Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 117–132 | Cite as

Selective versus Random Moose Harvesting: Does it Pay to be a Prudent Predator?

  • Göran Ericsson
  • Mattias Boman
  • Leif Mattsson


Seeking to act as prudent predators in many biological systems, humans try to harvest in a sustainable manner. In Sweden, wildlife managers and moose hunters use information about the future contribution of individual moose to population growth (i.e., their reproductive value), in order to harvest low-and non-reproductive animals. This selective harvest strategy results in a significantly faster overall population growth rate. To investigate whether this selective harvest policy is economically beneficial, we calculated the present value of the selective moose hunting policy used in Sweden compared to the present value of a non-regulated (i.e. random) moose harvest. Present values of the moose hunting produced by the different hunting regimes were calculated for a period of ten years and at interest rates ranging between 1% and 10%. The difference in present value between the selective hunting policy and the average outcome of random harvesting was SEK 310 million ($ 36 million) and SEK 300 million ($ 34 million), or SEK 1 321 ($ 154) and SEK 1 279 ($ 149) for an average moose hunter, when using interest rates of 3% and 4%, respectively. To determine whether the current selective moose hunting policy is economically profitable or not, benefit estimates like these should be weighted against the costs of upholding the policy. Most of the costs probably lie in providing the hunters with information about the future harvesting prospects and reducing the risk of divergences from the policy. The welfare effects of a hunting policy will also be dependent on the individual hunter's preferences, for instance in terms of their attitudes towards risk.

bioeconomics moose management policy predation selective hunting 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References cited

