSvalbard.- Medd. NorskViltforsk.3,17: ing and breeding in Denmark. - Dan. Rev. Game Biol. 1-25. 12,4: 1-76. Myrberget, S. 1988. Hunting statisticsasindicatorsof game Marcström,V., Keith, L.B., Engren,E. & Cary, J.R.1989. De- population size and composition.- Statist.J. UN ECE5: mographicresponsesofartic hares(Lepus timidus) to ex- 289-301. perimental reductionsof red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and Myrberget, S. 1990. Game management in Europeoutside martens(Martes martes). - Can. J.Zool. 67: 658-668. SovjetUnion.- Trans.IUGBCongr. 18 (Krakow).In press. Marcström,V., Kenward,R.E.& Engren,E. 1988. The impact Mysterud,I. & Falck,M.M. 1989. The brown bearin Norway, of predation on boreal tetraonidsduring vole cycles:an II: management and planning. - Biol. Conserv.48: 151- experimentalstudy.- J.Anim. Ecol.57: 858-872. 162. Marjakangas,A. 1985. The effect of artificalfeeding on the Naess,A. & Mysterud,I. 1987. Philosophyof wolf policiesI: mineral nutrition of the black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) in Generalprinciplesandpreliminaryexploraticinofselected winter. - pp. 514-523 in Int. GrouseSymp.WPA. 3 (York norrns.- Conserv.Biol.1: 22-34. 1984). N4y, J.G. & Bencze,L. 1973. Game management, adminis- Marquiss,M. & Newton, I. 1982. The goshawkin Britain.- tration and harvestin Hungary.- Wildl. Soc.Bull.1: 121- Br.Birds75: 243-260. 127. Martin, P.S. 1971. Prehistoricoverkill.- pp. 612-624 in Det- Nahlik,A.J.de. 1974. Deer management. - David & Charles, wyler, T.R. ed. Man's impact on environment. McGraw- London. Hill BookCo., New York. Newman, J.R. 1970. Hunting and hunter education in McKelvie,C.L. 1987. A future for game? - Allen & Unwin, Czechoslovakia.-Wild. Soc.Bull.3: 155-161. London. Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology,of raptors. - Poyser, Mech, L.D. 1982. The IUCN-SSCWolf SpecialistGroup.- pp. Berkhamsted. 327-333 in Harrington,F.H. and Paquet,P.C. eds.Wolves Nielsen,M., Vyff, K. & Johansen,A.1967. De gamle levende of the World. NoyesPubl.,ParkRidge. hegn. - K.Jörgensen,Kolding. Mehlum, F. & Ogilvie, M., eds. 1984. Current researchon Niethammer, G. 1963. Die Einbürgerungvon Såugetieren arcticgeese.- NorskPolarinst.Skrifter181: 1-168. und Vögelnin Europe.- Parey,Hamburg - Berlin. Mikkelsen,J.D. 1986. Rovfugl og fasanudsætningeri Dan- Niethammer, J. & Krapp, F., eds. 1982. Handbuch der mark.- DanskeVildtunders.,40:1-32. SåugetiereEuropas:-Akad.Verlag.,Wiesbaden. Miljöministeriet1986. Betånkandeavgivet av kommisjonen Niewold, F.J.J.& Nijland, H. 1988. Die Chancendeswesteu- för skydd av hotade djur och växter. - Kommit& ropäischenMoor- und Heidebirkhuns.- Z. Jagdwiss.33: betånkande1985,43. Helsingfors. 221-241.

