Ø18
.
Wildlifemanagementin Europe
outsidethe SovietUnion
SveinMyrberge
NORSKINSTITUTTFORNATURFORSKNING
Wildlifemanagementin Europe
outsidethe SovietUnion
SveinMyrberget
NORSKINSTITUITFORNATURFORSKNING
•
nina utredning018
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 viltEnglish: Game species
Copyright (C) NINA
Norwegian Institute of Nature Research
The report may be sited when reference is given
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
the Soviet Union. - NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.
Myrberget, S. 1990. Viltstell i Europa utenom Sovjet-Unionen.
-NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.
A review is given on principles and practices used in wildlife
management in Europe outside the Soviet Union. Emphasis is
placed on game species, but some conservation measures for
threatened mammals and birds are also described. Management practices vary from country to country. The most productive game harvesting systems are found in areas where
landowners control hunting rights, or where the harvest is
strictly controlled by official authorities or hunting organizations. In some other countries where hunting rights are free,
many game populations appear to be over-exploited,
and
general opposition to hunting is increasing. There are about
8 million hunters in the area described, i.e. 1.6 hunter per
km2 land area.
En oversikt er gitt over prinsipper og praksis brukt i viltstellet i
Europa, Sovjet-unionen unntatt. Vekten er lagt på jaktbare
arter, men også noen vernetiltak for truede arter er beskrevet.
Metodene benyttet i viltstellet varierer fra land til land. De
mest produktive jaktbare bestander har man i land hvor
grunneierne eier jaktretten eller hvor myndigheter eller jegerorganisasjoner strengt regulerer jaktuttaket. I en del andre
land hvor jaktretten er fri, er åpenbart mange viltbestander
overbeskattet, og motstanden mot jakt er økende. Det er ca.
8 millioner jegere i området, dvs. 1,6 jeger pr. km2 landområde.
Key words: Game management
hunting.
Svein Myrberget, Norsk institutt
letta 2, 7004 Trondheim.
- wildlife - fauna protection
Svein Myrberget, Norwegian Institute for Nature
Tungasletta 2, N-7004 Trondheim, Norway.
Emneord: Viltstell - faunavern - jakt - jegere.
-
Research,
3
for naturforskning,
Tungas-
nina utredning018
Preface
In 1987, I was invited to write a chapter for a planned book
on InternationalWildlife Management on the situationin Europe outsidethe SovietUnion. In keepingwith my promiseto
do so,the manuscriptwas deliveredto the editorsin 1988.
However, it soon became obviousthat there would be considerabledifficulty in 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 referencesare added.
Some Fennoscandianmanagement practicesare describedin
greater detail. However, the report largely follows the plan
and styleof the originalmanuscript.
Many personsand organizationshavefulfilled my requestfor
information.In particularI would liketo thank E. Ueckermann
(FRG) and J. Kovacs(Hungary). Among the many other personswho have kindly given me information, I will mention
the following: M. Adamic (Yugoslavia),R. Anderegg(Switzerland), P. Bjurholm(Swedep), J. Bojarkski(Poland), D. Bloch
(The Faeroes),J. Castroviejo(Spain), S. Eis(Denmark), A. Ermala (Finland), H. Gossow (Austria), J. van Haaften (The
Netherlands),J. Harberg (Aaland Islands,Finland), J. Harradine (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 number of colleagues
have made usefulcommentson a preliminarymanuscript,including H. Strandgaard (Denmark) and D. Potts (UK), to
whom I send specialthanks. However, I am personallyresponsiblefor any possibleerrorsor misunderstandingspresentedin the report.
Amy Lightfoothas given valuablelinguisticassistance.AnneBrit Solbakkendid much of the typing; KariSivertsenand Eva
Schjetnetechnicallyedited the final version.The Norwegian
Institutefor Nature Researchand the Directoratefor Nature
Management have providedfinancialsupportfor which I am
very grateful.
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
Abstract
Referat
Preface
1 introduction
1.1 Wildlife versus game
1.2 What is wildlife management 7
5 Game population distribution, status and harvest...„24
24
5.1 Waterfowl
25
5.2 Other small game species
26
5.3 Big game
27
5.4 Carnivorous mammals
5.5 Economic value of hunting
28
side
3
3
4
6
6
7
6 Challenges and special problems
6.1 Pollution
6.2 Human use of land and resources
6.3 Wildlife damage
29
29
30
31
32
32
33
33
2 Historical perspective
2.1 Prehistory
2.2 Historical times up to 1850
2.3 Synthesis
8
8
8
11
7 Fauna protection
7.1 Threatened species
7.2 introductions
7.3 Game management versus conservation
3 Authority to manage wildlife
3.1 Official authorities
3.2 Hunting rights
3.3 The number of hunters
3.4 Hunting organizations
3.5 Education in wildlife management and hunting
12
12
12
13
14
14
8 Wildlife research
9 Conduding
10 Summary
•
il
4 Management systems
4.1 Migratory birds
4.2 Resident small game
4.3 Big game hunting outside Fennoscandia
4.4 Big game in the Fennoscandia
4.5 Large mammalian predators
15
15
16
19
21
23
Sammendrag
12 References
remarks
34
35
36
37
38
nina utredning 018
1 Introduction
The purposeof this report isto presenta shortreviewof how
wildlife is managed within Europe. Emphasisis placed on
management principles. Some management practices are
also described in detail, in particular those undertaken by
centralor localauthoritiesand by hunting organizations.The
reportdoes not providemanyguidelineson how privateindividualsmay aid wildlife.
The original proposalfor this report excludedthe European
part of the SovietUnion (USSR).lt does not includeany information on wildlife in Cyprus,the Azoresor Madeira. Areas
situated outside the Palearctic(e.g. Greenland) are also ex, cluded, as are small republicslike Monaco and San Marino.
No informationwas availablefrom Albania.
The northern limit of Europeis 800 N at Svalbard(Norway).
EuropeincludesIceland in the northwest, and the southern
border is formed by the Mediterranean and the islandsof
Malta and Crete (approximately350 N). The total land area,
exclusiveof the USSR,comprises4900 km2, and the population isabout 500 million.
The naturalhabitats,culturesand historyof Europeare asvaried as the multitude of economic and political systems.
Therefore, practicesand principlesof wildlife management
alsodifferfrom countryto country.
The informationgiven is not equallycomprehensiveand detailedfor all partsof Europe.This is mainlydue to restrictions
in the author'spersonalknowledge,which is more adequate
for Nordic countries.Much of the literaturestudiedwas written in Englishand German. Hence, Mediterraneanareasare
lesswell coveredthan other partsof Europe.
1.1 Wildlife
versus game
This report mainly considersspeciesrecognized as "game",
i.e. speciesof birds and mammals which are hunted. The
definitionalsoincludesall specieswhich were formerly hunted or which may be hunted in the nearfuture.
In this report the term "hunting"is not restrictedto the Britishinterpretation"huntingwith hounds".It includesall forms
of harvestingwild mammalsand birds,suchas shootingand
trapping, consistentwith the definition given in the lrish
WildlifeAct of 1976. The term alsocompriseshunting methods like falconry and the use of bow and arrow, which are
only permitted in a few countries (e.g. Turkey and Denmark).
•
The definitionof "game"does not take into considerationthe
purpokeof the harvest,which may be exploitationas meat,
skinsor trophies.Much hunting is done for the sakeof sport.
Some speciesare controlled for various reasons.In some
countries,the pkking of eggs of certain speciesis regulated
by game acts,e.g. in Norway and on the Faroes.Commercial
sealingand whaling are not included in the categorygame
hunting.
Specieswhich are hunted vary from country to country and
with the passageof time. As an example, the stoat (Mustela
erminea) and the squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) were important
sourcesof fur in Fennoscandiauntil World War II, but are seldom exploited today. Eider ducks (Somateria mollissima)
have been protected in Norway for more than 100 years,
while they constituteone of the most important game speciesin Denmark. Most raptorsand owls are protectedin the
majority of Europeancountries today, although they were
once heavilypersecuted.
Many countries have compiled lists of "game" and "nongame" species.Within the latter category a group of "pesi"
speciesmay be defined. Definitionsand their usagevaryfrom
countryto country.An example regardingbirdsis the Game
Act in Great Britain,which stipulatesa closedseasonfor Galliformesbirds.The Wildlifeand CountrysideAct 1981 included
hunting regulatiorisfor some "sporting and quasi-sporting
birds"(see RSPB1989). The last act also listed a number of
"pest"specieswhich may be caught or killed by authorized
persons.
In certaincountries,laws regulatinghunting alsogovern the
protectionof non-hunted species.Such is the case in Norway, where nearly all mammals, all birds, amphibiansand
reptilesare referredto in the WildlifeAct. Seals,which are regarded as game in most other Europeancountries,are not
coveredby the WildlifeAct in Norway (but sealsare regarded
asgame on Svalbard).
This report does not exclusivelytreat problemsdirectly related to game and pest species.Protectionmeasurespertaining
to other birds and mammals and their habitatsare alsodiscussed,in Whichcaseemphasisis placedon faunal conservation.
For practicalreasons,the contentsof the report are confined
to wild living birds and mammals with the exceptionof microtine rodents,bats, insectivoresand whales.The definition
of "wildlife"isthus much more restrictedthan the Britishconcept, which includesall fauna and flora.
© 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
ment?
manage-
game foods, and helping vulnerable populations and species.
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
taking actions to manipulate the structure, dynamics and relations of populations, habitats and people, to achieve specific human objectives by means of the wildlife resource".
In most countries the major goal of wildlife management is to
protect the naturally occurring abundance and genetic variation of wildlife species. The European Council Convention on
the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats,
which was signed at Berne in 1979, resolved that populations
should be maintained at a level corresponding to ecological,
scientific and cultural requirements, while taking into account
economic and recreational requirements and the demands of
sub-species, varieties, or other forms which are regionally endangered. This is now the basic goal for wildlife management
in western Europe. In principal, the same applies to all of Europe.
The most important elements of wildlife management are
manipulation of wildlife populations and their environment.
Wildlife management should serve definite purposes, but
should not be restricted to increasing hunting yields.
As an example, let us examine the objectives of hunting and
hence of game management described by the German Hunting Association (DJV 1987, translated from German): Hunting
is applied conservation, when used as a means of safeguarding 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 native habitat. Threatened species should be protected, and opportunities 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. However, 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 diminishing 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
7
ninautredning018
2 Historical perspective
The history of hunting and wildlife management in Europe
spansover 5 different Eras,but the timing variessomewhat
within the continent: a) prehistoricEra, b) the Eraof Classic
Civilizationfrom 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D. followed by great social disturbance,c) the Eraof aristocratichunting rights and
exploitationof game stocksfrom 800 AD. to 1850, d) the Era
of conservationawarenessand predator control until 1950,
and e) the Eraof modern game managementand natureconservation.During period (e), managementmeasureshave increasinglybeen basedon resultsfrom wildliferesearch.
Only the first three Eras(a-c) are treated in this chapter. The
divisionof Erasdoesnot relateequallywell to allcountries.
2.1 Prehistory
Neanderthalman livedin Europeduring the lastice age, and
was replacedby modern man in the great interglacialperiod
about 35,000 yearsago. Both of thesetypesof human were
hunters and gatherers (Cornwall 1968). They hunted large
mammals, and the fauna existing at that time (the upper
Pleistocene,100,000 - 10,000 B.C.) was very different from
today's(Kurten1968, Kowalski1986).
-
Among the large prey specieswhich are now extinct were
the woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenious), the woolly
rhinocerus (Coelodonta antiquitatis), the giant deer (Megaloceros giganteus), the auroch (Bos primigenius), the steppewisent (Bison priscus) and the cavebear (Ursus spelaeus). Other
specieslike the cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea), the
cavelion (Felis leo spelaea), the saigaantilope (Saiga tartarica) and the caballine horse (Equus przewalskii)
have disappeared from Europe, but still exist in other areas, partly as
other sub-species.
Total or partial extinction during the upper Pleistoceneprimarilyaffectedlargerherbivores,and the carnivoresand scavengerswhich exploited them. These extinctionscan hardly
be explained by climatic variation alone. Extinctionstook
place parallelwith the expansionof prehistorichuman populationsand their advancementas big game hunters.Therefore one cannot eliminate the possibilitythat hunting may
have contributed to the exterminationof some large mammalsduring the Pleistocene(Martin 1971).
The substantialclimatic changeswhich took place throughout the Pleistocene,affected vegetation and fauna. During
colderperiods,arcticanimalslikereindeer(Rangifer tarandus)
and muskoxen(Ovibos moschatus) were evenfound in southern Europe.In certain time periodsand in some areas,hunt-
ers specializedon particularprey specieslike the cave bear,
the woolly mammoth, primitive horses and wild reindeer
(Berger& Grönberg1931, Lindner1937, Spiess1979).
Examinationof late stone age settlement sites from after
10,000 B.C. indicatesthat other prey speciesbecame more
important, includingsomewhich are significantgame species
today (Howell 1972, Clutton-Brock1981). Among thesewere
the red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and the
roe deer (Capreolus capreolus), while small game like hares
(Lepus spp.) were probably lessexploited. Fur bearinggame
was alsovital. Birdswere exploited to the extent permitted
by available hunting techniques, and then particularlyin
coastalareas(e.g. Scheel1947).
There is no informationon whether any kind of game management, was practiced in prehistoric times. As previously
mentioned,somegame specieswere probablyexterminated.
However,the abundanceof carvingsand paintingsmade by
stone age man in cavesand on rocks,indicatestheir magical
function related to fertility and hunting luck (e.g. Lindner
1937).
About 5,000 B.C., animal husbandryand agriculturebecame
the main way of livingin large partsof Europe(Clutton-Brock
1981). The consequences
were enormousfor wildlife habitat.
Hunting and trappingcontinuedto be majoroccupations.
2.2 Historical times up to 1850
The golden age of Greek and Roman civilization.Throughout the first millenium B.C. until around 500 A.D.,
Greek and Rornanculture influenced most of Europe.This
culture was influenced by Egyptian, Babylonian,Assyrian,
Phoenecianand Jewish/Christiancivilization.Severalof these
cultureshad developedsophisticatedformsof game management (Chalmers1936, Alison1978).
Hunting•was regarded as sport among the aristocratsof
Greece, although this was ndt always highly approved. In
600 B.C., Solon prohibited Atheniansfrom hunting, in the
belief that hunting led to neglect of other cultural activities
(Leopold 1933). He also introduced a bounty system for
killedwolves(Canis lupus) (Johnsen1947).
The first book about hunting was written under the title Cynegeticus by Xenophonwho livedfrom 440-354 B.C.(seeDakyns1897). The book discusseddifferenttypesof huntingon
popular game speciessuch as deer, wild boar and hares.
Hunting was regardedas a meansof encouragingthe physical developmentof young men and improving their morals.
Hareswere often setfree after being caught, asa token offering to the goddessof the 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
was bounded on the north by the Donau and Rhine rivers
and the narroweststretchof Scotland.The Romansimproved
traditional hunting technology including weapons like the
spear, the arrow, the use of traps, nets and lime sticks.Falconry was introduced into Europe in the 4th century A.D.
(Tillisch1949, Lindner1973).
At the time of Christ there was an abundanceof game like
the wolf, deer, wisent (Bison bonansus), auroch and moose
(Alces alces). Julius Cæsar (100-44 B.C.) related that the
abundance of game in Germany made hunting restrictions
superfluous(Whisker1981).
With the exceptionof agriculturalland, hunting was usually
open for all free men, but was largelycontrolled by families
and village societies(Lindner 1940). Hunters were given
rightsof ownershipwhen prey animalswere localizedsuchas
through tracking.Thiswas alsothe casein the Nordic countries where lawswritten down in the 11-13th centuriesconfirmed individualrightsto particularhunting terrain, bearsin
hibernationand the nestsof birdsof prey (Østlie S.a.). These
laws alsocontained rulesfor dividing up the yield. In some
parts of Sweden and in Iceland, hunting rights belonged to
the landowner(Lindner1940).
The first real hunting lawswere introduced by the Romans.
No one owned live game, the principleof res nullius, but a
landowner could prohibit hunting on his own land. Ownership rights to game first applied after the game was killed,
and this alsoappliedto illegallyhunted game (Lindner1937).
A commoner could hunt smallgame, but rightsto deer, wolf
and brown bear (Ursus arctos) hunting were reservedfor the
aristocracy,who alsohad exclusivepriviledgesto keepcertain
breeds of hunting dogs (Whisker 1981). Laws prohibiting
hunting on cultivated land were enforced and game parks
were established.
Beforethe fall of the western RomanEmpire(476 A.D.), and
during the followIng two centuries,considerableunrest resulted in large migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes.
Therefore, hunting regulationspreviouslybound by custom
no longer applied. In addition, soldiersoften relied upon
game for food. In many placeswildlife populationsrapidly
declined.
There is no evidenceof activewildlife managementin Greek/
Romanculture. Huntingwas not alwaysan honourablesport,
as evidenced by the thousandsof animals killed in bloody
theatrical performancesin arenas (Auguet 1972). Most of
these animalswere imported from other parts of the world,
but some Europeanspecieswere alsoused. In many partsof
Europe,ruthlesshunting and trapping by the Romansresulted in the decline of severalwildlife populations.Neither did
Christianethicsintroduce any moral obligationsfor protecting wildlife populations(Whisker1981).
Hunting priviledges of the aristocracy.-After the fall of the
Roman Empire, a gradually increasingportion of hunting
rights was taken over by the aristocracy(Leopold 1933,
Whisker1981). The establishmentof royal"forests"in Germany from 648 A.D. was important for the development of
hunting rights within the rest of Europe.These forestswere
formerlycommon land where the rightsto hunt somespecies
likedeer or wild boarwere reservedfor the king and hismen.
A king could hand over hisrightsto the aristocracy,a cloister,
or a free city, which in turn might transfersome of them to
the common people (Lindner 1940). After the development
of feudalism,which enjoyedits peakon the continent around
1000 A.D., most land and hunting rightswere controlledby
the king and his feudal chieftans.To the presentday, most
Europeanhunting ritualsand termsare of Frenchorigin from
medievaltimes(Phodpus1978).
Some animalsescapedfrom captivity. New specieswere introduced to Europein this manner, while other speciesextended the rangeof their distribution.The pheasant(Phasianus colchicus) is one example. Mythology states that the
pheasantwas introduced into Greece from Kolchisnear the
BlackSea by Jasonthe Argonaut around 1300 B.C. (Hill &
Robertson 1988). The Romans later introduced them to
France and Germany. The fallow deer (Cervus dama) was
brought from AsiaMinor and kept in game farms.They were
brought to France and Germany around 400 A.D. (SOU
1983). Rabbits(Oryctolagus cuniculus) only occurred in the
wild in Spain, Portugaland the south of France2,300 years
ago, but they were spread to most of the Mediterranean
countries by the Romans and Phoenecians(Clutton-Brock
1981). Doves (Columba livia) establishedsemi-feralpopulations (Lever 1987). The doormouse (Glis glis) was considered a delicacy by the Rornans,and was in recent times in
Englandafter escapingfrom captivitytreated as a pest(Lever
1985).
Anglo-saxonsin Great Britain,originallyadheredto unwritten
germanic laws.The oldestgeneralgame law was introduced
by the Danishking Knut in 1016. The law establishedthat no
one owned wild animals,but that the king had some'hunting
priviledges.
Feudalismwas establishedin England by William the Conqueror (1066-1087), who also introduced a systemof royal
"forests".Rightsto private "chase"were alsomaintained. Illegal huntingwas punishableby death or mutilation.
Germanic tribes.- Hunting and trapping were vital to the
survivalof Germanictribesliving north of the RomanEmpire.
9
ninautredning018
The first Englishlaw pertainingto the forestand wild animals
was introducedby Henry Il in 1184. This and later lawsstated that all hunting of the most important wildlife species
was a priviledge reservedfor aristocracyand the church.
Fencingof game forests was permitted, and management
within such parksincluded many types of measures(Gilbert
1979). By the end of the 11th century there were 31 red
and fallow deer parksand more than 70 hayes,i.e. lessformal enclosuresfor deer (Vandervell & Coles 1980). These
lawsresultedin an extreme stateof bureaucracyand the appointment of knightsfor the purposeof protectingthe hunting rightsof the king.
the people.Thiswas the caseboth in Franceand in countries
occupiedby Frencharmies(e.g. Bubenik1989).
Hunting seasons.-Accordingto the first Englishbook about
huntingwritten by EdwardII Duke of Yorkin 1406-1413 (see
Baillie-Grohman& Baillie-Grohman1907), traditional limitationson hunting methodsand hunting seasonswere already
enforced at that time. Good sportsmanshipprohibited the
shootingof pregnant animals,or femaleswith smallyoung.
Seasonalchangesin the conditionof furs and peltswere also
taken into consideration.Customsconcerningthe protection
of animalsduringthe breedingseasoncan be tracedto much
older traditions,asdescribedin the Fifth Bookof Moses22:67 (seeGilbert& Dodds1987).
After 1200, violation of hunting laws was not as seriously
punishedin England as previously.The bureaucraticsystem
was graduallydissolvedby corruptionand as a consequence
of the BlackDeath of 1348/49. By around 1600, mostof the
royalforestshad been turned over to privatelandownerswho
were also given the right to control trespassingand hence
hunting on their property. In 1578-80 more than 700 deer
parkswere registered(Vandervell& Coles1980).
Regulationsfor the protection of individual wildlife species
were firstlegallyenforcedin Englandin 1536 (Whisker1981).
However, the moosewas seasonallyprotected in Swedenas
early as 1351 (SOU 1983). Much older Swedishlandscape
laws enforced seasonalprotection of the squirrel (Lindner
1940). In Germany local restrictionsin hunting seasonsof
brown bears and wild boars were enforced already in 890
(Lindner1940).
Hunting priviledgesoffered hunting as a means of physical
trainingand enjoymentfor the nobility.Noblemencompeted
not only for quantitiesof game, but alsofor the qualityof trophies,particularlyred deer antlers.The weight and number
of pointsof the antlerswere carefullyrecorded,and the best
were mounted (e.g. Bubenik1989).
Active wildlife management.- Organized management designedto increasegame populationswas first initiated in Europe after 1500. Most of the methods used were Indirect",
i.e. they were aimed at preventing habitat encroachment
such as burningcovervegetation, or disturbanceduring the
breedingseason(Leopold1933).
Establishmentof regal and aristocratichunting priviledgesoccurredsomewhatlater in the Nordiccountriesthan in Central
Europe.Hunting big game becamethe exclusiveright of the
Swedisharistocracyin 1351 (SOU 1983). Swedishfarmers
were completely deprived of shooting rights in 1647, and
alsoof all trapping apart from carnivoresin 1664. The hunting rights of Swedish landownerswere renewed in 1789
(Nordell & Weinberg 1983).
By deliberateintroductionsor escapesfrom captivity, many
game speciesexpandedtheir distributionin Europealso before that time (see above). It islikely that vikings brought
grey partridges(Perdix perdix) to Öland and Gotland in Sweden already around 500 A.D. (J. Dahlgren in Andersson
1988).
In Denmarkthe king and noblemenexdusivelyheld hunting
rightsin 1537, and a death penaltywas imposedfor extensivepoaching(Hansen 1928). In 1781, the Danishlandowners got back most of their hunting rights. Hunting rights in
Finland, Norway, and Switzerlandcontinued mainly to be
held by farmersand other landowners,with the exceptionof
the Swedish/Finnish
AalandIslands(Salo1976).
Pheasants,were kept in Great Britain in the 11th century
(Vandervell& Coles1980), and were introducedinto Ireland
around 1500 (Lever1987). Rabbitsgraduallyspreadto most
of Europeafter escapingfrom captivity(Clutton-Brock1981).
Reddeer and roe deer were introducedto the Aalandislands
around 1500 (Salo1976). Mallards(Anas platyrhynchos) were
bred and releasedin Englandfrom at least 1651 (Leopold
1933).
The 16th and 17th centurieshave been calledthe golden era
of hunting(Bubenik1976). Farmersand cloisterswere forced
to assistthe aristocracyduring the hunt, which was often
conducted regardlessof ripening crops. The situation was
particularlyabusedin Franceand Germany,where aristocratic
priviledgeswere first revoked after the revolutionsin 1789
and 1848. After the French Revolution,Codex Napoleon replaced Rornan law and proclaimedthat game belonged to
The popularityof game introductionsand stockingincreased
after 1700. Pheasantswere imported to Swedenin the beginning of the 1700's, and the wild boar was re-introducedto
Öland in Swedenin 1731 (Berger& Gröndahl1931). The capercaillie(Tetrao urogallus) was re-introducedto Scotlandin
the 1800's, and stockingsof pheasant and grey partridge
took placein severalcountries(Lever1987). Brownhares(Le10
© 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 became extinct in 1844 on Iceland(Greenway1967).
Royalhuntson swans(Cygnus spp.) during the moultingperiod (Weismann1931) led to populationdeclines.The beaver
(Castor fiber) was exterminated on the BritishIslesaround
1200, and in most of the remainderof Europein the period
1500-1800.
er 1985).
Around the sametime, active habitat management measures
alsobecamemore common. Forinstant,partridgeswere wintered in indoor pens in Sweden in 1760. Salt lickswere set
out and cabbagewas plantedasextra fodder 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
the number of personsallowed to hunt. When these restrictions were removed, many game populationswere quickly
overexploited.AlreadytWo yearsafter the revolutionof 1848
in Germany,regulationsconcerningminimum sizeof hunting
areaswere introduced to reduce hunting pressure(Ueckermann 1984).
Combating predatory animals.- Much hunting was done to
combat predatoryanimalsresponsiblefor injuring and killing
domesticlivestockor preferredgame species.The wolf was a
major target for such measures.The last wolf was killed in
Englandin the 1500's, in Irelandin the 1600's, in Scotlandin
the 1700's (Bibikov 1988), and in Denmark in 1813 (Weismann 1931). From about 1350, all of the inhabitantsof Sweden were obliged to contribute to the extermination of
predators,and after 1442 all Swedishfarmerswere required
by law to maintainspecialwolf nets(SOU 1983).
Some changesin human use of landscapeswere favourable
to manywildlifespecies,su,chas reforestationof earlierarable
or barren land (e.g. Ueckermann1984). Of particularimportance were plantings and other measuresto increasethe
amount of hedgerowson agriculturalland in the 18th and
19th century (e.g. Nielsen et al. 1967, O'Connor & Shrubb
1986, Moore 1987).
A systemof bountieswas already introduced in Englandin
the 1500's. A wolf bounty was establishedin Swedenin 1647
(Johnsen1947). Otters (Lutra lutra) were controlledbecause
of their supposeddamage to fisheries(see Baillie-Grohman
Baillie-Grohman1907). A bounty systemdesigned to control
birdsof prey and owls was introducedin Swedenin 1741 to
increasesmall game populations(SOU 1983). Bounty systems covering a varying number of specieswere in use in
many countriesaround 1800.
2.3 Synthesis
Many of the game managementstrategiesusedin Europetoday were developed in the 1800s, although many practical
measureswere introducedeven earlier.
The effects of hunting on wildlife populations.- The effect
of hunting on wildlife populationsdepended somewhat on
the effectivenessof the methods employed. Trapping methods in general usewere continuallyimproving (Frank 1984).
The crossbowwas alreadycommon by 1100. Hunting guns
became available around 1500. By the beginning of the
1500's, the shotgun had also been developed (e.g. Brander
1971). The practiceof usingpointingdogs was steadilymore
popular during the 1600's. However, truly effectivehunting
weaponswere not invented beforethe beginningof the 19th
century(e.g. Hansen1928, Danneviget al. 1983).
Leopold(1933) describedthe order of succession
of different
game management measuresas follows: 1) restrictionof
hunting, 2) control of predators,3) establishmentof game
parks, 4) introductionsof game, and 5) improvement of
wildlife habitat. However,the order of successionof points1
and 2, measureswhich both started in pre-historictimes, is
largely built on the fact that hunting predated animal husbandry.
The goals of game management had until 1850 changed
from a meansof safeguardingaristocraticpriviledges,to protection and improvement of wildlife populations.Although
publicationsconcerning animal rights date back to 1723
(Whisker1981), these attitudeswere not reflectedin historical game management.
In associationwith the developmentof more effectiveweapons in the 1600's, and the more widespread use of guns,
many wildlife populations in England, Central Europe and
Spainwere overexploited(Whisker1981). The qualityof deer
trophiesdeclined(Bubenik1989).
Populationsof otter were alreadyheavilyreduced in 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),
11
nina utredning 018
3 Authority
wildlife
to manage
Germany (GDR) these territories may range in size from
1,000 to 4,000 hectares.
Hunting terrain in western Europeis largelyprivatelyowned,
but many areasare common property or belong to the government (e.g. seeFACE1986). Hunting rightsusuallybelong
to the landowner,who makesuseof them personallyor leasesthem to individualhuntersor hunting associations.
Official
authoritiesmay, however,in some countries(e.g. in Norway)
demand that the landownersellgame licensesto the public,
or that propertiesarejoined into common wildlife areasin order to meet the minimum area requirementsfor hunting big
game.
Wildlife management is generally carried out by official authorities, landowners, personswith legal hunting rights at
their disposal,or even by anyone, e.g. in their gardens.To
educate management personellat different levelsand hunters, a varying number of educational programs have been
started at universitiesor lower grade schools,or are organizedby differentassociations.
In this reviewwe concentrateon game management.If other
aspectsof wildlife management are taken into consideration,
many other authorities,associationsand privatepersonsdo a
formidablejob.
Hunting isopen to all of the citizensof Portugal,Italy, Greece
and Turkey, in all areas except national parks and reserves
and some agriculturalland, but regionalauthoritiesmay prohibit hunting in someareas.In some cantonsin Switzerland,
all citizens may exercisethe right to hunt within canton
boundariesaccordingto a "patent"system(DJV1987).
3.1 Official authorities
Game management was traditionally administered by the
Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry.This is still the case in
eastern Europe, and in some western countries including
West Germany (GFR), Finland, and Sweden.This is alsothe
case in Turkey (Anonymus 1986b). Today, game management is the responsibilityof the Ministryof the Environment
in some countrieslike UK, France, Luxembourgh,Denmark
and Norway. Tasksrelatedto game managementare carried
out in Iceland by the Department of Education.In Ireland
wildlife problemsare since 1987 handled by the Dep. of Finance,Officeof PublicWorks(WildlifeService1989).
In many countriesproperty must be of an establishedsizeif
the landowner wishesto exercisehunting rights. In some
provincesof France,the municipal government administers
hunting rightson all propertiessmallerthan 25 hectares.In
other parts of France, hunting rights on propertiesof less
than 20, 40, 60, 80 hectaresrespectivelyare administeredby
a municipal hunting association(Premier Ministre 1966).
Hunting territorysizeis alsoregulated by the governmentin
West Germany and other western countrieswhere the "revier"systemis used.
State, canton and provincialofficesmay alsomake laws and
regulationsconcerning wildlife management. Law enforcement may be delegatedto lower levelsof administration.For
example, in accordancewith the Wildlife Act of 1981, most
legal decisionsconcerning wildlife in Norway are made by
the Directoratefor Nature Management. However,many casesare handledat the county level(18) or by municipalgame
boards(about 450).
3.2 Hunting
At the open sea,and alsoon the shorelinein many countries,
hunting is in generalopen for everyone.Certainspeciesmay
be hunted regardlessof hunting rights, as is the casewith
large carnivorousmammals in Finland (Anonymus 1989b).
SwedishLappsare allowedto hunt on some privateproperty
belongingto others(Nordell & Weinberg 1983).
Legal provisionsin many countriesdelegate hunting rights
and responsibilities
to huntersassociations.In suchcasesprincipal decisionsare made through joint cooperationbetween
huntersassociations
and Central or localauthorities.Thissystem of game management is largelyconfined to easternEurope, but is also partly used in some western countrieslike
West Germany.Hunting associationsare alsodelegatedsome
authority in Swedenand Finland, but have no officialstatus
in Great Britain,Denmarkand Norway. However,someof the
operational expenses incurred by hunting associationsin
thesecountriesarecoveredwith governmentfunds.
rights
The hunting priviledgesof the aristocracyhave even been
maintaineduntil World War Il in partsof Yugoslaviaformerly
belongingto Turkey (Isakovic1970, Adamic 1986a). Today,
wildlife resourcesare sharedby the peopleof Yugoslaviaand
manged by the government. This is alsothe case in other
easternEuropeancountrieseven when wildlife habitat is privately owned. Hunting terrain is divided into territories(reviers)which are managed and usedby hunting clubs(Newman 1970, Briedermann 1981, Krzemien 1987). In East
.
In many countrieswith private hunting rights, the owner
must pay a generalstate hunting fee to be allowed to 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
3.3 The number of hunters
In addition he may pay the state for each licenseon felling
big game. (See Stensaas(1989) concerningpracticein Norway).
Table 1 containsa surveyof the number of huntersin those
countriesfor which information is available. Unfortunately
data is lackingfor some countries,which in mostcasesprobably have relativelyfew hunters.
Hunters and landownerswith hunting rights are most interested in carrying out practicalgame management schemes
(e.g. Lindner1985, FACE1986). During a Swedishstudycarried out in 1978/79, 74% of all huntersinterviewed replied
that they had participatedin practicalgame managementan
averageof 6 daysannually(SOU 1983). More activeSwedish
hunters contributed the most time to pursuinggame management. In easternEurope,and those areasof western Europe where the "revier"systemhasbeen introduced,practical
wildlife management is obligatory for all personspossessing
hunting rights.
Accountingfor countriesfor which informationis lacking,the
total numberof huntersin Europeoutsideof the USSRis estimated at about 8 million. This figure correspondsto about
1.6 huntersper km2 land area, or about 1.6% of all the inhabitantsof Europe.Huntersare usuallymale; as an example
only 3-4% of the huntersin Sweden(SOU 1983) and 2% in
Norway arefemale.
Table 1. Numberof huntersin differentEuropeancountries.(Basedon officialstatistics,
Adamfi1984, FACE1986).
Huntersper
1000 inhabitants
Number of
hunters
Hunters
per km2
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Finland
France
German DemocraticRep.
German FederalRep.
Great Britain
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Yugoslavia
105 000
28 000
83 000
118 000
170 000
285 000
1 850 000
41 000
265 000
650 000
350 000
33 000
117 000
1 450 000
2 500
33 000
200 000
90 000
250 000
50 000
1 050 000
320 000
35 000
267 000
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.9
4.0
0.9
3.4
0.4
1.1
2.7
2.7
0.4
1.7
4.8
1.0
1.0
0.61)
0.3
2.7
0.2
2.1
0.7
0.9
1.0
13.9
2.8
9.3
, 7.6
33.3
58.2
33.5
2.5
4.4
11.5
35.1
3.1
323
25.4
6.8
2.3
48.2
2.4
24.6
2.2
27.1
38.6
5.4
11.5
Total
7 842 500
1.6
15.9
2)
Svalbard not included.
Except Albania, Andorra, The Channel Islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Malta, Monaco, San
Marino and Turkey.
13
nina utredning018
As can be seen from Table 1, Denmark, France, Greece,
Spain,Portugaland Great Britainhave high densitiesof hunters relativeto total area. Thisfigure is particularlyhigh in Italy with about 5 huntersper km2. Statisticsfor easternturope
and Fennoscandiaindicate less than one hunter per km2
area.
3.5 Education in wildlife
ment and hunting
In German speaking countries, training and education in
wildlife management is traditionallyassociatedwith forestry
programs (see Ueckermann 1984). For example, in Austria
higher educationis providedat the AgriculturalUniversityat
Wien, and there are two junior collegeswith training programsfor professionalkeepersor conservationofficers.Hunting organizationsare responsiblefor training and education
of professionalhunters.
The percentageof huntersin the general populationalsovaries geographically(Table 1). In Nordic countries,this percentageisespeciallyhigh (up to 6% in Finland).Thispercentage is particularlyhigh (17%) on the FinnishAaland Island
(Harberg 1988). More than 3% of the populationof Ireland
and Greeceare hunters.The percentageof huntersis lowerin
eastern Europe, West Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium.
3.4 Hunting
manage-
In Great Britain, Norway and Sweden, higher education in
wildlife managementand wildlife ecologyis alsoprimarilyoffered by agriculturalcolleges.In some countrieslike France
and Finland,there are no higher educationprogramsin wildlife management.Wildlifeecologyisoften includedasone aspect of a generaleducationin zoology at universitiesin most
Europeancountries.
organizations
Membership in hunting associationsmay be obligatory or
voluntary. There are often severalnational hunting associations in each country. National federationsin countriesbelonging to the EEC(EuropeanEconomicCommunity) are affiliated with FACE(Federationof HuntersAssociations
of the
EEC). FACEwas establishedin 1978 with headquartersin
Brussels,
and represents6.5 millionhunters.The International
HuntersUnion, CIC (Conceil Internationalde la Chasseet la
Conservationde Gibier, InternationalCouncilfor Game and
Wildlife Conservation)has influencedthe progressof game
managementin Europein severalways.
Comprehensivetraining at lower levelsis availablein many
countriesincludingGreat Britain,Denmark, Finland,Norway
and Sweden. Many young people in Great Britain between
16 and 17 yearsof age, participatein a two year educational
programson practicalwildlife management. Personswishing
to becomeprofessionalkeepersor huntersusuallytake on apprenticeships.
Hunter examinationshave been obligatory in easternEurope
for many years. In Poland,all huntersmust first practicein a
hunting associationfor one year. If the candidate makes a
good impression,he or she is permitted to take a courseand
a theoretical examination.All candidatesmust document a
working knowledgeof practicalwildlife managementand the
useof weapons.After three yearsas an authorized hunter, a
new courseis offeredwhich qualifiesthe candidateto shoot
male deer. In eastern Europeancountries, hunter authorization is usuallyassociatedwith the right to own a weapon.
In western Europe, membership in one or more national
hunting associationis voluntary. One exceptkm is Finland,
where all hunters belong to a central hunters organization
(JägernasCentralorganisation).In a municipalityall inhabitantswho have paid their hunting license,form a game management association(Anonymus 1989b).-No one may belong to more than one association. There are no
membershipsfeesand the organizationissubsidizedby funds
from the government hunting licensingsystem.The organization is divided into 15 districtsand comprises297 associations.
Theoreticaland practicalhunting exarninationshave been introduced in severalwestern Europeancountries. Obligatory
examinationswere introduced in Finland in 1964, Denmark
in 1969, Francein 1976, the Netherlandsin 1978, Sweden
1982, and Norway in 1987. A type of hunting examination
hasexistedin Austriasince1938.
Membershipin a hunting associationis obligatoryin eastern
Europe,becausehunting associations
controland dispenseall
hunting rights which are leasedfrom the government. No
huntersare allowedto join more than one club, but they may
be invited as gueststo the hunting territory of other clubs.
Most clubsin EastGermany leasethe rightsto 3 to 5 hunting
reviers(Briedermann1981).
The content of hunting examinationsvariesfrom country to
country (e.g. Helminen 1977, Briedermann 1981, Spitzer
1982, Swartenbroekx1985). Theoreticaland practicalaspects
of wildlife management and marksmanshipmay be tested.
The only requirementon Icelandisa declarationof satisfactory marksmanshipfrom local policeauthorities.In Swedenthe
exam allowsthe purchaseof certaintypesof 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
4 Management
Somewestern EuropeancountriesincludingGreat Britainand
Italy, do not have obligatory hunter examinations.Both of
these countrieshave high densitiesof hunters.The Ministry
of the EuropeanCouncil (CE 1985a) has ratified a proposal
recommendingthe introductionof obligatory hunter examinationsin all member countries.
systems
Management principlesmay vary from country to country,
and with the speciesof animalinvolved(e.g. Dagg S.a.).Variation often dependson the purposeof exploitationor protection, whether the speciesis migratory or stationaryand how
hunting rightsare administered.
One comprehensivelaw concerninggame managementand
hunting is found 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 particularspecieswas not specifiedin regulations,the specieswas
regarded as legal game. Today, the opposite practice has
graduallybeen introducedin all countries;and all hunting is
prohibited unlessspecificallymentioned in hunting regulations.
Here "big game" comprisesall large herbivorousmammals.
However,thisdefinitionis not alwaysconsistentwith hunters'
language.Forexample,in Norway, roe deer are not tradition, ally recognizedas big game, whereasbrown bear are included.
Environmentalconservationlaws and regulationscontrolling
human use and disturbanceof nature (forestry,agriculture,
fishing,industry,pollution,development,recreation,trespassing 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 visit severalcountriesduring the courseof a year are:
regulationof hunting pressurein different countriesand
conservationand management of breeding, moulting,
restingand wintering localities.
The managementof migratorybirdsis primarilya nationalresponsibility,but internationalcooperationis vital. In western
Europeagreementsand conventionslikethe EECDirectiveof
1979 on the Conservationof Wild Birds,and the 1979 Berne
Conventionareof major importance(Batten 1987). The Ramsar Conventionon Wetlands of International Importanceas
Waterfowl Habitat in 1971 has alsocontributedsignificantly
to improved management of migratory birds(Klemm 1979,
Smart 1987). The 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Speciesof Wild Animalshas had a minimal
15
nina utredning018
effect becauseno bilateral or multilateral agreementshave
been concludedto date (UNEP, pers.comm). In total 14 Europeancountrieshave signedthe Bonn Conventionin 1989.
In 1988, 8 countrieswere partiesto the BarcelonaConvention concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas
(Grimmett & Jones1989).
additional 20-30% may be wounded (Lampio 1982). Many
duck populationsare probablyover-exploited(e.g. Harradine
1985, Tamisier 1985), demonstrating the importance of
measuresfor regulatinghunting pressure.About 16% of the
autumn population of geesein Europeis shot (Scott 1982).
Following the recent introduction of strict regulationson
goosehunting, most goosepopulationshave increased(e.g.
Mehlum & Ogilvie 1984).
The RamsarConventiondoesnot only promotethe conservation of certain listedwetlands, but also the "wiseuse"of all
wetlands. A conferenceof the Contracting Partiesin 1987
adopted the following definitionof the conceptof "wiseuse"
of wetlandsas "their sustainableutilizationfor the benefit of
human kind in a way compatiblewith the naturalproperties
of the ecosystem".The conferencerecognizedthat comprehensivenationalwetland policieswill be a long term process,
and hence urged that immediate action should be taken to
stimulatewiseuse(IWRB,pers.comm.).
(b) Habitat management.- The ICBP(International Council
for Bird Preservation)and the IWRB(InternationalWaterfowl
and Wetland ResearchBureau)have worked out criteria for
internationallyimportant bird areas(see Scott 1980). These
criteria mainly apply to waders,waterfowl and birds passing
through "bottle-necks"during migration.
Registrationof significantwetland areashas been carriedout
in Europeover severaldecades,e.g. by the AQUA project(Luther & Rzoska1971). The first publishedsurveyof western
Europeincluded 15 countriesand 500 different areas(Scott
1980). The IWRBand the ICPBhave continued this work often commissionedby the EEC. By 1986, 11 countries remainedto be investigated,and only short listsof internationally significant areas were compiled for an additional 25
countries(ICBP & IWRB1987). Therefore a three year program, designedto cover all of Europe,was started in 1987,
and a comprehensivereview has already been published
(Grimmett & Jones1989).
Management of bird specieswhich breed in Europeand migrate to other partsof the world, cannot be regardedmerely
from a Europeanperspective.Hence,work hasstartedto produce an agreement under the Bonn Conventionfor western
Palearcticwaterfowl, but it hasbeen recognizedthat it will be
difficult to develop such a management plan (UNEP, pers.
comm.).
(a) Hunting regulations.- Despitethe availabilityof adequate
informationon migration routesof mostwetland birds,hunting pressureis not regulatedalong European"flyways",such
as is the case in North America (Scott 1982, Piersmaet al.
1987, Boyd& Pirot 1989). One reasonmay be that hunting
statisticson relevantspeciesare lackingfor severalcountries
(seeBertelsen& Simonsen1986).
A large number of wetland reserveshave been established,
many of them as Ramsarsites. Some of these have been
createdwith internationalhelp. For examplethe World Wide
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,netsare stillused
to catchmigratorybirds(Bertelsen& Simonsen1976). The annualnetcatchof birdsin Italyisestimatedat 320,000 individuals,while statisticsfor Franceare more than one millionbirds,
most of which are larks(Alaudidae).A "guestimate"done for
the standingcomtnittee of the BerneConvention(CE 1986),
indicatedthat more than 100 millionpasserinebirdswere annuallycaughtin Europe(includingCyprus),mostof them illegally.Alsoindiscriminateshootingof birdstakesplacein many
countries,e.g. in Malta (CIC, pers.comm.).
4.2
Resident small game
Populationswhich staywithin the boundariesof one country
throughout the year are here regardedas resident.However,
some indMduals may crossbordersto neighbouring countries, or engage in short migrationswithin their own country.
The following is a discussionof measurescarried out by private individualsor organizationsto assistlocalwildlife populations.Suchaction may take placeon private, common and
state property. lt is not imposed by the government, but
may be regulatedby legislationor encouragedby statefunding.
National regulationof hunting pressureon migratorybirdsis
mainly enforcedthrough closedand hunting seasons.In recent years,daily or annualbag limitshave been introducedin
somecountries(seeLampio1983).
Many handbooks describedifferent managernent practices
(e.g. Coles1971), but little is knoWnabout their application.
Leopold (1933) mentions the following major subjects:es-
About 45% of the autumn population of Europeanducksis
estimatedshot during the hunting season(Scott 1982). An
16
nina utredning018
© 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.
tablishment of game reserves,control of disease,hunting,
predators,food, water and cover, and introductions.These
practicesare alsorelevantin Europetoday:
ln the early 1900's, predator controlwas one of the most
important methods for helping small game populations.
Predatorcontrolwas encouragedby the bounty system.The
populationsizeof many predator speciesdeclineddrastically
(Hagen 1952, Bijleveld1974, Newton 1979).
The purpose of a game reserveis to produce a surplus
populationin protected areas,which may migrate into nearby areaswhere hunting is permitted. Thissystemis not common in Europe,but 86 game reserveshave been established
in Denmark for similar purposes (Jepsen 1985). National
parksand nature reservesmay also partly serve similar purposes,but hunting may be permitted within some national
parks,e.g. in Norway.
Modern attitudestoward predator control are influencedby
the followingconditions:1) Protectionof birdsof prey isgiven high priority.The most effectivemeansof control(poison
and traps) are most often illegal. All raptors and owls are
protected in most countries. 2) Researchhas shown that
predators reduce populations of harvestable game (e.g.
Strandgaard
Asferg 1980, Korsch 1985, Potts 1986,
Marcström et al. 1988, 1989). On the other hand, some
studieson the effectsof predator control are not conclusive
(Göransson& Loman 1978, Parker1984). 3) Predatorcontrol and in particular applying to specieslike the red fox
(Vulpes vulpes) and crows (Corvidae) which may eat eggs
and young, remainsan important aspectof game management in many countries, e.g. in Great Britain (Hudson
Rands1988).
Hudson(1986) suggestsmethodsfor reducingthe abundance of nematodesin Scottishred grouse(Lagopus lagopus
scoticus), and for exterminatingticksresponsiblefor spreading the diseaselouping ill". Up till now these methodshave
not, however, been used in any large-scaleway. In Sweden
arcticfoxes (Alopex lagopus) have recentlybeen held in captivity for a period and treated for sarcopticmange.
Small, adjoining, private estatesare often organized into
management areas.This is an important management practice in Fennoscandia(e.g. Hamilton 1980). In Great Britain,
syndicatesorganizeseveralsmallerestatesin large areas.The
syndicateis responsiblefor hiring a gamekeeperand leasing
hunting (e.g. Waddington 1958).
Severalguidelineson the care and management of wetlandshave been published(e.g. GC 1981, Scott 1982, Lutz
1986). Only major themes are mentioned here: Vegetation
like Carex, Phragmites and low bushes may be removed
from inland waters by machinery or grazing animals.New
wetlands may be created, and spoiledwetlands may be restored. Water levelsmay be regulated. Fertilitymay be increasedthrough the useof fertilizeror lime. Potentialbreeding habitat may be improved with nest boxes and artificial
breeding islands. Food resourcesfor young may be increasedby controllingfish or lining nutrient poor poolswith
straw. Open water areas may be maintained during winter.
Eutrophicationlevels may be reduced by regulating husbandrymeans.
Landownerswho use or leasehunting rights may regulate hunting pressure.The rate at which hunting yields are
compensated for by lower natural mortality or increased
production, determines the need for small game hunting
controls(e.g. Kalchreuter1977, 1987). Among Scottishred
grouse, reductionsin winter mortality may compensatefor
high hunting pressure (Watson & Jenkins1968). Several
population models have been devisedfor small game (e.g.
Moss et al. 1979, Potts 1979, 1986), but little is known
about sustainableharvestfor most species(Myrberget 1985,
Hudson& Rands1988). When hunting pheasants,it may be
wise to shoot more cocks than hens (Hill & Robertson
1988).
Hedge planting,sowingwild meadowsand reducedpesticide usemay improve terrestrialhabitat (Coles1971, Ueckermann & Scholz 1981, Potts 1986). Heather (Calluna vulgaris) burning is beneficialto Scottishred grouse(Watson
Miller 1976, Miller 1980). In Norway burning of dwarf birch
(Betula nana) may be beneficialfor better game food spedes, suchasVaccinium spp. (e.g. Phillipset al. 1984).
In severalareas including the Nordic countriesand parts of
southern Europe,small game hunting pressureis only regulated by the length of the hunting seasons,the degree of
hunting enthusiasm, and the number of personsthat are
permitted to hunt.
Blue hares(Lepus timidus) are-often fed with grain and hay
(Aarnio & Vikberg 1980). Blackgrouse (Tetrao tetrix) in Finland are fed oats and wheat at 11,000 automaticfeedingstations situated on their display grounds (Marjakangas1985,
Valkesjärvi6.1ljås 1989). Resultsare unknown (Willebrand
1988).
In some southern countrieswhere hunting rights are free,
the hunting pressureon smallgame hasincreasedrapidly in
later years, so that many stocksseem to be overexploited.
This may also be a consequenceof an increasednumber of
gunsin some of thesecountries.
In many countries,large numbersof galliformesand mallardsand other animalsare introducedto provideshortterm
17
nina utredning018
Table2. Re-stocking
ofsomebirdspedesin somewesterncountries(data partlyfromBertelsen& Simonsen1986).
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Great Britain
Ireland
Italy
Netherlands
North Ireland
Norway
Switzerland
Pheasant
Grey
partridge
Red-legged
partridge
500 000
450 000
15 000
8 000 000
9 000 000
100 000
3 000 000
50 000
110 000
1 000
0
25 000
50 000
100
1 200 000
?
?
500 000 1)
?
1 000 1)
< 500
0
1 000
0
0
800 000
?
?
0
?
0
0
•
Mallard
20 000
350 000
200
800 000
400 000
10 000
250 000
?
1 000
500
0
1) Some of these red - legged partridges.
Ueckermann1981). Among smallgame specieswhich locally
may causeconsiderabledamage are geese (Madsen 1987).
Small passerinesmay also damage gardens and farmland
(e.g. Bieber & Meylan 1984, Tahon 1985, O'Connor &
Shrubb1986).
excesspopulationsfor hunting (Table 2). The pheasant is
the specieswhich is most often re-stocked.The birdsare frequently hybridizationof the subspeciescolchicus, torquatus
and mongolicus(G. Göranssonin Andersson1988).
Releasedanimals are either raised in captivity or originate
from wild living populationsin other areasor countries.The
latter type of re-stockingis common in Italy, where at least
800,000 individualsare annually imported for introductim,
including 300,000 brown hares at a cost of 35 million U.S.
dollars.Stockingof ptarmigan, capercaillie,and blue hare in
Scandinaviahave not been of particularsignificancefor the
existing indigenouspopulations(e.g. Lindlöf 1979). On the
other hand, introductionsof haresto Norwegian coastalislandswith no previoushare population,have been quite successful(Huseby& Bø 1985).
On the other hand, it is important to reduce lossesof birds
and mammals due to agriculture machinery and practices.
Small changes in agricultural and forestry practicessometimes help to avoid uneccessarynegative consequencesfor
wildlife populations. Lessintensive use on the outskirtsof
crops, may reduce the negative effectsof pesticideson the
food of specieslike pheasantsand the grey partridge (e.g.
Strandgaard1985, Potts1986, Rands1986). The capercaillie
is adapted to primaryforesthabitat, and slightchangesin forestrypracticescould be beneficial,without resultingin larger
economic lossesfor the landowner (Wegge 1984). Norwegian forestry authoritiesnow adviseall forest owners to include wildlife management plans in their general forestry
plans(see alsoFalck& Mysterud 1988). It is also possibleto
take better care of wildlife in cities and other urban areas
(e.g. Gerell1982).
Large-scalere-stockingsof small game have been criticized
for severalreasons.Many introducedanimalsdie prior to the
startof the huntingseason(Mikkelsen1986, Potts1986, Robertson & Whelan 1987), and introductionsmay lead to increasedexploitationof natural populations.Introduced animals may alsoinfluencethe genetic composition,behaviour
and reproductivecapacity of the natural population (Hill &
Robertson1986, 1987, 1988).
Experiencefrom many countrieshas demonstrated the efficiency of information campaignsin influencing public attitudes to multiple use of habitats. The best resultsare obtained when information is spread by respected
organizationsand individualsactivelyengaged in agriculture
and forestry.
(i) In many casessmallgame productionis economicallysubordinate to most other activitiesinvoMng natural habitats,
and game management should be seen as part of multiple
useschemesfor habitat. Firstly,game populationsshould be
managedto avoiddamage to forests,cropsand pasture(e.g.
18
nina utredning018
© 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.
4.3 Big game hunting
noscandia
outside Fen-
Great Britainare estimatedby field sightingand habitatquality (Prior1987).
Poachingis a problem in some areas,e.g. in Ireland. In Ireland most (78%) of the forestsare owned by the state(FACE
1986). Most Irishfarms are small, 10-20 ha, and the hunting
rightsare generallyheld by hunting clubs.About 5-600 hunting licensesfor deer with no restrictionon the numberspermitted to shoot, are issuedannually by the Wildlife Service
(ForestSzWildlifeService1986 a, b).
Only in Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain(e.g. Fog 1983,
Prior 1987) may landowners themselvesfreely determine
how many deer they shallshoot(Figure 1). Harvestingof red
deer on private estatesin Great Britainis regulatedaccording
to advice given by "The Red Deer Commissions"(Nahlik
1974, Miller 1981). The sizesof the roe deer populationsin
Although the Danish owners themselvesdecide how many
deer they want to shoot, they have a duty to ascertainthat
deer do not damage agriculture in nearby areas, e.g. they
can be forced to put up deer fences.To prevent damage to
forestryby red deer, the owners may demand that the deer
population must be decimatecLNo compensationis paid by
the state for big game damage, but the state may subsidize
plantingsfor managementpurposes.
In Portugal,southernItaly and Greece,deer are almostcompletely protected(e.g. Bugalhoet al. 1986), and in the European part of Turkey,the deer is totally protected (Anonymus
1987, Serez 1990). In some cantons in Switzerlandand in
north-westItaly the harvestis controlledby licensesonly. In
Iceland, the Netherlands, Belgium (since 1989), Luxembourgh and Francethe harvestis controlled by licenseand
hunting ground ownership, accordingto somewhatvarying
systems(Haaften 1986, Gill 1988). For example, in Iceland
central authoritiesdetermine the numbersof reindeerwhich
may be shot, and municipalityauthoritiesauthorize hunters
to do the culling.In Spain, ICONA (Instituto Nacionalpara la
Conservacionde la Naturaleza) has the authority to regulate
the frequencyof drive huntson privateland (Gill 1988).
Figure 1
- Managementsystemsfor cervidsin Europe.Thesymbolsdifferentiatebetweenthe followingmain systems:TheFennoscandian
licensesystem(Norway, Sweden,Rnland),landowner-controlled
harvest(Denmark, Great Britain,Ireland), territory(revier)system of westernEurope(WestGermany,Austria,parts of Switzerland), territorysystemof eastemEurope(EastGermany,Poland,
Czechoslovakia,
Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria,Yugoslavia),varied systemswith a controlby centralauthoritiesor huntingorganizations(Iceland, the Netheriands,Belgium,Luxembourgh,
France,Spain),thepatent-system(partsof Switzerlandand Italy), almostcompleteprotection(Portugal,SouthernItaly, Greece,
Europeanpart of Turkey).Unshadedareas:no informationavailable.(Partlyafter Gill 1988).
19
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 (Raesfelt 1898, Bubenik1976), and was made obligatoryby law in
Germanyin 1934 (Ueckermann1984).
A descriptionof (a) red deer management in West Germany
and (b) supplementaryinformation on other big game speciesis usedto illustratethe methodsemployed in the "territory"system.(The systemis alsoappliedto smallgame populations). Hunting territoriesin West Germanymustcomprisean
area of 75-1000 hectares(DJV 1987). Territoriesof 75-150
hectaresare managed by landowners. Larger territoriesare
managed by a hunting federation, under the leadershipof a
committee composedof local landownersand municipalofficials. There are approximatdy 50,000 hunting territoriesin
West Germany.
nina utredning018
During a visitto Germanyin the 1930's, Aldo Leopold(1936)
was impressedby the fact that in contrastto what he had observed in North America, Europeandeer lived on habitats
stronglyinfluencedby humansand in the absenceof any effective predators.The main goal for deer management was
to improvethe qualityof trophies,i.e. stag antlers.The situation today remainslargelythe same.
- A harvestplan, which attemptsto maintain an equal number of malesand females,is approvedby a councilappointed
for larger areas. Harvesting is controlled according to predetermined criteria on the sex and age distributionof the
hunting yield (Figure 2). The optimum sizeof the trophy is
the main objectiveof regulatingthe age distribution(Drechsler 1980), and hence is the main objectivedeterminingthe
lifespanof the oldest stagsto be about 12 years. Formerly,
major emphasiswas placed on harvestingweak or sickanimals (e.g. Newman 1979). Now apportionsare related to a
certain extent to culling the weakestindividualsin each age
class.Antlersand mandiblesare displayedat obligatoryannual exhibitions to ensure that the harvesting program for
malesisfollowed.
(a) Red deer.- According to Ueckermann (1960, 1986a,
1987), Gottschalk(1972), Bubenik (1976, 1989), Wagenknecht (1981) and Jelinek(1986), the purposesof red deer
management are: 1) to establishpopulationsin all suitable
habitat, 2) to regulate populationsin accordancewith other
economic interests,such as forestry,farming, and to avoid
trafficcollisions,and 3) to increasethe carryingcapacityand
the quality (trophies)of the game yield. The following main
measuresare usedto obtain thesegoals:
- Feedingconditions are improved to increasethe carrying
capacityof a territory and the quality of individualanimals
(Ueckerman & Scholtz 1971). During the winter, different
kinds of fodder are made accessible(Onderscheka 1986,
Ueckermann1986b), preferablyto cover 50-75% of nutritional requirements(Ueckermann1971). Placementof feeding stationsaids controlling areasinhabited by deer during
the winter, thereby reducing damage to vulnerable forest
areas.
- Carryingcapacityof the terrainshouldbe classifiedby registering borderzones,pasture,soilquality, and forestcomposition according to a system developed by Ueckermann
(1955). The desiredspring population is set at 1.5-2.5 deer
per km2 dependingon the carryingcapacityof the territory.
Densitiesmay be increasedto 4 red deer per km2 by usingartificialfeeding, and decreasedif other speciesof deer occurin
the territory.
- Practicalmeasuresare employed to preventforest damage
and include1) fencingof particularlyvulnerableforestsuccession stages,and 2) protection of certain trees through the
use of chemical or mechanicalrepellents(e.g. Ueckermann
1960, 1981, Reimoser1986). Reddeer inflictthe most damage to treesin Europe(Ueckermann1987).
- The spring population is estimated by counting deer at
feeding stationsand through tracking. Individualanimalsare
alsoidentified in some areas.Harvestableproductionis estimated as 65-70% of all adult hinds in the population as of
April 1.
•• • ••
•• •
•
•
o
•
• •
•
• 2•
1
•
9
•
• ,
8
•
7
6
•
5
4
3
2
1
0
•
•
• 6• •
•
5
4
3
2
1
0
•
• • •
• •
20
•
•
••••• ••
•
•• • • •• •
Figure2
Above:Age compositionof an idealisedred deerpopulationof 100 individualsApril 1 in West Germany.
Dottedsquares:plannedculling.Provided no natural summermortality
thiswil lead to a stablestate. (After
Ueckermann 1984). Below: The
sametype-ofdata fora roedeerpopulation.(AfterUeckermann1982).
© 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
management in Austria, some cantons in Switzerlandand
most of the countriesof eastern Europe(e.g. Wagenknecht
1965, Nagy & Bencze 1973), where red deer populations
and the quality of trophies are reported to have improved
(Bencze1976, Jelinek1986). However,in many areas,e.g. in
EastGermany the huntersexperiencegreat difficultiesin followingthe'recommendedplan (Briedermannet al. 1986). Experimentshave been conducted in the Alps to protect deer
from disturbanceby touristsand to reduceforestdamage, by
fencing deer in prime habitat during the winter (Gossow
Stadlmann1985). Diseasecontrol is one aspectof the "territory" systemwhere in some areas medicine is mixed with
food at feeding stationsto combat lung and other parasites
(e.g. Spenik1985).
into over-huntedareas.Populationdensityand habitat quality may affectreproductionratesof roe deer (Loudon1987).
Fallowand sikadeer (Sika nippon) are managed in principally
the sameway as red and roe deer (see e.g. Ninov 1990, Rumohr-Rundhof 1990). Higher percentages of these exotic
bopulationsare, however, often raisedin captivityor under
semi-naturalconditions.
Wild boarsin Central Europeare also managed accordingto
the territorysystem(Ueckermann1977, Briedermann1986).
A number correspondingto 100-200% of the springpopulation isculled, and the averageis 140-150%. Economiccarrying capacityis 0.5 -1.5 wild boarsper km2. Estimatingpopulationsizeisdifficult,and in some casesculling is plannedon
the basisof the extent of crop damage, which isoften extensive (Ueckerman1981, Briedermann1986). In Turkey, wild
boars may be hunted year round (Anonymus 1987, Serez
1990).
Many countrieshave recentlystartedto realizethat red deer
and other cervidsare not countable, although their hunting
lawsand regulationsassumethat they are (Gill 1988). Counting deer is especiallydifficultin forestterrain (Gossow1976).
Thereforepopulationnumbersare often underestimated,and
underexploited(Gill 1986). Somepopulationsmay alsobe intentionally underestimatedor overestimated.The sex of the
animalshotisnot alwayscorrectlyreported.
Management principlesfor chamois (Rupicapra rUpicapra),
mouflon (Ovis aries) and ibex (Capra ibex) are similarto
those for other ungulates (Wotschikovsky1977, Schröder
1985). However,these speciesoften occupy isolatedand remote habitat, and local management traditions play an important role. One of the goalsof management is to preserve
the characteristicsof different sub-species.As an example,
there are eight sub-speciesof chamoisin Europe. However,
mostre-introductionshaveonly involvedanimalswhich originated from the alpine sub-species(rupicapra), even within
the distributionalrange of other sub-species(Lovari 1984).
Muflon is alsooften kept under semi-wildconditions,e.g. in
the Netherlands(Litjenset al. 1989).
There are also severalfundamental argumentsagainstusing
this system.Bubenik(1970, 1986) statedthat the harvesting
program does not account for population social structure.
The systemmay also reduce genetic variation (Lang 1986).
Bobeket al. (1990) claim that the influenceon trophy quality
obtained through genetic changes induced by selective
shooting of stags is lesspronounced than effectson antler
sizefrom varyingpopulationdensityand habitatquality.
Some opponents contend that the program gives greater
precedenceto the detailed desiresof hunters,than to more
_generallong-term goals (e.g. Wotschikowskiet al. 1986). It
also discriminatesbetween the common and the wealthy
hunter (Bubenik 1989). There is an increasingpolarization
between hunting interestsand those of environrnentalprotection (Wolfe & Berg1988).
4.4
Big game in the Fennoscandia
The following.wild deer speciesare found in Fennoscandia:
moose, red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, reindeerand whitetailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (only in Finland).Harvest
planningoften tendsto keepstocksbelow the ecologicalcarryingcapacityof a given area. Significantfactorsin determining the "economicalcarryingcapacity"of an area are damages causedby deer to agricultureand forestry,and accidents
on roadsand railwaysinvolvingdeer (e.g. Stensaas1989).
(b) Other species.-In centraland easternEuropethe "territory" systemusedfor hunting roe deer is basicallythe same as
for red deer (K8nig 1982, 1983, Ueckermann 1982). The
number of animalsharvestedin prime areasmay be equal to
the springpopulationof adult females,while only 70-90% of
the same figure is taken in poorer habitat. Harvestingplans
involvea pre-determinedsexand age distribution(seeFigure
2). At least 110 000 roe deer are killed by automobiletraffic
in West Germany and 60 000 by agriculturalmachinery(DJV
1,987). In contrastto the red deer, the roe deer populationis
regulatedby socialmechanisms(Strandgaard1972), leading
to an influx of animalsfrom areaswith lesshunting pressure
Management of big game in Fennoscandiamay be saidto
belong to a "territory"system (Bubenik 1989), but many
practical measuresare different from those used in Central
Europe.Althoughthere are geographicand specificvariations
within Fennoscandiain practicalmeasuresusedwhen hunting quotas are set, the general procedure is as follows:The
numberof hunting licensesissuedfor deer and often alsothe
quota compositionof the yield isdecided by regionalauthori21
nina utredning018
ties.The number of licensesissuedis determined by the size
of the population and the area. Landownersset the actual
boundariesof hunting terrains,providedthey control an area
which is at least equal to the size required for one license.
They may sell their licensesif they wish to do so. One problem arisinghere is that the price in some casesis very high,
up to 300 US dollar for one roe deer in Norway (Hagen
1989).
cerningthe number, age and sexof animalsobservedduring
the hunt, the "Moose seen" scheme (e.g. Pedersenet al.
1988). Most of thiswork hasbeen voluntary.
Until recently,the mooseyield in all three countriesincreased
as a resultof controlled harvestingand habitat improvement
(Figure 3). Hunting is the greatestcauseof mortalityamong
Nordic moose, and it is therefore possibleto calculatethe
populationstructurewhich is conduciveto optirnal calf production (e.g. Stålfelt 1966). Harvestingis mainly aimed at
calves,yearlingsand bulls,whereasreproductivefemalesare
savedto a varyingextent. Thistactic resultsin highercalf production relativeto the total winter population.One problem
with thesecalculationsis that they assumea fixed number of
mooseafter hunting. This meansthat no considerationistaken to the fact that different populationcategoriesdo not eat
equal amountsof winter food.
The following examples are described:(a) management of
the mooseand (b) modificationsapplyingto other species.
(a) Moose.- The purposeof moosemanagementis to restrict
the number of moosein order to reducedamage to forestry,
crops and traffic to an acceptablelevel, and to manipulate
population structure and size to obtain optimal hunting
yields(Myrberget 1979, Rificker& Ståffelt1986, Haagenrud
et al. 1988). The interestof trophy huntersassumesa low priority. Hunting quotas are determined by county administratorswho cooperatewith localrepresentatives.Fixedlimitsfor
moosedensityin Finlandvary between 0.5 and 4 animalsper
km2 (Nygren 1984), but such limits do not exist in Sweden
and Norway.
150000
Only registered"moosehunting areas"are open for licensed
hunting. One exception is the right to shoot an unlicensed
number of moose calvesduring a short open seasonin unregisteredareasof Sweden. Hunting areaswithin a particular
municipalityare in most casesdefined as belonging to the
same "moosemanagementdistrict".However,this definition
only inadequatelyconsidersecologicalrealities.
100000
Sweden
Finland
50000
Norway
In Sweden, county administrationis divided into 23 areas,
and playsa significantrole in the distributionof quotas. Provincial moose boards propose harvesting plans for each
moosedistrict.The systemissimilarin Finland.
25000
1945
In Norway, quota permitsare issuedby the County Governor
according to a "minimum area" for each animal permitted
shot. The size of quotas is largely based on experiencesin
earlieryears,yield statistics,and simulationmodelsinvolving
the size of the yield in previousyears and the number of
mooseobservedduring the previoushunting season(e.g. Jaren 1988, Pedersenet al. 1988). Quotas are assignedto each
landowner by a municipalgame board, in accordancewith
minimum areas.
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Figure3
Harvestof moosein Fennoscandia1945-86. (Mainly after Haagenrudet al. 1988).
The winter population of moose has alsoincreasedin many
areas. In some Scandinaviandistrictsthe moose population
has reachedan abundancewhich exceedscarryingcapacity,
which has led to unacceptablyhigh levelsof damage in recent years.Reducedreproductionhasbeen reportedin some
populations. Deliberate action has been taken to reduce
some of these populations,but considerabledoubt remains
asto how thissituationshouldbe treated (e.g. Jaren1988).
Management in Finland includessystematicinvestigationof
availablepasture land and forest damage. In Finland, compensation is paid for damage to forestry and agriculture,
whereasin Norway and Sweden only damage to agriculture
may be compensatedfor. In Sweden, many populationsare
counted from a helicopteror an airplane. Moose huntersin
all three countriesare provided with a questionnaire,con-
(b) Other species.-Practicalmeasuresusedto set quotas are
largelythe same as for moose. However, non-licensedhunt22
© 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
duce reindeernumbersthrough intensivehunting, sothat the
sizesof populatlonsandyieldsfluctuatefrom year to year.
ing of roe and fallow deer is also permitted during an open
seasonin Sweden(Nordell & Weinberg 1983). In fact, in later
yearsmost roe deer are felled by this system.In Finland,roe
deer hunting isallowedonly on the Åland Islands.
Roedeer and red deer are difficultto count, and hunting statisticsfor roe deer in Norway yield figureswhich are far too
low (Myrberget 1988). Reddeer and reindeeronly give birth
to one calf, and the effectof age-specificselectiveharvesting
is not asgreat asfor the moose.It is, however, alsofor these
species important to ascertainthat hunting leads to few
motherlesscalves:
Roedeer populationsare in this northern area mainly limited
by climaticfactorsand snow conditions(e.g. Hjeljord1980),
and wild reindeerdo little damage. Therefore,ecologicalcarrying capacity is the primary limiting factor for population
levelsof thesespeciesin a given area (Stensaas1989).
In Scandinaviasnow depths may increasemortality among
roe deer during particularlyhard winters(Hjeljord 1980), and
supplementaryfeeding is reccommendedunder such conditions. Roe deer feeding programs are common in Sweden,
but little is known about their effectiveness(Sandberg1985).
Wild reindeerare only hunted in southernNorway. Management units are comprisedof about 25 more or lessnaturally
separatedmountain ranges,each usuallymade up of several
municipalities (Krafft 1981). Reindeer management relies
even more heavily upon information about the relationship
between population production and density, and available
winter food resources(see Figure 4, Skogland1986), than
other Europeanbig game management schemes.The population iscounted and populationstructureand habitat quality
are monitoredat 1-5 year intervals.
The development of a small huntable population of wild
boarshas only been permitted in the Stockholmarea, while
boarsin all other partsof Swedenare treated as "pests".The
same is the case in Finland. It has not been possible,however, to count and controlthe Swedishpopulationaccording
to plans.
In several reindeer areas there are continual difficultiesin
maintaining suitablewinter populations.One reasonis that
herdsmay wander long distancesin responseto weather conditions,and it isthen difficultto organizeeffectivehunting in
an entire area. Sometimesit is necessaryto deliberatelyre-
4.5
14
c 30
12
10
20
8
c 10
4
1
2
3
predators
There is no common systemfor the management of brown
bear, wolf, wolverine(Gulo gulo) and lynx (Lynx lynx) in Europe. However,the objectiveof management in many countries is similar, namely to maintain "viable"populations(see
Soulé1987) responsiblefor acceptablelevelsof damage. The
most seriousdamage is to livestockand semi-domesticreindeer, but locally killingof big game and damage on honey
bee hives are taken into consideration (e.g. Sørensenin
press).
16
cl)
Large mammalian
Thesespecieswere formerlyheavilypersecuted,and bounties
were common. Today, most populationsare small, and are
largelyprotectedagainsthunting. However,for some species
and areas, licensehunting is permitted, e.g. in Sweden. In
other areasan open seasonschemecontrolshunting, e.g. on
lynx in Norway.
3
Norway is one of severalcountrieswhich have worked out a
national plan for management of large predatory species
(Vaag 1987). Registrationsare a major part of this plan
(Sørensenet al. 1984). The term "viable"refersto any population where the probabilityof decline over a 20 year period
is lessthan 15% (see population modelling by Stenseth&
Steen 1987). For thesespecies,which occur in low densities
and uselarge home ranges,cooperationbetween neighbouring countriesis imperativeto ensuretheir conservation(e.g.
Mysterud& Falck1989).
4
Populationdensity (n/km2)
Figure4
Estimatedannual productivity curvesfor Norwegian reindeer in
terms of numerical abundance (dotted curve) and biomass (full
curve). The arrows indicate the densitiesat which maximum sustainable yield is obtained. (After Skogland 1986).
23
ninautredning018
5 Game population distribution, status and harvest
To illustrate management of populationstreated as game,
the management of bearsin Yugoslaviamay serveas an example (following Cicnjak& Ruff 1990): In one of the republics(Macedonia) the hunting is not regulatedand bearsmay
be hunted year-around. In the other five republicsbearsare
carefullymanaged and hunted. Management methodsusually includeregulatedbaiting/feedingsites.Systernaticobservations of bear visitsat feeding stationsare used to estimate
population size. In Slovenia, management includes habitat
protectionfor areasknown to be important for denning, and
orchardsare planted to provide additionalfoods. The length
of the hunting seasonvaries between republics,but usually
begins in early September or October and ends in mid- or
late May.
Fearof the wolf isa common featureof many human cultures
(e.g. Naess & Mysterud 1987). Although there are a few
known caseswhere escapedcaptivewolves,or wolvesinfected with rabieshave attackedand killed humans(e.g. Pimlott
1975), there are no documentedcasesof attackson humans
by healthywolvesin recent times. On the other hand, more
examplesexist of humans being killed by brown bears(e.g.
Cicnjak& Ruff1990).
Becauseof variationsin natural conditionsand differencesin
hunting regulations,the number of game speciesin Europeis
high. In Sweden, approximately 150 speciesare considered
game (SOU 1983). At least 100 bird speciesare legallyhunted in one or another western Europeancountry (e.g. Bertelsen & Simonsen1986). Fewer speciesare hunted in Great
Britain,the Nordiccountriesand easternEurope.Asan example, in addition to ducks, 29 bird speciesmay be hunted in
Hungary, but some speciesmay also be shot by speciallicense.
•
In the past the polar bear was heavily hunted on Svalbard
(Larsen1972). The speciesis now protectedthrough the InternationalPolarBearAgreementof 1973 (seeStirling1986).
One man hasbeen killedby polarbearson Svalbardin recent
years,and a few bearshave been shotin selfprotection.
A relativelynew surveyof the statusof all Europeanbird spe& Sharrock1985). I am not
cieshasbeenworkedout
aware of any correspondingsurveyon mammals, but handbooks such as those by Brink (1968) and Niethammer &
Krapp(1982) givegeneraldata on distribution.-Onlythe status and yield of the most important game speciesare describedin this paper.
5.1 Waterfowl
The mallard is the most important game speciesamong
ducks(see Table 3). However, probablyabout one half of all
mallardsshot have been raisedin captivity.Other duck speciesshot in any numbersare teal (Anas crecca), garganey(A.
querquedula) and wigeon (A. penelope). Most of the geese
hunted are the greylag (Anser anser), pink footed goose (A.
brachyrhynchos) (mostly in Great Britain) and the whitefronted goose (A. albifrons). The population statisticsmust,
however, be usedwith great caution, becausemany uncertain data and errorsmay be included. Some of the data are
certainlyalsoout-dated.
