European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 597–607 | Cite as

Red deer hunting—commercializing versus availability

  • Jon Olaf OlaussenEmail author
  • Atle Mysterud
Original Paper


Many deer populations in Europe and North America have increased in abundance over the last decades. The increasing populations potentially entail both ecological and economic challenges and opportunities, but in practice we still know little about the extent to which these opportunities are being exploited in different management systems. The Norwegian red deer population has increased in density and expanded rapidly since the 1950s. Traditionally, red deer hunting has been undertaken by the local landowner and his relatives and friends. The present large population raises the question whether attracting other hunters could provide a higher economic return for the landowners and, if so, if they are interested in providing such hunting opportunities. We designed a survey to learn more about the landowners, both with respect to the present level of hunting income as well as economic costs of, for example, forest and agricultural damage; we also sought to understand their interest in increasing their income from red deer hunting and potential obstacles to realizing such an increased economic benefit. The results indicate that landowners on average think that red deer populations on their land result in higher costs than income but are nevertheless satisfied with the way things are. This highlights that increased numbers of deer need not automatically lead to more income for landowners and that the potential for income may be hindered by cultural factors such as reluctance to allow access to non-local hunters.


Red deer hunting Landowner survey Hunting income Browsing and grazing costs 



We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. This study was funded by the Research Council of Norway (“Natur og næring” program; project no. 179370/I10—“HjortAreal”). We are grateful to the group of the HjortAreal project for advice, in particular Vidar Holthe on behalf of Norges Skogeierforbund giving access to member lists in the forestry, and helpful advice from Anders Skonhoft, Vebjørn Veiberg, Erling Meisingset, Arve Aarhus, and Leif Egil Loe.


  1. Andersen R, Lund E, Solberg E, Saether B-E (2010) Ungulates and their management in Norway. In: Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R (eds) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 14–36Google Scholar
  2. Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman RJ (eds) (2010) European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Berganutvalget (1982) Befolkningens adgang til jakt i Norge. Innstilling fra et utvalg nedsatt av Direktoratet for vilt og ferskvannsfisk 5. December 1977Google Scholar
  4. Gill R (1990) Monitoring the status of European and North American cervids. Nairobi: The Global Environment Monitoring System Information Series No. 8, United Nations Environment Programme, 277 pagesGoogle Scholar
  5. Gordon J, Hester AJ, Festa-Bianchet M (2004) The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives. J Appl Ecol 41:1021–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gujarati DN (1995) Basic econometrics, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Horne P, Petäjistö L (2003) Preference for alternative moose management regimes among Finnish landowners: a choice experiment approach. Land Econ 79(4):472–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Irvine R et al (2010) Collaborative frameworks in land management: a case study on integrated deer management: full research report. ESRC End of Award Report, RES-227-25-0014. ESRC, SwindonGoogle Scholar
  9. Johansson P-O, Kriström B, Mattsson L (1988) How is the willingness to pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose? An empirical study of moose hunting in the county of Västerbotten. J Environ Manage 26:163–171Google Scholar
  10. Kenward RE, Putman RJ (2011) Ungulate management in Europe: towards a sustainable future. In: Putman RJ, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 376–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. MacMillan DC (2004) Tradeable hunting obligations—a new approach to regulating red deer numbers in the Scottish Highlands? J Environ Manage 71:261–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacMillan DC, Leitch K (2008) Conservation with a gun: hunting and ecosystem restoration in the Scottish Highlands. Hum Ecol 36(4):473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacMillan DC, Phillip S (2010) Can economic incentives resolve conservation conflicts: the case of wild deer management and habitat conservation in the Scottish Highlands. Hum Ecol 38:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacMillan DC, Leitch K, Wightman A, Higgins P (2010) The management and role of highland sporting estates in the early 21st century: the owner's view of a unique but contested form of land use. Scott Geogr J 126(1):24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mattsson L (1994) At kvantifisera viltets jaktvärde. Arbetsrapport 192, Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet UmeaGoogle Scholar
  16. McShea WJ, Underwood HB (1997) The science of overabundance. Deer ecology and population management. Smithsonian Inst, Washington, p 402Google Scholar
  17. Milner JM, Bonenfant C, Mysterud A, Gaillard J-M, Csányi S, Stenseth NC (2006) Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe—biological and cultural factors. J Appl Ecol 43:721–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mysterud A (2004) Temporal variation in the number of car-killed red deer Cervus elaphus in Norway. Wildl Biol 10:203–211Google Scholar
  19. Mysterud A (2006) The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores. Wildl Biol 12:129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mysterud A, Loe LE, Zimmermann B, Bischof R, Veiberg V, and Meisingset E (2011) Partial migration in expanding red deer populations at northern latitudes—a role for density dependence? Oikos 120(12):1817–1825Google Scholar
  21. Putman RJ (2011) A review of the legal and administrative systems governing management of large herbivores in Europe. In: Putman RJ, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 54–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reimoser F, Putman RJ (2011) Impact of large ungulates on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats in Europe. In: Putman RJ, Apollonio M, Andersen R (eds) Ungulate management in Europe: problems and practices. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 144–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Statistics Norway (2010) Focus on hunting and angling.
  24. Stewart MB (1983) On least squares estimates when the dependent variable is grouped. Rev Econ Stud 50(4):737–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thorvaldsen P, Øpstad SL, Aarhus A, Meisingset E, Austarheim Å, Lauvstad H, Mo M (2010) Kostar hjorten meir enn han smakar? Del 1: Berekning av kostnad og nytteverdi av hjort i Eikås storvald i Jølster kommune. Bioforsk Rapport 5(59)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trondheim Business SchoolSør-Trøndelag University CollegeTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of BiologyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations