Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Bioeconomics Aims and scope

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References cited

  • 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 

  • Ball, John P., Göran Ericsson & Kjell Wallin. 1999. Climate change, moose and their human predators. Ecological Bulletins 47: 178-187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergström Roger, Herman Huldt & Ulf Nilsson. 1992. Swedish game-Biology and management. Swedish Hunters Association, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cederlund, Göran & Gunnar Markgren. 1987. The development of the Swedish moose population, 1970-1983. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement. 1: 55-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cederlund, Göran & Håkan K. G. Sand. 1991. Population dynamics and yield of a moose population without predators. Alces 27: 31-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Colin W.1976. Mathematical bioeconomics: The optimal management of renewable resources. Wiley-Interscience, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ericsson, Göran & Kjell Wallin. 1996. The impact from hunting on moose movements. Alces 32: 31-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, Göran & Kjell Wallin. 1999. Hunter observations as an index of moose population parameters. Wildlife Biology 5: 177-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • von Essen, Hans & Göran Ericsson. 1999. Älgjakt och skadskjutning under den första älgjaktsveckan (Swedish). Viltforum 1999:2. Swedish Hunters Association, Uppsala.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, Gerald T.& Paul C. Stern. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.

  • Getz, Wayne & Robert G. Haight. 1989. Population harvesting. Demographic models of fish, forest, and animal resources. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, John R. 1943. The four consumer's surpluses. Review of Economic Studies 11: 31-41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Johansson, Per-Olov. 1987b. The economic theory and measurement of environmental benefits. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, Per-Olov. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis of environmental change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Joshi, N. V.& Madhav Gadgil. 1991. On the role of refugia in promoting prudent use of biological resources. Theoretical Population Biology 40: 211-229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, Richard & David R. Grey. 1989. Evolution of yields from populations with age-specific cropping. Evolutionary Ecology 3: 343-359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindén, Harto. 1991. Patterns of grouse shooting in Finland. Ornis Scandinavia 22: 241-244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manly, Bryan F. J. 1991. Randomization and Monte Carlo methods in biology. Chapman & Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mattsson, Leif. 1989b. Viltets jaktvärde: en ekonomisk analys. Working Report 86, Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson, Leif. 1990a. Hunting in Sweden: extent, economic values and structural problems. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 563-573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattsson, Leif. 1990b. Moose management and the economic value of hunting: towards bioeconomic analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 5: 575-581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, John. 1982. Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • SCB. 1988. Statistisk årsbok 1988. Norstedts. Stockholm.

  • SCB. 1994. Statistisk årsbok 1994. Norstedts. Stockholm.

  • SCB. 1999. Statistisk årsbok 1999. Norstedts. Stockholm.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stearns, Steven. 1992. The evolution of life histories. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, William. J. 1990. Evolution and fisheries. Nature 344: 814-815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket). 1994. Statens naturvårdsverks författningssamling, kungörelse om föreskrifter om jakt. SNFS 1994:3. Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Moose hunting statistics 1998/1999. Naturvårdsverket Stockholm (In Swedish).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tietenberg, Tom. 1992. Environmental and natural resource economics. Harper Collins Publishers, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullock, Gordon. 1971. The coal tit as a careful shopper. The American Naturalist 105: 77-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Baalen, Minus & Maurice W. Sabelis. 1995. The milker-killer dilemma in spatially structured predatorprey interactions. Oikos 74: 391-400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, Hal R. 1992. Microeconomic analysis (third edition). Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, Hal R. 1993. Intermediate microeconomics (third edition). Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallin, Kjell, Göran Cederlund & Åke Pehrson. 1996. Prediction body mass from chest circumference in moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 2: 53-58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, Carl. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman, Martin. 1998. Gamma discounting for global warming. Paper presented at the Venice World Congress Session on Climate Change Policies.

  • Wilson, Edward O. 1971. The insect societies. Belknap, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ericsson, G., Boman, M. & Mattsson, L. Selective versus Random Moose Harvesting: Does it Pay to be a Prudent Predator?. Journal of Bioeconomics 2, 117–132 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011446116848

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011446116848

Navigation