Many of the management principlesusedon large terrestrial
predatorsalsoapply to seals(e.g. Bonner1975). A frequently
discussedissue is the transmissionof nematode parasites
from sealsto fish (e.g. Helgadottiret al. 1985). Suchparasites
may be of economicimportancein commercialfisheries,and
hence lead to sealculling programs,e.g. in Norway (Bjørge
1987, Wiig 1988a).
The majorityof swan,geese and duck specieshave increased
in numbersin recentyears(Mehlum & Ogilvie 1984, Nilsson
& Fog 1984, Kalchreuter1987). However,there are some exceptions to 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), lapwings (Vanellus vanellus), woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola)
and common snipes(Gallinago gallinago) are killed. Significant numbersof jack snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus), moorhen (Gallinula chloropus) and curlews (Numenius arquata)
24
© 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
Table 3. Breeding and winter population size and shooting yield of geese and ducks in Europe, U.S.S.R.included (after Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). No hunting statistics from Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.
Breeding
Beangoose(Anserfabalis)
Pink-footedgoose(Anser brachyrhynchos)
White-frontedgoose(Anser albifrons)
Greylaggoose(Anser anser)
Canadagoose2)(Branta canadensis)
Brentgoose(Branta bernicla)
Wigeon (Anas penelope)
Gadwell(Anas strepera)
Teal (Anas crecca)
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
Pintail(Anas acuta)
Garganey(Anas querquedula)
Shoveler(Anas clypeta)
Red-crestedpochard(Netta rufina)
Pochard(Aythyaferina)
Tufted duck (Aythyafuligula)
Scaup(Aythya marila)
Eider(Somateria mollissima)
Long-tailedduck(Clangula hyemalis)
Common scoter(Melanitta nigra)
Velvetscoter(Melanitta fusca)
Goldeneye(Bucephala clangula)
Red-breastedmerganser(Mergus serrator)
Goosander(Mergus merganser)
?
6 000
?
?
145 000
850 000
4 000 000
135 000
45 000
75 000
1 500
45 000
310 000
260 000
500 000
2 000 000
12 500
55 000
300 000
45 000
60 000
Winter
Yeld
200 000
150 000
430 000
185 000
7 000
200 000
1 350 000
87 000
1 400 000
9 000 000
375 000
500 000
340 000
50 000
1 000 000
1 350 000
150 000
2 000 000
1 000 000
1 500 000
200 000
300 000
75 000
120 000
5 8001)
6 500
18 000
20 0001)
1 500
3 500
425 000
38 0001)
1 900 000
6 000 000
235 000
555 000
190 000
8 0001)
280 000
265 000
50 000
220 000
110 000
30 000
4 0001)
100 000
5 0001)
3 0001)
Only for EEC countries.
Out-dated data
5.2 Other small game species
are also shot (Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). Statisticson
hunting of smallerwaders do not distinguishbetween species. Several million gulls (Larus spp.) are shot. Auks and
other diving seabirdsare or were popular game in northern
areas.
The brown hare and the rabbit are the most abundant of all
mammals hunted, and 10 million of each speciesare probably killed annually, although few statisticsare available.
Rabbit populationsthroughout Europedeclined rapidly after
the deliberate introduction of myxomatosis in France in
1952 (Moore 1987). In some partsof Great Britain,the population was reduced by 99% (Lever 1985). Numbers of rabbits have increased somewhat since. In northern Europe,
Scotland and the Alps, the brown hare is replaced by the
blue hare. Earlierthe red squirrel was commonly hunted.
The alpine marmot (Marmota marmota) is locally hunted in
the Alps.
Accordingto Nowak (1974), the numbersof waterfowl killed
per unit area in France,Great Britain,Denmark and the Aaland islands(Finland)are particularlyhigh. However,hunting
statisticsare lackingfor some countries(see heading Table
3). and some statisticsmay underestimatethe numbersshot
(e.g. Göransson& Larsson1987).
25
ninautredning018
The beaverwas almostcompletelyexterminatedin Europein
the'last century. Protectionmeasuresand introductionshave
led to improvements.Today there are at least50,000 individuals in Scandinavia,where the speciesis shot and trapped
(e.g. Myrberget1987). The Canadianbeaver(Castor canadensis) hasbeen introducedto Finland(Lahti& Helminen1974).
resultof previousover-exploitation(Strandgaard1979). Roe
deer do not occur in Ireland and Iceland. To establishroe
deer in more areasin Finland, some animals have been releasedfrom captivityin recentyears(Vikberg1988).
There are more than one million red deer, and 300,000 are
annually killed (in Great Britain 50,000 annually, most of
them in Scotland).Some deer specieshave been introduced
to Europe (see Lever 1985), and there are 200,000 fallow
deer, 40,000 white-tailed deer (see Pulliainen Sz Sulkava
1986) and 20,000 sikadeer. A smallsemi-wild populationof
axisdeer (Cervus axis) is found in Yugoslavia,while Chinese
water deer (Hydropbtes inennis) and muntjac (Muntiacus
muntjac) occur in Great Britain. Sika deer and red deer hybridsare found in many areason the BritishIsles(Harrington
1982, Ratcliffe1987).
Anotherintroducedspeciesisthe grey squirrel(Sciurus carolinensis) on the BritishIsles(Lever 1985). Escapingfrom captivity, populationsof coypiu(Myocastor coypus) have been establishedin Great Britain (now erradicated),central Europe
and Italy (Lever 1985). Muscrats(Ondatra zibethicus) have
also escapedfrom fur farms since 1905, and are today regarded as pests in large areas of Europe (Popelin 1969,
Troostwijk1976, Danell 1977).
The woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) is among the most often killed small game speciesin Europe,and more than 12
million are shot in Great Britainalone (Bertelsen& Simonsen
1986), and 6 millionin France(L'OfficeNationalde la Chasse
1986). At least 20 million pheasantsare killed (possibly10
millionin Great Britainand 6.5 millionin France).Statisticsindicate that more than one million individualsof each of the
followingspeciesare killedannually:grey partridge(2 million
in Francealone), red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) (more
than 1.1 million in France), and willow ptarmigan and red
grouse(Lagopus lagopus) on the BritishIslesand in Fennoscandia. In addition, millionsof thrushes(Turdus spp.) including 15-25 million in France,crows(Corvidae)and small passerinesare killed.In Francemore than half a millioncommon
quails(Corturnix corturnix) are shot.
The moose is the most important big game speciesin Fennoscandia,where the population approaches500,000. Harvestingvariesconsiderably,and in recentyears150-225,000
havebeen killed(seeFigure 3). Norway, Svalbardincluded,is
the only country supportinglarger populationsof wild reindeer (Reimerset al. 1980, Krafft 1981), but some smaller
populationsare alsofound on Iceland(Thorrisson1980), and
in Finland(Sulkava1980, Heikuraet al. 1985) where they are
protectedagainsthunting. Yieldsvary considerablyon mainland Norway, 7-15,000 annually.
Followingre-introductions,chamois are now found in most
central and southern Europeancountries.The total population is about 350,000, and 75,000 are harvested,most of
them (25,000) in Austria. Previously, mouflon were only
found on Corsicaand Sardinia(Spagnesi& Appolonio1985).
Today there are more than 70,000 individuals spread
throughout severalcountries(Briedermannet al. 1989). Harvestinghasincreased,and 10,000 mouflon are annuallyshot.
In the Alps,ibex originatefrom a small populationwhich surrived there about 100 years ago. At the presenttime there
are more than 25,000 animals(Schröder1985).
Grouseincludingthe capercaillie,blackgrouse(Tetrao tetrix),
hazelgrouse(Tetrastes bonasia) and rockptarmigan(Lagopus
mutus) are popular game in Fennoscandia.The rock ptarmigan isthe only-wild-livinggrousespecieson Icelandand Svalbard. Populationsof woodland grousein central Europehave
sharplydeclined (e.g. Haarstick1985); the same is the case
for blackgrouseon the BritishIsles(McKelvie1987).
5.3
Wild livingforest wisents(Europeanbison) were exterminated in the 1920's. Re-introductionsof individualssurvivingin
captivity(Glover 1947, Krysiak1967), have resultedin a population of about two thousand animals in areas along the
border between Polandand the SovietUnion, of which nearly half livewithin Poland.
Big game
The surveyof the abundanceof big game, givenin Table 4 is
somewhat inadequate. Numbers have increased in some
countriesafter the estimateswere made. The estimatesare
not equallyaccurate,and the figuresare not alwayscomparable. In the majorityof casesstatisticsreferto the springpopulation, but someautumn populationsmay be included.
The wild boar is found in most countrieson the continent.
Numbersare very low in Finlandand Denmark.A smallpopulation hasbeen establishedin Sweden after escapesfrom capivity(Kristiansson1985). The wild boar is not found in Norway, on Iceland,or on the BritishIsles.The springpopulation
approaches500,000 individualsand 400,000 animalsare annuallykilled(Bäumleret al. 1986).
The most abundant speciesisthe roe deer of which there are
more than 6 million.Two million are killedannually,most of
them (700,000) in West Germany(DJV1987). At many locations in southernmostEurope,populationsare still low as a
26
© 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
Table 4. Popuicitionsize of big game species(1984) in different countries (data mainly after Gill 1986). ?: no information, population probably small. ??:large population.
Red
deer
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Finland
France
GDR
GFR
Great Britain
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Yugoslavia
Total
Roe
deer
95200
4000
18500
48900
5500
35000
45000
85000
270000
300
47500
460000
21500
142400
289300
150000
5000
318000
350000
1700000
??
219600
Fallow
deer
370
150
2800
12700
10000
300
600
30000
30000
50000?
200
9760
Whitetailed
deer
Sika
deer
ReinMoose deer Chamois lbex
112200
750
2010
1000
430
20
35000
91800
1500
4000
990000
5.4 Carnivorous
103000
600
13000?
25000
50000
482000
287000
10000?
6150
5060
500
2000
7700
5200
9000
32000
39700
53500
?
4900
7000
7000
7000
65000
40000
7100-
31300
?
??
1150
300
1180
?
.55900
10000
300?
-
8900
400
500?
1000
55000
73000
400
45000
100000?
2000
22200
25900
600
3500
5000?
62560
700
3500
••
500
40
4000
200
10000
40000
110800
310400
4500
5500000
190000
Boar
1900
1600
1780
50
Mufflon
150
-
85000
4600
40000
_
??
??
??
?
?
40000
28150
67100
24000
11600
360
5300
640
56140
44000 334000
17500
20
-
311000
70
-
250
2941
17000
mammals
36000
500000
48000_ 475000
along the borders to the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia.
SoMe attempts have been made to re-introducethe lynx to
Central Europe(Festeticset al. 1982). Small numbersof pardel lynx (Lynx pardina) occurin Spainand Portugal(e.g. Delibes 1984). Some hundred wolverineslive in Fennoscandia.
The largestotter populationsare found in northern Norway
and on the BritishIsles(Reutherand Festetics1980). The polar bearonly occurson Svalbard.
Populationsof larger carnivoresare heavily reduced in Europe. The largest brown bear population of a maximum
8,000 animals livesin the Carpathian-Balkanarea (Sørensen
in press).Some 1,500 bearslive in Fennoscandia,while isolated populationsarefound in Italy, Franceand Spain.
A wolf populationwhich may compriseas many as4000 individuals,inhabitsthe Carpathian-Balkanregion (Mech 1982),
and isolatedwolf populationsare found in Italy, Spain,Portugal and Norway/Sweden.Wolvesoccupyterritoryon the borders between Soviet Union and Poland (900) and Finland
(lessthan 100), respectively.
The common seal (Phoca vitulina) and the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) are the most common sealspecies.In 1988 a
great proportion of common sealswas killed by a virus(e.g.
Anonymus1989a). Arcticsealsare common on Svalbard,and
they are observedin other northernareasduring migrations.
A residualpopulation of ringed seal (Phoca hispida) alsooccursin the BalticSea(JärvinenST.
Varrio 1986).
The entire population of lynx is unlikelyto be greater than
1,500 individuals,most of which are found in Fennoscandia,
27
nina utredning 018
The red fox is the most commonly hunted carnivore,and is
found in most of Europeexcept Svalbard,Icelandand Crete.
No combined statisticsare available, but the total number
killedcertainlyexceedsone million.Numbersin Fennoscandia
and Denmarkhavedrasticallydeclinedin recentyearsbecause
of sarcopticmange (Lindström& Mörner 1985, Eis1989). The
arcticfox occurson Svalbard,Iceland, and in Fennoscandia.
The speciesis regarded asthreatened in Fennoscandia,while
being covetedgame on Svalbard.The arcticfox is hunted on
Icelandto curb actualor imagineddamagesto livestock.
The potential estirnatedvalue of hunting of approximately
300 U.S.dollarsper hectaréforestfor landownersin England,
is higher than the income from forestry. In EECcountries,
hunting directly or indirectly creates 100,000 jobs (CE
1987a), and thesefiguresmay be doubled when accounting
for all of Europe(Myrberget 1990).
Hunting isthereloreof great socio-economicsignificance.1n
many wayshuntingis alsoan important sourceof incomefor
rural districts(CE 1987a). In eastern Europe, hunting yields
must partly be sold to the government, and are exportedtO
the international market. Hunting tourism is common in
many of thesecountries(Bubenik1989). In suchcaseshunting alsoprocureswesterncurrency.
Other small and medium-sized Europeancarnivoreswhich
are harvestedare primarilythe pine marten (Martes martes),
beech martin (Martes foina), polecat (Putoris putoris), stoat
and badger (Meles meles). The raccoon(Procyon lotor) was
introducedin West Germanyaround 1930-40. Largepopulations are found there today, and the specieshas spread to
Franceand the 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-(Nyctereutes procynoides) originating from introductionsin the Soviet Union, have spreadto mostof Europe.The speciesis particularly 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 regulationsmay restrictthe sale,e.g. in
time (e.g. RSPB1989). A game meat draft directivehas been
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 possessorof a hunting right owns all
wildlife found killed as long as he properly disposesof the
carcass.However,somespeciesare designatedasthe property of "the crown" (Nordell 6.1Weinberg 1983). 1nNorway, all
dead game which is not killed through legal hunting, is in
principlethe property of the wildlife authorities.Hence, authorizationof comrnercialwildlifetaxidermistsis alsodone by
wildlifeauthorities.
The first-hand value of game killed in Europeoutside USSR
around 1970, was calculatedto be about 100 million USdollars(Nlisslein1974). About 1985 the value had increasedto
700 million US dollars(Myrberget 1990). When the value of
hunting is estimatedon the basisof annual hunting expenses,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
problems
1988, natural poisonousalgaes(Chrysochromulina polylepis)
killedmost life in the littoralzone of Skagerrak;the causefor
the algae floweringis not fully known (Dahl et al. 1989). Another threatenedseais the Mediterranean(e.g. Pastor1988),
and severaldifferentorganizationsin the United Nationsratified an Action Planagainstpollutionin 1975 (e.g. CE 1987c,
Saliba1988). To reduce marine pollutionin Europeanwaters
many agreementsand conventionshave been signed, most
recentlyat the SecondNorth SeaConferencein 1987, and in
the Haaguein 1990.
In common with the restof the world, natural habitatsin Europe are exposedto global threatsincludingpollution,reduction of the ozone layer, the greenhouseeffect and human
overpopulation(e.g. Myers 1985, Brown 1990). Most of the
land area of Europe has been altered by human activities,
through agriculture,forestry,industry,housingdevelopment
and transport (e.g. Goudie 1981). Here, we will examine
some of the greatestthreatsto game in Europe,but alsodiscussa few lesssignificantproblems.
6.1
In the 1960's, attention was drawn to heavy metals,such as
the useof alkylmercurycompoundsfor seed dressing(Borg
et al. 1969). This problem was solvedby changingmethods.
Many wetland birdsdie as the resultof poisoningfrom lead
in shot (e.g. Danell 1980, Bløtekjær1988). Only Denmark
has until 1989 introducedlimitationson the useof lead shot
for hunting or marksmanshiptraining (Anonymus 19864.
Deer are locallypoisonedby fluoridedischargesfrom industry
(Borg 1978, Kierdorf& Kierdorf1990). Metalslikealuminium
are releasedinto the ecosystembecauseof increasingacidity
(Nyholm 1981). Long-term population effectsdue to nonlethal levelsof metal pollution are, however, poorly understood(e.g. Pedersen& Nybø 1989).
Pollution
Severalchemicalagentsand bondsare conveyedinto the environment to an extent which hasdirect or indirect negative
consequencesfor game populations (e.g. Murton 1971).
Some of these are metals, pesticidek PCB, ozone, and sulphur and nitrogenoxides.
Acid rain representsthe most seriousimmediate threat. As
early as around 1960, it was clear that sulfateions in precipitation killed invertebratesand fish in severalwatercourses.In
Norway thousandsof lakesare now devoid of fish. Although
sulfateemissionshave been reducedin recentyears,water remains acid becauseof increasingdischargesof nitrate ions
(Fjeldstad1987). Accessto nourishmentis reducedfor game
specieslivingon fishand invertebratesin many watercourses,
but the total effect is poorly understood.On the other hand,
increasedemissionof nitrogen may improve habitat quality
for browsingspecieslike roe deer (Ellenberg1985) in some
areas.
Most environmentalpoisonsaffect game populationsin the
form of reduced reproduction (Moore 1987). Reductionin
the thicknessof egg shellsof many birdsof preyisone example (e.g. Cooke et al. 1982). PCBpollutionof the Balticand
the North Sea is responsiblefor uteralfusionand reducedreproductionin seals(Helle & Stenman 1987). PCB may also
be the causeof populationdeclinesin Europeanotter populations(Olsson& Sandegren1989).
Pollutionmay render game meat unsuitablefor human consumption. It is a well known fact that large amountsof cadmium are absorbedin the liver and kidneysof some game
species(e.g. Eisler1985, Frøslieet al. 1986). After the accident at Chernobylin 1986, concentrationsof radioactivityin
game in Scandinaviawere high (e.g. Danell et al. 1987). Particularlyhigh concentrationsof up to 100,000 becquerellpr.
kg wet weight, were demonstratedin wild reindeerin Norway (e.g. Skogland 1987, pers comm.). One may not rule
out the possibilitythat these concentrationsare so high that
they damage genetic materialin reindeer(Skogland& Espelien 1990).
Although the causesare very complicated,acid rain and exhaust from autômobilesappear to contribute greatly to the
increasingextent of forest damage (Hutchinson & Meema
1985, Schneider1986, Innes 1987). Damage is most severe
in Czechoslovakiaand southern Poland. Extensiveand widespread forest dieback has been observed in seNieralother
countriesin central Europe,and to a lesserdegree in Scandinavia(CE 1987b, Krauseet al. 1987). Acid rain affectsdeciduoustreesaswell asconiferousforest.Browsingby deer makes
plantingof acid-resistanttree speciesdifficult(Szukiel1987).
Oil spillagefrom shipsor land basedindustryhaskilledthousandsof seabirds,includingabout 100,000 birdsin Skagerrak
durihg the winter of 1980/81 (Anker-Nilssenet al. 1981).