nina utredning 018

Nilsson,L. & Fog, M., eds. 1984. Studieson Fennoscandian Petterson,J.-0., ed. 1987. Viltforskningenspraktiskanytta.- populationsof bean goose(Anser fabalis), greylaggoose NaturvårdsverketRapp.3361: 1-70 + Appendix.Solna. (Anser anser) andlesserwhite-frontedgoose(Anser erythro- Phillips,J.,Råen,S.G. & Aalerud,F. 1984. Responseofwillow pus). - Swed.Wildl. Res.13:1-221. grouseto serialburning of mountain vegetation in Nu- Ninov, N. 1990. BestandsentwicklungundTrophåenqualitåt medal, S. Norway. - pp. 55-68 in Proc.Int. GrouseSymp. des Damhirschesin der VolksrepublicBulgarian.- Trans. 3 (York). IUGBCongr.19 (Trondheim).In press. Phoebus,G. 1978. DasBuchder Jagd.Transl.by G. Biss.- R. Nordell, S. & Weinberg, U. 1983. Jakten,jågarenoch lagen. Mohn, Freiburg. Thirded. - Proprius,Stockholm. Piersma,T., Beintema,A.J., Davidsos,N.C., Munster, 0. & Norderhaug, M. & Norderhaug, A. 1986. Naturen og vi: Pienkowski,M.W. 1987. Wader migrationsystemsin the Håndboki naturvern.- Universitetsforlaget,Oslo. eastAtlantic.- Wader Study Group Bull.49, Suppl./IWRB Nowak,E.1974. On the "huntingpressure"onwaterfowlin Eu- Spec.Publ.7: 35-56. rope.- pp. 406-422 in Proc.Int. Conf.Conserv.Wetlands& Pimlott, D.H. 1975. The wolf in Europein 1973. - Wolves, Waterfowl(Heiligenhafen). IUCN Publ.New Ser.,Supl. Pap.43: 17-27. Nygren, T. 1984. Hirvikannaninventointija verotuksensuun- Popelin,E. 1969. Reportof the InternationalConferenceon nitteluSuomessa.-SuomenRiista31:74-82. the Muscrat.- EPPOPubl.A 47: 16-17, Nyholm, N.E.I. 1981. Evidenceofinvolvementofaluminiumin Potts,G.R.1979. Mathematicalmodelsasan aid to studiesof causationof defectiveformation of eggshellsand of im- game bird populations.- WPA Woodland GrouseSymp. paired breedingin wild passerinebirds.- Environ.Res.26: 1: 115-119. 363-371. Potts,G.R. 1981. Fewerwoodpigeons?- Game Conserv.Ann. F. von 1974. Der ökonomiskeWertder Wildproduk- Rep.12: 83-87. tionin Europa(ohneSowjetunion).- Z. Jagdwiss.20:85-95. Potts, G.R. 1984. Grey partridges:how a computer model O'Connor,R.J.& Shrubb,M. 1986. Farmingand birds.- Cam- can help to solvepracticalgame managementquestions. bridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge. - GameConserv.Ann.Rep. 15: 56-59. OECD 1987. OECDenvironmentaldata:compendium1987. - Potts,G.R.1986. The partridge.- Collins,London. OECD,Paris. PremierMinistre.1986. Chasse:organisationdesassociations L'OfficeNationalde la Chasse1986. Enquetenationalesurles communalesagreees.