  1. Andersen, Reidar & Bernt-Erik Sæther. 1996. Elg i Norge (Moose in Norway). N. W. Damm & Sùn A. S. Teknologisk Forlag, Oslo (In Norwegian).Google Scholar
  2. Ball, John P., Göran Ericsson & Kjell Wallin. 1999. Climate change, moose and their human predators. Ecological Bulletins 47: 178-187.Google Scholar
  3. Bergström Roger, Herman Huldt & Ulf Nilsson. 1992. Swedish game-Biology and management. Swedish Hunters Association, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, Richard C. & Thomas A. Heberlein. 1979. Measuring values of extra market goods: are indirect measures biased? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 926-930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cederlund, Göran & Gunnar Markgren. 1987. The development of the Swedish moose population, 1970-1983. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement. 1: 55-62.Google Scholar
  6. Cederlund, Göran & Håkan K. G. Sand. 1991. Population dynamics and yield of a moose population without predators. Alces 27: 31-40.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Colin W.1976. Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Ericsson, Göran. 1999. Demographic and life history consequences of harvest in a Swedish moose population. Dissertation. Department of Animal Ecology. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.Google Scholar
  9. Ericsson, Göran & Kjell Wallin. 1996. The impact from hunting on moose movements. Alces 32: 31-40.Google Scholar
  10. Ericsson, Göran & Kjell Wallin. 1999. Hunter observations as an index of moose population parameters. Wildlife Biology 5: 177-185.Google Scholar
  11. Ericsson, Göran, Kjell Wallin, John P. Ball & Martin Broberg. 2001. Age-related reproductive effort and senescence in free-ranging moose Alces alces. Ecology (in press).Google Scholar
  12. von Essen, Hans & Göran Ericsson. 1999. Älgjakt och skadskjutning under den första älgjaktsveckan (Swedish). Viltforum 1999:2. Swedish Hunters Association, Uppsala.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, Gerald T.& Paul C. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.Google Scholar
  14. Getz, Wayne & Robert G. Haight. 1989. Population harvesting. Demographic models of fish, forest, and animal resources. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  15. Ginsberg, Joshua R. & E. J. Milner-Gulland. 1994. Sex-biased harvesting and population dynamics in ungulates: Implications for conservation and sustainable use. Conservation Biology 8: 157-166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hicks, John R. 1943. The four consumer's surpluses. Review of Economic Studies 11: 31-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hutchings, Jeffrey A. & Ransom A. Myers 1994. What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadhus morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51: 2126-2146.Google Scholar
  18. Johansson, Per-Olov. 1987a. Estimating how the value of a hunting permit is affected by the hunter's expectations. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Economics, Working Report 67, Umeå.Google Scholar
  19. Johansson, Per-Olov. 1987b. The economic theory and measurement of environmental benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Johansson, Per-Olov. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Johansson, Per-Olov, Bengt Kriström & Leif Mattsson. 1988. How is the willingness-to-pay for moose hunting affected by the stock of moose?Anempirical study of moose-hunters in the county ofVästerbotten. Journal of Environmental Management 26: 163-171.Google Scholar
  22. Joshi, N. V.& Madhav Gadgil. 1991. On the role of refugia in promoting prudent use of biological resources. Theoretical Population Biology 40: 211-229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Law, Richard & David R. Grey. 1989. Evolution of yields from populations with age-specific cropping. Evolutionary Ecology 3: 343-359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindén, Harto. 1991. Patterns of grouse shooting in Finland. Ornis Scandinavia 22: 241-244.Google Scholar
  25. Manly, Bryan F. J. 1991. Randomization and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  26. Mattsson, Leif. 1989a. The economic value of wildlife for hunting, in Multiple Use of Forests Economics and Policy. Scandinavian Forest Economics 30: 42-61.Google Scholar
  27. Mattsson, Leif. 1989b. Viltets jaktvärde: en ekonomisk analys. Working Report 86, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.Google Scholar
  28. Mattsson, Leif. 1990a. Hunting in Sweden: extent, economic values and structural problems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 563-573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mattsson, Leif. 1990b. Moose management and the economic value of hunting: towards bioeconomic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 575-581.Google Scholar
  30. Maynard Smith, John. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, Robert C. & Richard T. Carson. 1989. Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Nordström, Curt. 1992. Education of hunters in Sweden. Pp. 88-95 in R. Bergström, H. Huldt & U. Nilsson (ed.) Swedish Game-Biology and Management, Swedish Hunters Association, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  33. Østgård, Jon. 1987. Status of moose in Norway in the 1970's and early 1980's. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 63-69.Google Scholar
  34. Sand, Håkan. 1996. Life history strategies in moose (Alces alces): geographical and temporal variation in body growth and reproduction. Dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala.Google Scholar
  35. SCB. 1988. Statistisk årsbok 1988. Norstedts. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  36. SCB. 1994. Statistisk årsbok 1994. Norstedts. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  37. SCB. 1999. Statistisk årsbok 1999. Norstedts. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  38. Schatz, Bertrand, Jean-Paul Lachaud & Guy Beugnon. 1997. Graded recruitment and hunting strategies linked to prey weight and size in the ponerine ant Ectatomma ruidum. Behavioral Ecology & Sociology 40: 337-349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz, Charles C. 1998. Reproduction, natality and growth. Pp. 141-172 in A. W. Franzmann & C. C. Schwartz (ed.) Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  40. Solberg, Erling J. 1998. Variations in population dynamics and life history in a Norwegian moose (Alces alces) population: consequences of harvesting in a variable environment. Disseration, Department of Zoology, University of Trondheim. Trondheim.Google Scholar
  41. Stearns, Steven. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  42. Sutherland, William. J. 1990. Evolution and fisheries. Nature 344: 814-815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket). 1994. Statens naturvårdsverks författningssamling, kungörelse om föreskrifter om jakt. SNFS 1994:3. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  44. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Moose hunting statistics 1998/1999. Naturvårdsverket Stockholm (In Swedish).Google Scholar
  45. Thelander, Bo. 1992. The way we hunt in Sweden. Pp. 50-63 in R. Bergström, H. Huldt & U. Nilsson. (ed.) Swedish Game-Biology and Management. Swedish Hunters Association, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  46. Timmerman, Tim & Mike Russ. 1998. Population and harvest management. Pp. 559-616 in A. W. Franzmann & C. C. Schwartz (ed.) Ecology and Management of the North American Moose, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  47. Tietenberg, Tom. 1992. Environmental and natural resource economics. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Tullock, Gordon. 1971. The coal tit as a careful shopper. The American Naturalist 105: 77-80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Baalen, Minus & Maurice W. Sabelis. 1995. The milker-killer dilemma in spatially structured predatorprey interactions. Oikos 74: 391-400.Google Scholar
  50. Varian, Hal R. 1992. Microeconomic analysis (third edition). Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Varian, Hal R. 1993. Intermediate microeconomics (third edition). Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Wallin, Kjell, Göran Cederlund & Åke Pehrson. 1996. Prediction body mass from chest circumference in moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 2: 53-58.Google Scholar
  53. Walters, Carl. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Weitzman, Martin. 1998. Gamma discounting for global warming. Paper presented at the Venice World Congress Session on Climate Change Policies.Google Scholar
  55. Wilson, Edward O. 1971. The insect societies. Belknap, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Göran Ericsson
    • 1
  • Mattias Boman
    • 2
  • Leif Mattsson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Animal EcologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Forest EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden
  3. 3.Department of Forest EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesUmeåSweden

Personalised recommendations