Chemical treatment of oil-spill at sea may negativelyaffect
the marine ecosystems(Zachariassen1989), but the effects
on sea bird populationsare poorly known. In countrieslike
Norway, environmentalimpact analysesare mandatory pre-
Different types of pollution are carried by riversto the sea.
The Baltic is renowned as the most polluted sea in Europe
(e.g Lassig1987, Rapport1989). Wa-terfrom the Balticempties into Skagerrakand the North Sea, and along with pollution agentsfrom countriessurroundingthe North Sea hasaltered the ecologicalbalanceof the sea(e.g. Carlson1986). In
29
nina taredning018
requisitesto exploratory oil drilling at sea (Griffiths et al.
1987, Anker-Nilssen1988).
cluding brown hare, grey partridge and pheasant(e.g. Frylestam et al. 1981, Potts 1986). Habitat lossand detoriation
may interact with increasedpredation in driving the game
populationsdownwards(Potts 1984). Severalwildlife species
are killed by agriculturalmachinery,and this is probablythe
main reason for the declines in populations of corncrake
(Crex crex) (Cadbury& O'Meara 1985).
International cooperation is vital in fighting pollution, and
severalagreementsconcerning a variety of substancesfrom
many regionshave been ratified. For example governments
have agreed upon halving the pollution of the North Sea
from 1985 to 1995. Statisticson dischargesof toxic wasteare
regularlycollected (e.g. ECE 1987, OECD 1987). Prognosis
concerning developments in pollution levels are being
workedout (e.g. Alfsen& Glomsrød1986).
To reduce the threat to traditional farming systems,and
henceto many wildlifespecies,the EECin 1985 (EECRegulation 797/85) introduced the concept of "Environmentally
SensitiveAreas"(ESA). This enables member States to pay
farmers in "ESA"an annual premium per ha if they manage
land in prescribedways to sustainwildlife. From 1987 "ESA"
could be supportedalsoby EECbudgets. However, it is difficult to securemanagementto safeguardwildlife populations
in "ESA"(Woods1989).
National monitoring programs similar to those imposed in
Sweden (Bernes1985) are imperative.Although game may
be used as indicatorsof environmental pollution (e.g. Diamond & Filion1987, Stokesand Piekarz1987), no major European program on this kind of study has been initiated. A
potential project is now being evaluated by the Statistical
Commissionof the ECE(United Nations EconomicCommission for 'Europe). In many countries,pollutersare forced to
payfor cleaningu-p.
Central European moorland is particularly vulnerable, and
only vestigealpopulationsof black grouse remain in these
areas(Niewold & Nijland 1988). In Great Britainsheepgrazing has led to lossof rfioorland,and hence of lossof habitat
suitableto many wildlife species,such as red grouse(Anderson & Yalden1981).
6.2 Human use of land and resources
Modern forestrytechniqueseliminate important environmental nichesprovided by primary forest, and increasehabitat
coarse-patchfragmentation (BurgessEz Sharpe 1981, Harris
1984, Ahlen et al. 1986, Ellenberg1987). Herbicidesremove
low bushyvegetationwhich previouslyprovided nutrient resourcesfor game species(e.g. Lund-HøyeEtzGrønvold1988).
The capercailliehassufferedmost from modern forestryfragmentation and lossof suitablehabitat, i.e. old forestswith an
abundant ground layerof bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) (e.g.
RolstadEzWegge 1987, in press,Klauset al. 1989, Gossowin
press). On the other hand, browsing for moose and other
cervidshas increasedconsiderably(e.g. Ahlen 1975, Adamic
1986b).
Much of the natural environment in Europeis today either
createdor heavilyinfluencedby human activity(e.g. Gossow
1985, Strandgaard1985). Some previouslyproductivegame
habitats have become wildlife desertsbecauseof urbanization, industry, power development and road building, to
mentiononly a few.
In West Germany, one million hectaresof wildlife habitat
were lost between 1953 and 1983, and today there are only
370 regionswith a 100 km2 area which have not been fragmented by development and road building. These figures
correspondto about 15% of the entire area of West Germany. Through these areasthere are numerousfoot paths and
ski,tracks. Recreationalactivity in forested regions has increasedby 500% between 1950 and 1980, in some areasby
1000%, e.g. seeVolk (1986) and CE(1987b).
Tourism and outdoor recreationalsports have increased,resulting in greater disturbance of wildlife habitat (e.g.
G6tmark 1989). Examplesare camping which affectsshoreline habitat for birds, and skiing in Central- Europe (Volk
1986). The pressurefrom tourism is particularlyheavyin the
coastalzone of the Mediterranean(Saliba1988).
Changes in methods employed by agricultureand forestry
have had enormousconsequencesfor wildlife.About 50% of
the entire area of Europeis exploitedfor agriculturalpurposes. Modern agricultureis characterizedby monoculture.The
sizeof fields hasincreased.Chemicalsare usedto kill weeds,
fungi and insects. Bushy vegetation around fields and in
hedgesare removedand open ditchesand dams are filled in.
Fertilizerdrains into watercourseswhich become eutrophic.
Theseagriculturalpracticesaffectseveralgame species(Murton 1971, O'Connor & Shrubb 1986, Andersson1988), in-
Fisherieshave reducedthe availablefood'for severalseabird
species(Croxall et ai. 1984). Over-exploitation of herring
(Clupeus harengus) is responsiblefor the decimationof puffin
(Fratercula arctica) populationsalong parts of the Norwegian coast,where young puffin$have starvedto death since
1970 (Barrettet al. 1987). In 1987, the collapseof the capelin population(Mallotus villosus) in the BarentsSeahasled to
near total exterminationof severalcoloniesof guillemot (Uria
30
© 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
aalge) on the Norwegiancoast(Vader et al. 1990). Drowning
lated at 100 million dollars annually (DJV 1987). Big garrie
collisionswith trains result in delays and inconveniencefor
railwaypersonnel.
in fishingnetsis a significantcauseof death for many seabird
species,but accurate data is lacking. Harp seal (Pagophilus
groenlandicus) populationshave alsobeen affectedby lackof
food, as demonstrated by the massinvasionof sealsalong
the coastof northern Norway during the winter of 1986/87.
At least60,000 sealsdrowned in fishingnets(Wiig 1988b).
A large numberof wildlife speciesmay causeconsiderablelocal damage, suchas is the casewith damagesto aquaculture
by eiders,grey herons (Ardea cinerea), otters and seals(e.g.
FAO 1989). Oystercatchers (Haematopus ostralegus) may
harm Britishmusseland cocklefishing (Murton 1971). Beavers may by dam-building over-flow forest planting areas.
Birds may be hazardousfor aircraft (e.g. Busnel& Giban
1968). Locallyeven honey buzzards(Pernis apivorus) may be
persecutedfor harming bee hives(Dontshev1990).
Many birdsare killedby power lines(e.g. Bevanger1988, Bevanger & Thingstad 1988). Big game and small game may
be killed in large numbersby traffic (e.g. Ueckermann1964,
Almkvistet aL 1980). Orienteering competitionsmay affect
wildlife, particularly pregnant deer and calves (Sennstam
1974, Jeppesen1987). Game farming may transportdiseases
and competewith wild livinggame speciesfor habitat. In UK
there are at least10,000 red deer in farms, or parks,in West
Germany (FRG) 25,000 fallow deer (Hansen 1988). Hydroelectricdevelopmenthasoften a negativeimpact on the habitats of many wildlife species(e.g. Bevanger & Thingstad
1986).
One frequentlyemployed measureusedto reducedamage is
reduction of population size for the species in question
through increasedordinary hunting or special pest killing
schemes(Putnam 1989). These measuresmay be effective
providedthat they increasetotal mortality rates(e.g. Murton
et al. 1974, Potts1981). However,control measuresmust be
specificif they are not to damage more vulnerablespecies
(Wright 1980).
Official game management planning may reduce the effects
of permanent encroachmenton game habitat. In Norway,
maps indicating particularlyvulnerable wildlife areas have
been worked out for the entire country. In 1985 a master
plan was ratified for the use of Norwegian water resources
and productionof electricpower.
6.3 Wildlife
A problem arising may be that the speciesdoing damage is
not alwaysclassifiedas game with an open hunting season.
This means that they can only be killed after considerable
damage hasalreadybeen observed,or in some casesonly by
speciallyauthorized personell(e.g. RSPB1989). Threatened
speciesdoing damage may only be killedon speciallicenseissued by local or central wildlife authorities.In certain such
cases,the killing may be done regardlessof landowner or
hunting rights. For example, in Norway, individual brown
bearsand wolverineswhich are supposedto be responsible
for considerabledamage to livestockmay be killedby specially appointed teams of hunterswithin the bordersof a given
municipality.
damage
Wildlife may alsocauseproblems.Darnagesto forestry,agriculture and animal husbandryhavealreadybeen mentioned.
A "pest"is commonly defined as "any speciesor population
which by its activitiesconflictswith man'sintereststo a level
where the damage caused becomes of economic significance"(Putnam 1989). However,the matter of when this level of significanceis reachedis largelyevaluatedon a subjective basis(e.g. Troostwijk1976). The activitycausingconflict
may be part of the normal behaviouralrepertoireof the species,or resultfrom abnormalor unusualbehaviour,e.g. "garbage bears".
Wildlife may transmit diseasesto domestic animalsor humans.Some examplesare salmonella,tularemi, anthrax, and
hoof and mouth disease(Borg 1978). The most dangerous
diseaseis rabieswhich is very widespreadin Central Europe.
It is absent from the BritishIsles,Iceland, Portugal, Greece
and Scandinavia(but occurson Svalbard).In West Germany,
1000-5000 casesof rabiesare annuallyobservedamong red
fox, and 150-500 in roe deer (DJV 1987). In 1987, 5 million
samplescontainingvaccineswere laid out throughout 1/3 of
the entire area of West Germany, to irnmunizeanimalssucceptible to infection. Similartacticsare alsousedin Belgium,
France,Italy and Austria(CE 1988), and in Finland(Westerling 1989). To stop the northerly spread of rabiesin Denmark, comprehensiveexterminationsof red fox and badger
were carried out in southern Denmark (e.g. Strandgaard&
Asferg1980).
The most serious damage to forestry and agriculture is
causedby big game species,such as red deer, roe deer and
wild boar (e.g. König 1976, Ueckermann 1981). Not only
mammalian predatorscan kill livestockand reindeer,but also
golden eagles (Aquila chrysanos) may kill calvesand lambs
(e.g. Karlsen1978).
Big game animals may causetraffic accidents,which sometimes even lead to human mortality. In West Germany,traffic
accidentscausedby wildlife have resultedin damagescalcu31
nina utredning018
7 Fauna protection
However, measuresundertakento help certain speciesmay
be harmful to other species.Hence, certain measureswhich
intend to increaseexploitedgame populations,may be detrimentalto other wildlifespecies,or to the generalproductivity
of the habitat.
Earlierin this report, many examplesof protectionof certain
speciesagainsthunting have been mentioned. In somecases
alsohabitat conservationmeasureswere used,aswas already
the casewith the last living aurochsin Polandaround 1600
(Szafer1968).
7.1 Threatened
However,more modern conservationmeasuresbecamemore
populararound 1900, and than to a large extent inspiredby
North Americanpolicies.National associations
for natureconservationwere founded in Great Britainin 1895, in Francein
1902, in Germany and in the Netherlandsin 1905 (Madsen
1979).
species
Smit & Wijngaarden(1976, 1981) list36 speciesof mammals
asthreatenedin Europe.Fordefinitionsof differentcategories
of threat, see Fitter & Fitter(1987). Excludingthe SovietUnion, the following mammalianspeciesare regardedasendangered: Europeanmink (Lutreola lutreola), otter, monk seal
(Monachus monachus) (in the Mediterranean) and mouflon
(the purebred population on Corsica). In addition to some
speciesof whale, the following are characterizedas vulnerable: wolf, wolverine,lynx, pardel lynx, walrus (Odobemus rosmartis) (on Svalbard),common seal, ringed seal, grey seal,
SpanW-libex(Capra pyrenaica) and red deer (sub-specieskursicanus on Sardinia).The following are categorized as rare
species:brown bear, polar bear, genet (Genetta genetta), wildcat (Felis catus) and muskox (after introductionsin Scandinaviaand Svalbard,seeMyrberget 1987).
Most conservationwork during the firstyearswas, however,
relatedto sitesof particularbeauty. But protectionof characteristicecosystemsand vulnerablespecieswere alsooften taken into consideration.A famous contribution is a book by
Hornaday(1913) on our vanishingwildlife.
There are many legal methodsfor protectingwildlife species
and their habitats(e.g. Ranerås1985) includingthe following:
1) protect habitat as reservesand national parks,2) protect
particularspeciesagainsthunting, 3) minimizethe detrimental effectsof human use of habitat and resources,4) ascertain that the total benefits of certain human activitiesare
greater than the costs,and 5) control that the level of output of certain chemicalsare lessthan given limits. Measures
(1) and (2) are most commonly used. However, protected
areascoveronly small partsof any country, e.g. about 4% in
Fennoscandiancountries(Norderhaug & Norderhaug1986).
Therefore the management of unprotected areas is also of
great importance.Other species-orientedmeasuresthan protection may be of significance(see Temple 1977). Here,
measuresdirected at conservationof particularspecieswill
be emphasized.
Within the partsof Europedescribedin this paper, only one
bird speciesis classifiedas endangeredin the IUCN BirdRed
Data book (see Parslow& Everet1981, ICPB& IWRP1987),
i.e. the Spanishimperialeagle (Aquila adalberta). Three speciesare internationallyregardedas vulnerable:the Dalmatian
pelican (Pelicanus crispus), the white-tailed eagle (Haliaëtus
albicilla) and the peregrine(Falco peregrinus). Audouin'sgull
(Larus audouinii) and roseatetern (Sterna dougallii) are rare.
Severalspecieshave been registered as candidatesfor the
Red Data book. Among thern are the lesserwhite-fronted
goose (Anser erythropus), four speciesof birdsof prey, the little and great bustard(Otis tetrax and 0. tarda) and the corncrake. The list also includesthe probably most threatened
bird speciesin Europe,the slender-billedcurlew (Numenius tenuirostris) which breedsin Siberiaand is hunted during migrationsover the Mediterranean.
International protection of threatened specieshas in later
yearsbeen the responsibilityof IUCN's SurvivalServiceCommission(SSC)which was founded in 1950 and becamea full
commisionin 1956 (Fitter & Fitter 1987). A milestonewas
the publicationof the two first Red Data books,on threatened mammals and birds, in 1966. A Red Data book is defined as a registerof threatenedwildlife that includesdefinitionsof the degree of the threat (Fitter& Fitter1987).
Most countriescompile national listsof threatened species.
In Francethe listcontains59 threatened speciesof mammal
and 36 birds. Seven mammals and 61 birds are listed in
Norway (Christensen& Eldöy 1988). In Finland, 17 mammals and 38 birdsare listed, although many of these in the
category of unsufficientlyknown (Miljöministeriet 1986).
Figuresfrom differentcountriesare unfortunatelynot directly comparable, because different criteria are used (e.g.
järvinen & Miettinen 1988). The ECEhas now started a project for coordinating national listsof threatened speciesin
Europe.
Lateron, most Europeancountrieshave made their own national Red Data books. Main measuresin fauna protection
now involve habitat protection, including wildlife reserves
and nationalparks.
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 wildlifespeciestoday are alteration of habitat, biocidesand measuresfor predator control.
Ordinary hunting alone hardly representa seriousthreat to
any European speciesof wildlife. Illegal collectionsof eggs
and young of rare bird speciesis a problem in many areas
(e.g. Cramp 1977).
suchasthat of wild boar
troductionshave been unsuccessful,
to Ireland(Lever1985), and of penguinsto northernNorway
(Niethammer 1963).
Severalsuccessfulre-introductionshave already been mentioned, including the beaver in Scandinavia.Birdsof prey
such as the white-tailed eagle in Scotland(Love 1988), the
goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Great Britain (Marquiss &
Newkin 1982) and the griffonvulture(Gyps fulvus) in France,
håve also been successfullyre-introduced. Even the raven
(Corvus corax) has been re-introduced to Belgium (Lever
1987). Re-introductionof ibex to Czechoslovakiaby using
(Read &
two exotic subspecieswas, however, unsuccessful
Harvey1986).
Globally speaking, Europe has a low number of threatened
species(Diamond et al. 1987). One explanation for this is
that civilizationin Europeis ancient, and many specieswere
probablyalreadyexterminatedin the past. In addition, there
are few isolatedoceanicislands,and no rainforestswhich on
other continentssupportmany threatenedspecies(e.g. Soul
1987).
The international conventionspreviouslyitentioned are of
major importancefor conservationwork (Grimmett & Jones
1989), while the World Heritage Convention of 1972, and
CITESor the WashingtonConventionof 1973 on International Trade in EndangeredSpeciesof Wild Animals (see Lyster
1985) has hardly resultedin significantadvantagesfor European wildlife, althoughthey are of great importanceon other
continents,e.g. in Third World countries.
7.2
•
Re-stockingis sometimes essentialfor maintaining populations, as is the casewith the pheasantin the northerlyareas
of its distribution.Introductionsmay alsobe usedto strengthen threatened populationslikethe peregrineand the eagle
owl (Bubo bubo) in Scandinavia(Myrberget 1987). In Central
Europe,introductionsare usedin attemptsto savethreatened
populationsof woodland grouse (Aschenbrenner1985). Reintroductionshave been necessaryto conservethe famous
population of barbary apes (Macaca sylvanus) at Gibralter
(Niethammer 1963).
IntroductIons
In the past, most exotic specieswhich were introducedaccidentally, had escapedfrom fur farms. More recently,interest
for farming deer specieshas increased.Evenin a smallcountry like Denmark, there are more than 400 deer farms with
more than 2000 animals,mainlyfallow deer (Hansen1988).
In many countriesestablishmentof suchfarmsisstrictlycontrolled to protect wild living populations (see also IUCN
1988, Hudsonet al. 1989).
Successfulintroductionsof exotic speciesmay conspicuously
alter a country'sfauna (e.g. Ebenhard1988, Whelan 1990).
Re-introductionsmay build up populationswhere a species
has previouslydied out. Introductionsmay be deliberate,or
resultfrom animalsescapingfrom captivity.The IUCN (1987)
has passeda resolutionconcerning acceptable premisesfor
introductions.Regulationsand lawsin many countriesseverely restrictintroductions.The Council of Europe hasfound it
necessaryto passa specialrecommendationon introduction
of cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) and other nonnative Leoporidae(CE 1985b).
7.3 Game management
conservation
versus
Today hunting is generallyacceptedasa part of conservation
providedit exploitsrenewableresources.Biggame huntingis
regarded as necessaryin the absenceof effectivepredators.
As previouslymentioned, huntersare often engaged in practical wildlife management, much of which hasdirect positive
for general cbnservation efforts.
consequences
Severalexamplesof successfulintroductionsof exotic species
have alreadybeen mentioned. Introductionswere particularly
common in Great Britain(Linn 1979), and include 3 species
of pheasant, red-legged partridge, bobwhite quail (Colinus
virginianus), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), mandarin
duck (Aix galericulata), Egyptiangoose (Alopochus aegyptiacus) and the red-neckedwallaby (Macropus rufogrisens) (Lever 1985, 1987). Speciesintroducedin other countriesare the
California quail (Lophonyx californicus) and the mongoose
(Herpestes ichneumon).