-J. Off. Rep. Francaise66,142: 1- tableauxde la chasseåtir. Saison19831984. - Bull.Men- 26. suelSommaire108: 1-88. Pulliainen, E. & Sulkava, S. 1986. Odocoileus virginianus Olsson,M. & Sandegren,F.1989. ÄrmiljögiftetPCBfråmstaor- (Zimmermann, 1771) Weisswedelhirsch.-pp. 217-232 in sakentilutternsnedgangi Europa?-Viltnytt27: 63-71. Handbuchder SåugetiereEuropas2/II. AULA,Wiesbaden. Onderscheka,K. 1986. lst die Fiitterungdes Rotwildesin der Prior,R.1987. Roestalking.- Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge. KulturlandschaftdesalpinenRäumeseinebiologiskeAbsur- Putman, R.J.,ed. 1989. Mammals as pests.- Chapman & ditåt oder ein Beitrag zur Erhaltung der Funktion des Hall,london - New York. Ökosystems?-pp. 386-395 in PrinzReuss,ed.RotwildGraz Raesfeldt,F.von 1898. DasRotwild.- Parey,Berlin. (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. Ranerås,U. 1985. Mål och principeri svenskmiljöskyddslag- Owen, M., Atkinson-Willes,G.L.& Salmon,D.G. 1984. Wild- stiftning.- NaturvårdsverketRapp.1988: 1-156. fowl in GreatBritain.- CambridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge- Rands,W.R.W. 1986. The survivalof gamebird (Galliformes) London- New York. chicksin relation to pesticideuse on cereals.- Ibis 128: Parker,H.1984. Effectofcorvidremovalonreproductionofwil- 57-64. low ptarmigan and blackgrouse.- J. Wildl. Manage 48: Rapport, D.J. 1989. Symptoms of pathology in the Gulf of 1197- 1205. Bothnia (Baltic Sea): ecosystemresponseto stressfrom Parslow,J.L.& Everett,M.J.1981. Birdsin needof specialpro- humanactivity.-Biol.J.LinneanSoc.37: 33-49. tectionin Europe.-CouncilofEurope,Strasbourg. Ratcliffe,P.R. 1987. Distribution and current statusof sika Pastor,X. 1988. The Mediterraneandeservesbetterthan this.- deer, Cervus nippon, in Great Britain.- Mammal Rev.17: Naturopa60: 18-20. 39-58. Pedersen,H.C. & Nybø, S. 1989. Effekterav langtransportert Read, A.F. & Harvey, P.H. 1986. Genetic management in forurensingpå terrestriskedyr i Norge: en statusrapport zoos.- Nature 322: 408-410. med vektpå S02, NOx og tungmetaller.- NINA Utredning Reimers,E., Villmo, L., Gaare, E., Holthe, V. & Skogland,T. 5: 1-54. 1980. Statusof Rangifer in Norway includingSvalbard.- Pedersen,P.H.,Nordhuus,I., Jaren,V.,Andersen,J.A.,Sæther, pp: 774-785 in Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros). B.-E. & Lanestedt,G. 1988. CERSIM:Bestandsmodellfor Reimoser,F. 1986. Zur Wildschadenproblematikbeim Rot- elgforvaltningen. I. - Direktoratet for naturforvaltning, wild im Mitteleuropa. - pp. 330-351 in Prinz Reuss,ed. Trondheim. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