On the other hand, one must admit that game management
often only considersshort-term benefitsdesignedto increase
a huntingyield. Exoticgame specieswere introducedregardlessof environmentalconsequences.The numberof gunshas
been increasingrapidly in later years. Hunting may increase
pressureon speciesalreadythreatened by pesticidesor habitat destruction.On the other hand, nationalparks,nature reservesand speciesprotection may reduceexploitationof cer-
European game specieslike the mute swan (Cygnus olor)
have also been transferredto other Europeancountries.Another example is the introductionof brown haresto Ireland,
Swedenand Finland(Niethammer-1963). However, many in33
nina utredning018
8 Wildlife
tain viable populations.Thereforethere is alwaysa degree of
conflictof interestsbetween game managementand wildlife
conservation.
research
Wildlife managementshouldbe basedon resultsof research.
In many countries,centralinstitutionsare responsiblefor applied research,while in othersresponsibilityrestswith universities.One seriousproblem is that resultsof researchoften
never reach thoseengaged in practicalwildlife management
(Pettersson1987). Wildlife management is in many cases
basedon preconceivedideasabout usefulmeasures.
In Europethere is an increasingoppositionto hunting. Attitudes againsthunting are related to scientificaswell as emotional arguments.Oppositionappearsto be particularlyconspicuous in Italy, among both landowners and
conservationists
(Spina 1987). This may be due to prevailing
lackof respectfor hunting laws, high densitiesof hunters,no
landowners'hunting rights, little active game management,
large numbersof small birds in the hunting yields,and lacking hunting statistics.Two-thirds of the population of Italy
areopposedto hunting, and 3/4 of the youngergeneration.
On the other hand wildlife researchis not alwaysdesignedto
solvepracticalproblems.A scientistis generallyevaluatedaccordingto purelyscientificcriteria,and respectfor appliedresearchshouldbe increased.
Antipathy concerning hunting is also increasingin parts of
Scandinavia,but hunting is far more accepted.In 1980, 18%
of the population of Sweden had a positiveattitude toward
hunting, while 54% accepted hunting practices (Ekström
1981). Only 10% were directlyopposed.Aversionto hunting
wasgreatestin cities,where it was regardedasan obstacleto
the pursuit of other outdoor recreationalactivities.Women
frequentlycited ethicalreasonsfor opposinghunting.
Large-scaleresearchschemeson centralgame speciesstarted
already around 1900, such as researchon deer in Germany
(see Raesfeldt1898) and on red grouse in Scotland (Committee of Inquiry on Grouse Disease 1911). Around the
World War II, the influencefrom North American scientific
publicationswas marked, e.g. the work done by Errington
(1946). In the 1950's important researchprojectswere made
or started up in many Europeancountries,suchasstudieson
roe deer in Denmark(Andersen1953) and on tetraonid birds
in Fennoscandiaand Great Britain (Hagen 1952, Siivonen
1957, Jenkinset al. 1963). Studieson general ecology and
ethology (e.g. Tinbergen 1951, Lack 1954) inspiredapplied
research.
The Committee of Ministersof the Council of Europe proposeda hunter'scode of conduct (CE 1985) as a meansfor
reducingoppositionto hunting. Thiscontainedguidelinesfor
hunter behaviour,and responsibilityfor natural heritage affecting humanity in general. The Council of Europe (CE
1987a) has more recently found it necessaryto emphasize
the value of hunting and its role in preservationof wildlife
habitat
There is no formalizedgeneral cooperationbetween wildlife
researchbodiesin the differentEuropeancountries.The main
purposeof the IUGB(The InternationalUnion of Game Biologists)is to arrangebiennialinternationalgame researchcongresses,which most often are held in Europe.Formalizedregional researchcooperation schemes such as the Nordic
Councilfor Wildlife Researchdo exist.The IWRBhasits headquartersat Slimbridge,Englandand coordinatesregistration
and monitoring schemeson waterfowl and wetlands. Other
international organizations like the ICBP involve scientists
from many Europeancountriesin their work. Many of the
congressesand symposiaarrangedwithin Europesuchasthe
grouse symposiaarranged by the World PheasantAssociation, are of great significance.International ornithological
and theriologicalcongressesare alsoof great value for European scientists.
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
9 Concluding
Experience, including that gained through research on
moose and wild reindeerin Norway, hasshown that wildlife
investigationsare particularlyeffectivewhen done in cooperationwith practicalwildlife management.However,more recently there is a tendency toward financialsupportfor monitoring and for short term research projects. Progressin
wildlife ecology must primarily be made through long term
programscombining theoretical, experimentaland practical
research.
remarks
The managementschemesfor wildlife vary from countryto
country.This is alsothe casefor management of game speciesand their habitats,and for game harvestingsystems.The
most effectiveand productivesystemsare found in countries
where the landownerscontrol hunting rights,or where officialsor hunting clubsstrongly regulatethe harvest(see also
Bubenik1989). Overexploitationof game stocksis often the
casein other partsof Europe.
This short review indicatesthat cooperation between different countriesin wildlife management should be improved.I
do not thereby imply that all countriesshould have similar
hunting seasonsetc., but common managementaimsof animal populationswhich crossnational boundariesare essential.
Wildlife managementschemesseem to be built more on tradition than political systems;e.g. the revier systemused in
Eastand West Germany have many aspectsin common. On
the other hand, the revolutionin Portugalin 1974 hasobviouslycontributedto deterioration in 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 growing awarenessof the need for good basic knowledge, increased international cooperation and generally accepted
short- and long-term conservationstrategies.Huntersare increasinglyconsciousof the fact that game populationscannot 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.
35
nina utredning018
10 Summary
migratorybirdsin Europeis highlydependent on international agreements,in particularthe Berne convention of 1979,
the EECBirdDirectiveof 1979 and the RamsarConventionof
1971.
Thisreport presentsa brief reviewof some practicesand principlesof Europeanwildlife management.The SovietUnion is
not discussed.Emphasisis placedon managementof hunted
species(game), but conservationmeasuresinvolvingother
fauna are also mentioned. The review includesall speciesof
birdsand mammalswith the exceptionof insectivores,bats,
smallrodentsand whales.
Game management practicesused for non-migratory small
game speciesare largelyleft up to landowners.In somecountries in central and eastern Europe, certain management
measuresare obligatory. Among practicesoften employed
are predator control, introduction of game, and feeding.
Measuresfor conservingor increasingthe productioncapacity of naturalhabitat or diminishingthe negativeeffectsof human activities,are increasinglyimportant.
Applied methodsfor game management and hunting in Europe are clearly influenced by practicescommon in other
partsof the world. Game management in Europetoday, has
historicalrootsin.classicalGreekand Romancivilization.
The most productivehuntable populationsare usuallyfound
in countrieswhere hunting rightsare exercisedby landowners,or where authoritiesor hunterorganizationsstrictlyregulate hunting yields. In countrieswhere hunting priviledges
are open for everyone, many game speciesare obviously
over-exploited. In such countries,opposition to hunting is
considerableand increasing.
The time between 800 and 1800 A.D. may be characterized
as a period where the exclusivehunting rights of the aristocracyexpanded,and little was done to protect game species.
Around 1800, the aristocracywas deprived of hunting priviledges,and hunting pressurewas regulatedby game authorities.At the sametime, active methodsfor conservingand increasing the production of game species were gradually
introduced.
Human activitiesincreasinglylead to problemsfor the production of many game species,and threaten the existenceof
some. These activitiesinclude agriculture,forestry, tourism
and industry. Pollution, such as acid precipitation and exhaust from •automobiles,have negative consequencesfor
game populationsand their natural habitats. 1nsome cases
conflictsarise between game management intended to in-.
creasehuntingyieldsand the interestsof conservation.
Game management is practicedat many different levelsby:
central and local authorities,landowners,huntersand other
personsinterested in nature. To a varying extent, hunting
rights are associatedwith landownership rights. Excluding
the SovietUnion,there are about 8 million huntersin Europe,
or approximately1.6 huntersper km2. Membershipin hunters associationsis either voluntary or obligatory. 1n most
countries,an obligatoryhunter'sexaminationhasbeen introduced. The examination involvestheoretical knowledge as
well asthe practicaluseof firearms.
Wildlife management increasinglyemphasizes the importanceof research.However,at the presenttime there is no internationalorganizationto coordinatewildlife researchin lurope. Much modern game management is a continuationof
age old traditionsand biasedattitudes.
Evaluationof which game speciesis most important varies
throughout Europe.Economicallyspeaking,different species
of big game (larger herbivorousmammals) are of greatbst
significance.The initial value of game felled in Europeis estimated at 700 millionU.S.dollars.
Although the threat to many game speciesand their natural
habitatsincreases,the desireto solve problemshas also becorne stronger. Solutionsare dependent upon considerable
localand nationaleffort and internationalcooperation.
In certain countries (Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland),
each landowner may independently control the number of
individualsof each big game speciesto be killedon their own
grounds.In other countries,quotasare establishedby authorities or huntersorganizations.1n most countries,huntinglicensesare issuedwithin defined hunting territories,which
may be establishedby the government or voluntary agreementswith 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
nina utredning018
© 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.
11 Sammendrag
satt i verk. 1 en del land i Sentral-Europaog Øst-Europaer
dog enkeltetiltakobligatoriske.Blanttiltak somofte benyttes,
er bekjempelseav rovvilt, utsettingerav vilt og utleggingav
fôr. Stadigviktigereblir tiltak som tar sikte på å bevareeller
øke terrengenesnaturlige produksjonsevneav vilt, eller på å
motvirkenegativefølger av menneskeligbrukav arealene.
Utredningen gir en kort oversiktover prinsipperog praksisi
europeiskviltstell. Sovjet-Unionener untatt. Hovedvektener
lagt på forvaltningen av jaktbare arter, men det er inkludert
noen tiltak for å bevareden høyerefauna. Oversiktenomfatter alle arter av fugler og alle pattedyr unntatt insektetere,
flaggermus,smågnagereog hvaler.
De mest produktivejaktbarebestanderfinner man som regel
i de land hvor grunneiernedisponererjaktretten, eller hvor
strengtregulererjaktmyndigheterellerjeger-organsisasjoner
uttaket.I en del land hvorjaktrettener fri, er åpenbartmange
viltarter overbeskattet.I disselandene er gjerne motstanden
mot jakt storog økende.
De metoder som benyttesi og de prinsippielleholdningertil
viltstellog jaktutøvelsei Europaer sterkt påvirketfra andre
verdensdeler.Den nåværendepraksishar røtter langt tilbake,
bl.a. til det klassiskeHellasog Romerriket.
Mennesketsulikevirksomheterfører til stadigøkendeproblemer for produksjonenav mange viltarter og kan også true
noen arterseksistens.Blantslikeaktiviteterer jordbruk,skogbruk, ferdsel og industri. Herunder kommer effektene på
viltet og dets miljø av forurensninger,som sur nedbør og
eksosfra biler. I en del tilfelle oppstår konfliktermellom viltstellmed siktepå å økejaktutbyttetog genereltnaturvern.
som en periode
Tiden fra 800 til 1800 e.Kr. kan karakteriseres
med framvekstav stormenneneseksklusivejaktretter,og med
liten sansfor aktivt vern om viltartene.Omkring 1800 mistet
adelendisserettigheter,og dette førte til at jakttrykketmåtte
reguleressentralt i mange land. Samtidigble mer aktive metoder til å bevareog øke viltproduksjoneni økendegrad tatt i
bruk.
I økendegrad blir det i viltstelletlagt vekt på forskningensresultater. Noen overnasjonalstyring eller planleggingav viltforskningenfinnes imidlertid ikke i Europa.Mye av viltstellet
drivesennå med basisi tradisjonerog forutintatteoppfatninger.
Viltstelletdrivespå mange plan:av sentraleog lokalemyndigheter, grunneiere,jegere og andre naturinteresserte.I varierende grad er jaktretten knyttet til grunneier-retten.Utenom
Sovjet-Unionener det omkring 8 millioner jegere i Europa,
dvs. 1,6 jegere pr. km2 landareal.Medlemskapi jegerforeninger er i varierendegrad frivillig eller obligatorisk.I de fleste
land er det nå innført en obligatoriskjeger-eksamen,som
både omfatter teoretiskefag og skyteferdighet.
Selvom truslenemot mange viltarterog deresmiljø harvært
stadigøkende,synesogsåviljen til å løsemange problemerå
væreøkende. Men dette vil kreveen stor innsats,både lokalt,
nasjonaltog internasjonalt.
Hvilkeav de jaktbarearter som regnessom de viktigste,varierer gjennom Europa.Økonomiskviktigster ulikearter av storav
vilt, dvs, større planteetendepattedyr. Førstehåndsverdien
det felte vilt er estimerttil 700 millionerUSdollar.
Denne utredningener bekostetav NINA og Direktoratetfor
naturforvaltning.Den er også å betrakte som et forarbeidtil
et prosjektved FagligForfatterforeningom viltstellog viltforvaltning. En forkortet norskversjon er gitt i en artikkelseriei
"Naturen"i 1989-90.
I noen få land (Danmark, Storbritanniaog Irland) kan grunneierenefritt bestemme hvor mange av de ulike storviltartene
de vil felle på egen grunn. I andre land er jaktuttaketav storvilt i større eller mindre grad regulert av myndigheteneeller
av jeger-organisasjoner.I de fleste land er fellingslisensene
knyttet til definerte jaktområder, som kan være fastlagt av
myndigheteneellerfrivilligav grunneierene.
I motsetningtil hva som er tilfellei Nord-Amerika,finnesdet i
Europaikke noe systemhvor jaktuttaket av trekkendefugler
fastleggeslangs trekkruter (flyways).I forvaltningenav disse
artene betyr internasjonaleavtaler mye. Dette gjelder særlig
Bern-konvensjonenav 1979, EEC'sfugledirektivav 1979 og
av 1971.
Ramsar-konvensjonen
•
For stasjonærtsmåvilt er det i stor grad opp til grunneieren
eller den som inneharjaktretten, hvilkeviltstell-tiltaksom blir
37
nina utredning018
12 References
Bäumler,W., Postner,M. & Ueckermann,E. 1986. Wirbeltiere.
5. - 1nSchwenke,W., ed. Die Forstschädlinge
Europas.Parey, Hamburg-Berlin.
Baillie-GrohmanW.H. & Baillie-Groman,A., eds. 1907. The
Masterof game by Edward,SecondDukeof York:the oldestEnglishbookon hunting.- Chatto & Windus,London.
Barrett,R.T.,Anker-Nilssen,T., Rikardsen,F.,Valde, K., Røv,N.
& Vader, W. 1987. The food, growth and fledgingsuccess
of Norwegian puffin chicksFratercula arctica in 19801983. - OrnisScand.18: 73-83.
BASC1989. 1988 annual report and accounts.- Shooting &
Conserv.(Summer):i-xvi.
Batten, LA. 1987. The effectivenessof Europeanagreements
for wader conservation.- Wader Study Group Bull. 49.
Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 118-121.
Bencze,L 1976. 6kologiskheGrundlagender Rotwildhegein
Ungarn.- Wild & Hund 79,10: 225-229.
Berger,A. & Grönberg,G. 1931. Jaktenhosskildafolk nu och
fordom. - Natur & Kultur,Stockholm.
Bernes.,C., ed. 1985. Monitor 1985. - National SwedishEnvironmentalProtectionBoard,Stockholm.
Bertelsen,J. & Simonsen,N.H. 1986. Documentationon bird
hunting and the conservationstatusof the speciesinvolved
situationin 1986. - Game and WildlifeAdministrationDenmark, Kalø.323 pp.
Bevanger,K. 1988. Skogsfuglog kollisjonermed kraftledninger i midt-norskskogsterreng.- Økoforsk.Rapp. 1988,9: 153.
Bevanger,K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1986. Vassdragsreguleringer
og ornitologi.- ØkoforskUtredning 1986,4: 1-82.
Bevanger, K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1988. Forholdet fugl konstruksjoner
for overføringav elektriskenergi.- Økoforsk
Utredning 1988,1: 1-138.
Bevanger,K. & Ålbu,Ø. 1987. Distributionalhistoryand population developmentof the feral mink Mustela vision Schreber, 1977 in Norway.- Medd. norskViltforsk.3,18: 1-22.
Bibikow, 6.1. 1988. Der Wolf. - Neue Brehm-Bacherei587.
Wittenburg Lutherstadt.
Bieber,J.B.& Meylan,A. 1984. Rebnetzeund Vogelschutz.- Z.
Obst- undWeinbau120,93: 516-522.
Bijleveld,M.G. 1974. Birdsof preyin Europe.- Macmillan,London.
Bjørge,A. 1987. Parasiticnematodesin stomachsof grey seals,
Halichoerus grypus, and common seals,Phoca vitulina, in
Norwegian waters. - pp. 184-196 in CIC Coastal Seal
Symp.(Oslo).
Bløtekjær,K. 1988. Blyellerstål.- DN-Rapp. 1988,1: 1-75.
Bobek,B., Kosobucka,M., Krazakiewies,H., Perzanowski,K. &
Wolf, R. 1990. Food,coverand human disturbanceasfactors influencingantler weight in red deer. - Trans. IUGB
Congr. 19 (Trondheim).In press.
Bonner,W.N. 1975. Internationallegislationand the protection of seals.- pp. 12-29 in Proc.Symp.SealsBaltic,1974
(Lidingd).
Aarnio,M. & Vikberg, P. 1980. Jänistenheinå - ja viljaruokinnasta.- SuomenRiista28: 108-113.
Adamfi,T. 1984. Az approvades a kartekonyvad teriteke Europaban.- Nimrod 104: 524-525.
Adamic, M. 1986a. Wild und Jagd in Jugoslawien.- Allg.
Forst.Z. 97: 771-774.
Adamic, M. 1986b. The land use changes in Sloveniaand
their influenceon rangeand densityof some(game) wildlife species.- pp. 588-600 in Proc.World Congr. IUFRO
18 (Ljubljana).
Ahlen, I. 1975. Winter habitatsof mooseand deer in relation
to land usein Scandinavia.- Viltrevy9: 45-192.
Ahlen, 1., Boström, U., Elmström, B. & Petterson,B. 1986.
Faunavård i skogbruket - allmen del. - Skogstyrelsen,
Jönköping.
Alfsen,K.H. & Glomsrød,S. 1986. Futureemissionsto air in
Norway: forecastsbased on the macroeconomicmodel
MSG-4E.- Statist.J.UN ECE4: 219-236.
Alison,R.M. 1978. The earliestrecordsof waterfowl hunting.
- Wildl. Soc.Bull.6: 196-199.
Almkvist,B., Andre,T., Ekblom,S. & Rempler,S.-A. 1980. Viltolycksprojektet(VIOL). - Statens vågsverk, Stockholm,
1980-05 TU 146, 117 pp. + App.
Andersen,J. 1953. Analysisof a Danishroe deer population.DanishRev.Game Biol.2: 127-155.
Anderson,P. & Yalden,D.W. 1981. Increasedsheepnumbers
and the lossof the heather moorland in the PeakDistrict,
England.- Biol.Conserv.20: 195-213.