44 nina utredning 018

Reuther, C. & Festetics,A. 1980. Der Fischotterin Europa: Skogland,T. 1987. Radiocesiumconcentrationsin wild rein- Verbreitung, Bedrohung, Erhaltung. - Aktion Fishotters- deer at Dovrefjell,Norway.- Rangifer7: 42-45. chutz, Oderhaus- Göttingen. Skogland,T. & Espelien,1.S.1990. The biologicaleffectsof Robertson,P.A. & Whelan, J. 1987. The ecologyof wild and radiocesiumcontamination of wild reindeer in Norway hand-rearedpheasantsinIreland.- IrishBirds3: 427-440. following the Chernobylaccident.- Trans. IUGB Congr. Roistad,J.& Wegge, P. 1987. Distributionand sizeof caper- 19 (Trondheim).1npress. caillieleksin relationto old forestfragmentation.- Oeco- Smart, M. 1987. Internationalconventions.- Wader Study logia 72: 389-394. Group Bull.49, Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 114-117. Rolstad,J.& Wegge, P. in press.Capercailliehabitat:a critical Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1976. Threatenedmammals assessemntof the role of old forest. - Proc. Int. Grouse in Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg. Symp.4 (Lam). Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1981. Threatenedmammals RSPB1989. Wild birds and the law. - The RoyalSocietyfor in Europe. Akad.,Verlag,Wiesbaden. the Protectionof Birds,Lodge. SOU 1983. Vilt och jakt. - StatensOff. Utredningar, Stock- Rificker,J.& Stålfelt,F. 1986. Das Elchwild:Naturgeschichte- holm, 1983: 1-21. 6kologie - Hege und Jagddes europäischenElches.- Par- Soule,M.E., ed. 1987. Viable populationsfor conservation.- ey, Hamburg- Berlin. CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge. Rumohr-Rufidhof,W.-H. von 1990. Die Entwicklungdes Si- Spagnesi,M. & Apollonio,M. 1985. le vocazionifaunistiche kawildesin Schleswig-Holstein.-Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 con particolarereferimentoallespeciedi mammiferioget- (Trondheim).In press. to di caccia:situazioneattuale e potenziale. - Atti Conv. •Saliba,L.J.1988. The Mediterranean- a hundredmilliontour- ProgettoFaunisticodel'Appennino(Pescara):5-19. ists.- Naturopa 59E: 13-15. Spenik,M. 1985. The controlof healthstatusof game and its Salo, L.J.1976. Historyof wildlife management in Finland.- organization in Czchoslovakia.- pp. 743-749 in Trans. Wildl. Soc.Bull.4: 167-174. Congr. 1UGB17 (Brussels). Sandberg,N. 1985. Vinterffiringav rådjur. - pp. 138-141 in Spiess,A.E. 1979. Reindeer and caribou hunters. - Acad. Praktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF- DN - MVA, Press,NewYork. Oslo. Spina, F. 1987. Baltic birds through the Mediterrianean. Scheel, H. ed. 1947. Den danske jagt i fortid og nutid. - Some aspectsof birdsconservationin Italy. - BalticBirds Hirschsprung,Köbenhavn. IV. Vår Fågelvårld,Suppl.11: 207-210. Schneider,T., ed. 1986. Acidificationand its policy implica- Spitzer, G. 1982. Der Jagdprüfungsbehelf.Tenth ed. - tions.- ElsevierSci.Publ.,Amsterdam. Österreich.Jagd-und Fischerlei-Verlag,Wien. Scott, D.A. 1979. Problemsin the managementof waterfowl Stenseth,N.C. & Steen, H. 1987. Små bestandersdynamikk populations.- pp. 89-106 in Proc.Tech. Meeting Western med spesiellreferansetil bjørn, jerv og ulv i Norge: et te- PalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Paris). oretiskstudium.- Viltrapp.45: 1-53. Scott, D.A. 1980. A preliminaryinventoryof wetlandsof in- Stensaas,I., ed. 1989. Wildlife managementin Norway. - Di- ternationalimportancefor waterfowl in West Europeand rektoratetfor naturforvaltning,Trondheim. NorthwestAfrika.- IWRB.Spec.Publ.2: 1-128. Stirling, I. 1986. Researchand management of polar bears Scott, D.A , ed. 1982. Managing wetlands and their birds.- Ursus maritimus. - PolarRecord.23: 167-176. IWRB,Slimbridge. Stokes,P. & Piekarz,D. 1987. Ecologicalindicatorsof the Schröder,W. 1985. Management of mountain ungulates.- state of the environment.- EnvironmentalInterpretation pp. 179-196 in Lovari,S. ed. The biology and manage- Div. EnvironmentCanada,Toronto. ment of mountainungulates.Helm Ltd., London. Strandgaard, H. 1972. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) Sennstam, B. 1974. Effects of orienteering on wildlife. - population at Kalø and the factors regulating its size. - Skogshögskolan,Inst.Skogzool.,Res.Notes17: 1-60. DanishRev.Game Biol.7: 1-205. Serez, M. 1990. Das Grosswildin der Türkei. Entwicklungs- Strandgaard,H. 1979. Roedeer: a casestudy.- Naturopa 32: zustandund Jagdgesetz.-Trans. IUGBCongr. 19 (Trond- 19-21. heim). 1npress. Strandgaard,H. 1985. Agricultureand wildlife. - pp. 511-526 Sheddon, C.B. 1986. Statusof Europeanquarry species.- in Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels). Brit.Ass.Shootingand Conserv.,Wrexham. Strandgaard,H. & Asferg,T. 1980. The Danishbag record,II. Siivonen,L. 1957. The problemof the short-termfluctuations -DanishRev.Game Biol.11,5: 1-112. in numbersof tetraonidsin Europe.- Pap. Game Res.19: Stålfelt,F. 1966. Älgstammensbeskattning.- Svenskjakt104: 1-44. 484-486. Skogland,T. 1986. Density dependent food limitation and Sulkava,S. 1980. Populationof the wild forestreindeer,Ran- maximal production in wild reindeer herds. - J. Wildl. gifer tarandus fennicus Lönnb.1909, in Finland.- pp. 681- Manage. 50: 314- 319. 684 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).

ninautredning018

Swartenbroekx,J.M.L 1985. Wildsoorten en wildbeheer in ed. Biologyand managementof the Cervidae.Smithsoni- - pp. 51-64 in Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels). an Inst.Press,Washington-London. Szafer,W. 1968. The ure-ox, extinct in Europesincethe sev- Ueckermann,E. & Scholz, H. 1981. WIdåsungsflächen.Se- enteenth century: an early attempt at conservationthat cond ed. - Parey,Hamburg - Berlin. failed. - Biol.Conserv.1: 45-47. Vaag, A.B. 1987. Landsplanfor forvaltning av bjørn, jerv og Szukiel,E. 1987. Ecologicalsituationon Cervidaein West Su- ulv. - DN-Rapp.1987,6: 1-37. detes.- pp. 197-198 in Abstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow). Vader,W., Anker-Nilssen,T., Bakken,V., Barret,R. & Strann, Sørensen,0.1., ed. in press.The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.) K.-B.1990. Regionaland temporaldifferencesinbreeding in Europein the mid 1980s. - Aquilå. successoffish-eatingseabirdsin Norway aftercollapsesof Sørensen,0.J., Mysterud, I. & Kvam, T. 1984. Sentralregi- herring and capelin stocks. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 streringav storerovdyri Norge. - Viltrapp. 30: 1-158. (TrondheiM).In press. Tahon, J. 1985. Le succesde l'etourneausansonnet(Sturnus Valkesjärvi,P.& ijås,L. 1989. Ruokitunteeriparvenelintavois- vulgaris) danslesecosytemesamenages.- pp. 535-543 in ta ja talviruokinnarivaikutukisista.-SuomenRiista35: 43- Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels). 60. Tamisier,A. 1985. Hunting asa keyenvironmentalparameter Vandervell,A. & Coles,C. 1980. Game & the Englishland- for the western Palearcticduck populations.- Wildfowl scape.- Debrette'sPeerageLtd., London. 36: 95-103. Vikberg,P. 1988. Inplanteringav rådyr- läget idag. - Jågaren Temple, S.A.ed. 1977. Endangeredbirds.- Univ. Wise. Press, 37,1: 26-28. Madison. Volk, H. 1986. Zur Belastungvon Natur und Landschaft Thorisson,S. 1980. Statusof Rangifer in Iceland. - pp. 766- durchder Wintersport.- Allg. Forst-und Jagdz.157: 238- 770 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros). 243. Tillisch,C.J. 1949. Falkejagtenog dens historie.- Haase & Waddington, R. 1958. Grouse:shootingand grousemanage- Sønsforlag,Köbenhavn. ment. - Faberand FaberLtd., London. Tinbergen, N. 1951. The studyof instinct.- ClarendonPress, Wagenknecht,E 1965. BewirtschaftungunsererSchalenwild- Oxford. bestånde.- VEB,Berlin. Troostwijk,W.J.D. van 1976. The musk-rat(Ondatra zibethi- Wagenknecht,E. 1981. Rotwild.- VEB,Berlin. cus L.) in the Netherlands,its ecologicalaspectsandtheir Watson, A. & Jenkins,D. 1968. Experimentson population consequencesforman. - R.I.N.Verhandlung7: 1-136. control by territorial behaviour in red grouse.- J. Anim. Ueckermann,E. 1955. Ein Erklärungsversüchderbei Rotwild Ecol.37: 595-614. , im Westdeutschland anzutreffenden Unterschiede im Watson, A. & Miller, G.R. 1976. Grouse management. Se- Körpergewicht.- Z. Jagdwissenschaft1:92-94. cond ed. - Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge. Ueckermann,E. 1960. WildstandsbewirtschaftungundWild- Wegge, P. 1984. Skogbruketog storfuglbiotopene.-Viltrapp. schadensverhütungbeimRotwild.- Parey,Hamburg- Ber- 36: 84-90. lin. Weismann,C. 1931. Vildtetsog JagtensHistoriei Danmark.- Ueckermann,E. 1964. Erhebungüber die Wildverlustedurch ReizelsForlag. dem Strassenverkehrunddie VerkehrsunfälledurchWild. Westerling,B. 1989. Läget på rabies-fronten.- Jågaren38,3: - Z. Jagdwissenchaft10:142-168. 8-9. Ueckermann,E. 1971. Die Fütterungdes Schalenwildes.Se- Whelan,J.1990. Introducedspeciesin Ireland:impacton na- cond ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin. tive'fauna and productionsystems.- Trans. IUGBCongr. Ueckermann, E. 1977. Der Schwarzwildabschuss.- Parey, 19 (Trondheim).In press. Hamburg -Berlin. Whisker,J.B.1981. The right to hunt. - N. RiverPress. Ueckermann, E. 1981. Die Wildschadenverhlitungin Wald Wiig, Ø. 1988a. Change in the degree of infestationof para- und Feld.Fourthed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin. sitic nematodesin grey seals(Halichoerus grypus) from Ueckermann,E. 1982. Der Rehwildabschuss.-Parey, Ham- Froan,Norway. - Faunanorv., Ser.A 9: 47-49. burg - Berlin. Wiig, Ø. 1988b. Grønlandsselogselinvasjon:Hvavet vi - hva Ueckermann,E. 1984. Jagd und JagdgeschichteNordrhein- tror vi. - Naturen 1988,2: 35-41. Westfalen.- Rheinland-Verl.GmbH,Köln. Wildlife Service1989. Report for 1988. - StationaryOffice, Ueckermann,E. 1986a. JagdlicheRaumordnung- dargestellt Dublin. am Beispeildes Rotwildes.- pp. 160-172 in Prinz Reuss, Willebrand, T. 1988. Demography and ecology of a black ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. grouse(Tetrao tetrix L) population. - Unpubl. dr. thesis. Ueckermann, E. 1986b. Die Fütterung des Schalenwildes. Univ.Uppsala. Third ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin. Wolfe, M.L. & Berg,F.-C.von 1988. Deer and forestryin Ger- Ueckermann,E. 1987. Managing German red deer (Cervus many:halfa centuryafterAldo Leopold.- J.For.86,5: 25- elaphus L.) populations.- pp. 505-516 in Wemmer, C.M. 31.

46 nina utredning018

Woods,A. 1989. An orginalconcept.- Naturopa 63: 22-24. Wotschikowsky,U., ed. 1977. Der Steinbock:Ansprüche, Einbürgerung,Bejagung.- Kofler,Pernegg. Wotschikowsky,U., Schröder,W. & Georgii, B. 1986. Neue Wege im Rothirch-Management.- pp. 173-182 in Prinz Reuss,ed.RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris. Wright, E.N. ed. 1980. Bird problemsin agriculture.- BCPB Publ.,Croydon. Zachariassen,K.E. ed. 1989. Biologicaleffects of chemical treatment of oilspillsat sea. - Univ. of Trondheim, AVH; Trondheim. Østlie, S. S.a. JaktlovgivningeniNorge fra de eldstetider og fram til 1899. - Arb. JFF.,Oslo.

47 018

ISSN0802-3107 ISBN82-426-0085-6

Norsk institutt for naturforskning Tungasletta 2 7004 Trondheim Tel. (07) 913020