Andersson,S., ed. 1988. Fåglar i jordbrukslandskapet.- Vår
Fågelvårld,Suppl.12: 1-382.
Anker-Nilssen,T. 1988. Metoder til konsekvensanalyser
olje/
sjøfugl.- Viltrapp.44: 1-113.
Anker-Nilssen,T., Jones,P.H. & Røstad,O.W. 1981. Age, sex
and originsof auks(Alcidae)killed in the Skagerrakoiling
incidentof January1981. - Seabird11: 28-46.
Anonymus1986a. Orienteringtil jægerneom: jakt og brug af
blyhagl.- Miljøstyrelsen,Köbenhavn.
Anonymus1986b. Hunting and wildlife in Turkey. - Turkish
Republic,GeneralDirectorateof Forestry.
Anonymus1987. Resolutionof the central hunting commitee
for the 1987-1988 hunting season.- Republicof Turkey,
GeneralDirectorateof Forestry.
Anonymus1989a. Das Seehundsterben1988 - Verlauf und
Ursachen.- Seevdgel10,3: 41-42.
Anonymus 1989b. Jågarenslagbok. - JågarnasCentralorg.,
Östersundom.
Aschenbrenner,H. 1985. Rauhfusshühner.- Schaper,Hannover.
Auguet, R. 1972. Crueltyand civilzation:the Romangames.Allen & Unvin Ltd., London.
38
nina utredning 018 -
Borg. K. 1978. Viltsykdommer.(Norw. edition by G. Holt). Landbruksforlaget,Oslo.
Borg,K., Wanntorp, H., Erne,K. & Hanko,E. 1969. Alkylmercury poisoningin terrestrialSwedishwildlife. - Viltrevy 6:
301-379.
Boyd,H. & Pirot,J.-Y.1989. Flywaysand reservenetworksfor
water birds.- IWRBSpec.Publ.9.
Brander,M, 1971. Hunting & shooting.- Weidenfeld& Nicolson,London.
Briedermann,L., ed. 1981. Die Jagdin der DeutschenDemokratischenRepublik.- Jagdinform.10: 1-75.
Briedermann,L. 1986. Schwarzwild.- Neumann, NeudammMelsungen.
Briedermann,L., Dittrich, G. & StUbbe,C. 1986. Entwicklung
der Schalenwildbeständein der DDR und Möglichkeiten
der Bestandsregulierung.
- Beit.jagd- und Wildforsch.14:
16-32.
Briedermann,L., Dobias,K., Liess,C. & Sparing,H. 1989. Zur
Herkunft und gegenwärtigen Verbreitung des Muffelwildes.- Beit.Jagd-und Wildforsch.16: 11-19,
Brown,L.R.ed. 1990. Stateof the world. - Norton & Co., New
York- London.
Brink,F.H. van den 1968. Zoogdierengids.- Elsevier,Amster- dam.
Bubenik,A.B. 1970. Klassische
Hege - Klassischer
Irrtum?- Die
Pirsch22,3: 90-98.
Bubenik,A.B. 1976. Evolutionof wildlifeharvestingsystemsin
Europe.- Compte Rendu Environm.Canada,Wildl. Serv.,
Ottawa, CW 69-3140F: 110-119.
Bubenik,A.B. 1986. Grundlagender soziobiologischen
Hirschwildbewirtschaftung.- pp. 97159 in PrinzReuss,ed. Rotwild Graz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Bubenik,A.B. 1989. Sporthunting in continentalEurope.- pp.
115-133 in Hudson, R.J.,Drew, K.R. & Baskin,L.M. eds.
Wildlife productionsystems.CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge- New York- PortCuster- Melbourne- Sydney.
Bugalho,J.F.F.,Cabral,M.J.M. & Guerreiro,A.F.B.1986. Situation of red deer in Portugal.- pp. 195-201 in PrinzReuss,
ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Burgess,R.L.& Sharpe,P.M. 1981. Forestislanddynamicsin
man-dominatedlandscapes.- Springer-Verlag,Berlin.
Busnel,R.-G. & Giban, J. 1968. Colloquele problèmedes oiseaux sur les aerodromes,Nice 25-27 novembre 1963. Inst.Nat. Res.Agronom.
Cadbury, C.J. & O'Meara, M. 1985. The declineof the corncrake(Crex crex) in Europe.- pp. 754-756 -inActa Congr.
Int. Om. 18 (Moscow).
Carlson,H. 1986. Quality statusof the North Sea. - Dt. hydrogr. Z. Erg.B16: 1-424.
CE 1985a. On the training of hunters.- Council of Europe,
Strasbourg,Rec.R(85) 17, 5 pp.
CE1985b. On the introductionof the Americancottontailrabbit (Sylvilagus sp.) into Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg, Rec.R(85) 14, 2 pp.
CE 1986. Illegal hunting and catching of protected birds.Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,T-PVS(86) 3, 10 pp.
CE 1987a. Reporton the importanceof shootingfor Europe's
ruralregions.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc. 5745,
9 1)1D.
CE 1987b. Parlamentaryassemblyreport on protectingforests.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc. 5748, 55 pp.
CE 1987c. Middelhavet og miljøet. - Naturopa Nyhetsbrev
87,1: 1-4.
CE 1988. Vest-Tyskland:kampen mot hundegalskap.- Naturopa Nyhetsbrev88,4: 2-3.
Chalmers,P. 1936. The historyof hunting. - Seeley,Service&
Co. Ltd., London.
Christensen,H. & Eldøy,S. 1988. Truede virveldyri Norge. DN-Rapp. 1988,2: 1-99.
Cicnjak,L. & Ruff,R.L. 1990. Human-bear conflictsin Yugoslavia.- Trans.OUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim). In press.
Clutton-Brock,J. 1981. Domesticated animals from early
times.- Univ.TexasPress,Austin.
Coles,C., ed. 1971. The complete book of game conservation. - Barrie& Jenkins,London.
Committee of Inquiryon GrouseDisease1911. The grousein
health and disease;being the final report. - London. 2
vols.
Cooke, A.S., Bell,A.A. & Haas, M.B. 1982. Predatorybirds,
pesticidesand pollution. - Inst. TerrestrialEcol.,Huntingdon.
Cornwall, I.W. 1968. Prehistoricanimalsand their hunters.Faberand Faber,London.
Cramp, S. 1977. Birdconservationin Europe.- Nature Conserv.Counsil,London.
Croxall,P., Evans,P.G.H. & Schreiber,R.W., eds. 1984. Status
and conservationof the World's seabirds.- ICBP Tech.
Publ.2, Cambridge.
Dagg, A.I. S.a. Wildlife management in Europe.- Otter Press,
Waterloo,Ontario.
Dahl, E., Lindahl,0., Paasche,E. & Throndsen,J. 1989. The
Chrysochromulina polylepsis bloom in Scandinavianwatersduring spring1988. - In E.M. Cospered. A novelphytoplanktonbloom. Springer,Hamburg.
Dakyns, N.C. 1897. The works of Xenophon. (Transl.from
Greek).- MacMillian Publ.Co., London.3 Vols.
Danell, K. 1977. Dispersaland distributionof the muskratin
Sweden.- Viltrevy10: 1-26.
Danell, K. 1980. Konsekvenserav blyhagelanvändingför vattenfåglar och deras miljö. - SverigesLantbruksuniv.,Inst.
Viltekologi,Rapp.4: 1-51.
Danell, K., Nelin, P. Wickman, G. & Bergman, R. 1987. Cecium i älg efterTjernobyl-olyckan.- Viltnytt 24: 36-40.
Dannevig, L.C., Elman, R. & Stålbrand,K.M. 1983. TeknologiskForlagsstorebok om jakt. - TeknologiskForlag,Oslo.
Delibes,M. 1984. Distributionand ecologyof the lberiancarnivores:a short review. - pp. 359-378 in Trans. Congr.
IUGB15 (Trujillo).
39
nina utredning018
Diamond, A.W. & Filion,F.L.1987. The valueof birds.- ICBP,
Cambridge.
Diamond, A.W., Schreiber,R.L.,Attenborough,D. & Prest,I.
1987. Savethe birds.- CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge
- London- New York.
DJV1987. HandbuchJagd1987. - D. Hoffrnann,Mainz.
Dontschev,S. 1990. Massnahmenzum Vogelschutzin Bulgarien. - Trans.IUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim). In press.
Dreschler,H. 1980. Ober die Beweihbildungbei Rothirschen
im "RotwildringHorz"in der Jahren1959-1978. - Z. Jagdwiss.26: 207-209.
Ebenhard,T. 1988. Introducedbirdsand mammalsand their
ecologicaleffects.- SwedishWildl. Res.13: 1-107.
ECE1987. Environmentstatisticsin Europeand North America. - Statist.Standardsand Studies39.
Eis,S., ed. 1989. Jægernekan være med til at bremseudbredelsenaf skabhos danskeræve. - Vildtinformation89: 13.
Eisler,R. 1985. Cadmium hazardsto fish, wildlife, and invertebrates:a synopticreview. - US Fish.Wildl, Serv., Biol.
Rep.85(1.2): 1-46.
Ekström,S., ed. 1981. Vilt och jakt: socialaoch ekonomiske
vården. - Jordbruksdep.,Stockholm,Ds Jo 1981: 5, 159
pp.
Ellenberg,H. 1985. Immissions- herb layer productivity- roe
deer population dynamics: an ecological perspective.pp. 1055-1061 in Trans.Congr. IUGB(Brussels)18.
Ellenberg,H. 1987. Fülle - Schwund - Schutz:Was will der
Naturschutzeigentlich?- Heimat 94: 289-300.
Errington,P.L. 1946. Predationand vertebrate populations.Quart. Rev.Biol.21: 144-177.
FACE1986. Federationof huntersassociafionsof the EEC.FACE,Brussels.
Falck, M.M. & Mysterud, I. 1988. Viltbruk i skogbruket.Landbruksforlaget,
Oslo.
FAO 1989. Reportof the EIFACworking'partyon prevention
and control of bird predationin aquacultureand fisheries
operations.- EIFACTech. Pap.51: 1-79.
Festetics,A., Berg,F.C.von & Sommerlatte,M. 1982. The reintroductionof the lynx in the easternAlps - a model of
wildlife protection and research.- pp. 353-357 in Trans.
Congr. IUGB14 (Dublin).
Fitter, R. & Fitter, M. 1987. The road to extinction. - IUCN/
UNEP,Gland.
Fjeldstad,H., ed. 1987. Overvåkingsresultater1986. - SFT,
Oslo.
Fog, J., ed. 1983. Politikensjagtbok. - Politikens Forlag,
København.
Forest& Wildlife Service1986a. Wildlife & the law. - Stationery Office, Dublin.
Forest& Wildlife Service1986b. Reportfor 1986. - Minister
for Energy,Dublin.
Frank,H. 1984. DasFallenbuch.Ninth ed. - Parey,HamburgBerlin.
Frylestam,B., Gerell, R. & Göransson,G. 1981. Fältviltetoch
miljön. - Naturvårdsverket,Rapp.1447: 1-35.
Frøslie,A., Haugen,A., Holt, G. & Norheim, G. 1986. Levels
of cadmium in liver and kidneysfrom Norwegian cervides.- Bull.Environ.Contam. Toxicol.37: 453-460.
GC 1981. Wildfowl management of inland waters. - Game
Conserv.Publ.3: 1-108.
GC 1986. Game in winter: feeding & management. - Game
Conserv.,Fordingbridge.
Gerell, R. 1982. Faunavårdi stadsmiljö.- Naturvårdsverket,
Rapp.1622: 1-56.
Gilbert, F.F. & Dodds, D.G. 1987. The philosophyand practice of wildlifemanagement.- KriegerPubl.Co., Malabar.
Gilbert, J.M. 1979. Hunting and hunting reservesin Mediaeval Scotland.- J. Donald, Edinburgh.
Giles,R.H. 1978. Wildlife management.- Freeman& Co., San
Fransisco.
Gill, R.M.A. 1986. Der gegenwårtige Stand und die Bewirtschaftung des europäischen Rotwildes. pp. 9-24 in
Prinz Reuss,ed. Rotwild Graz (A) 19-22. Juni 1986. CIC,
Paris.
Gill, R.M.A. 1988. Monitoring the status of Europeanand
North Americancervids.- FinalRep. UNEP/GemsProsject
ST/4101-84-02 (PP/2551), 195 pp.
Glover, R. 1947. The wisent or Europeanbison. - J. Mamm.
28: 233-242.
Gossow,H. 1976. Wildökologie:Begriffe,Methoden, Ergebnisse,Konsequenzen.- BLV,München.
Gossow,H. 1985. Wildtier-Schutzund Jagdtier-Hegein der
Produktionslandschaft
Mitteleuropas.- pp. 73-86 in Trans.
Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels).
Gossow,H. in press.Human land use activitiesand grouse:
positiveand negative activities.- Proc. Int. GrouseSymp.
4 (Lam).
Gossow,H. & Stadlmann, G. 1985. Red deer management
and the useof overwinteringenclosures.- pp. 1069-1072
in Trans.Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels).
Gottschalk,J.S.1972. The German huntingsystem,West Germany, 1968. - J.Wildl. Manage. 36: 110-118.
Goudie,A. 1981. The human impact.- Blackwell,Oxford.
Greenway, J.C. Jr. 1967. Extinct and vanishingbirds of the
world. - Dover, New York.
Griffiths,D.J., Øritsland, N.A. & Øritsland,T. 1987. Marine
mammalsand petroleum activitiesin Norwegianwaters.Fisken& Havet B 1987,1: 1-179.
Grimmett, R.F.& Jones,T. 1989. Important bird areasin Europe. - ICBPTech. Publ.9.
Göransson,G. & Larsson,T.-B. 1987. Hunting bags in Sweden - officialgame statisticsversusan enquiry. - p. 69 in
Abstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow).
Göransson,G. & Loman,J. 1978. Bojaktpå kråka- ett experiment. - Viltnytt 9: 35-40.
Götmark, F. 1989. Effekterav friluftslivpå fågelfaunan.- NaturvårdsverketRapp.3682: 1-62.
40
nina utredning018
Haaften, J.L.van 1986. Rotwild und seine Hege in den Niederlanden.- pp. 202-206 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz
(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Haagenrud, H., Morow, K., Nygren, K. & Stålfeldt,F. 1988.
Management of moosein Nordiccountries.- Swed.Wildl.
Res.,Suppl.1: 635-642.
Haarstick,K.-H. 1985. The re-introductionof the capercaillie,
Tetrao urgallus L., in the Harzfrom 1975-1983, an experiment and a contributionfor protectingspeciesof the Low
Saxon forestry administration,Western Germany. - pp.
385-400 in Proc.WPA Int. GrouseSymp.3 (York).
Hagen, H. 1989. Rå-dyr rådyrjakt?- Jakt& Fiske118,8: 5455.
Hagen, Y. 1952. Rovfugleneog viltpleien.- Gyidendal,Oslo.
Hamilton, H. 1980. Jaktvårdsområdenasutveckling åfter
1938. - pp. 111-118 in Haglund, B. ed. Jågarenoch vildnaden. Sv.Jågareförbundet,Stockholm.
Hansen, H.B. 1988. Dyrehaverog hjortefarmei Danmark. DanskeViltunders.44: 1-62.
Hansen,P. 1928. Kongevildtog ædelvildt.- Schæffers,Kolding.
Harberg, J. 1988. Jakten interesserarmånga ålånningar. Jågaren37(6): 27-28.
Harradine,J. 1985. Duck shootingin the United Kingdom. Wildfowl 36: 81-94.
Harrington, R. 1982. The hybridisationof red deer (Cervus
elaphus L. 1758) and japanesesikadeer (C. nippon Temminck 1838). - pp. 559-571 in Trans. Congr. IUGB 14
(Dublin).
Harris, LD. 1984. The fragmented forest. - Univ. Chicago
Press,Chicago- London.
Heberlein,T.A. 1990. Economicvaluesof wildlife: their relevance to wildlife managers. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19
(Trondheim). in press.
Heggberget; T.M. 1987. Utviklingenav den norskebestanden av kanadagjessinntil 1984. - Fauna40: 1-9.
Helgadottir, S., Peterson,A. & Bergmann,S. 1985. Selirog
hringormar.- Landvern,Reykjavik.
Helle, E. & Kauhala, K. 1987. Supikoiranleviämishistorieja
kantojennykytilaSuomessa.- SoumenRiista34: 7-21.
Helle, E. & Stenman, 0. 1987. Reproductionand population
size in the Baltic ringed seal. - Int. Council Explor.Sea,
C.M. 1987,4: 1-8.
Helminen, M. 1977. Hunter qualificationand educationprograms in Finland. - Trans. NA Wildl. Nat. Res.Conf. 42:
100-103.
Heikura,K., Pulliainen,E., Danilov, P.J.,Erkinaro,E., Markovsky, V.A., Bljudnik, L., Sulkava,S. & Lindgren, E. 1985.
Wild forestreindeer,Rangifer tarandus fennicus Lønnb.,its
historicaland recent occurranceand distributionin Finland and the KarelianASSR(USSR)with specialreference
to the development and movementsof the Kuhmol(Finland) - Kamennojozero (USSR)subpopulation. - Aquilo
Ser,Zool. 23: 22-45.
Hepburn, I.R. 1984. Migratory bird hunting in European
Communitycountries.- FACE,Brussels.
Hilden, 0. & Sharrock,J.T.R.1985. A summaryof recentavian changesin Europe.- pp. 716-736 in Acta Congr. Int.
Orn. 18 (Moscow).
Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1986. Hand reared pheasants:how
do they comparewith wild birds. - Game Conserv.Ann.
Rep.17: 76-84.
Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1987. Hand reared pheasants:how
they affect productivity.- Game Conserv.Ann. Rep. 18:
65-69.
Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1988. The pheasant:ecology, management and conservation.- BSPProff. Books,Oxford
London- Edinbourgh.
Hjeljord,0. 1980. Viltbiologi.- Landbruksforlaget,Oslo.
Hornaday, W.T. 1913. Our vanishing wildlife. New York
Zool. Soc.,New York.
Howell, F.C. 1972. Earlyman. - Time-LifeInc., Amsterdam.
Hudson, P. 1986. Red grouse. - The Game Conserv.Trust,
Fordingbridge.
Hudson, P.J.& Rands,M.R.W. 1988. Ecologyand management of gamebirds.- BSPProff.Books,Oxford - LondonEdinbourgh.
Hudson,R., Drew, K.R.& Baskin,L.M. 1989. Wildlife production systems.- Cambridge Univ. Press,Cambridge- New
York- PortCluster- Melbourne - Sidney.
Huseby, K. & Bø, T. 1985. Vellykkautsetting av hare. - pp.
132-137 in Praktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF
- DN - MVA, Oslo.
Hutchinson,T.C. & Meema, K.M., eds. 1985. Effectson atmosphericpollutantson forests,wetlandsand agricultural
ecosystems.- Springer-Verlag,Berlin.
ICBP& IWRB1987. Important bird areasin Europe.- Magyar
Madartani Egyesulet,Visegrad.
Innes,J.L.1987. Air pollutionand forestry.- For.Comm. Bull.
70: 1-28.
Isakovic,I. 1970. Game managementin Yugoslavia.- J.Wildl.
Manage. 34: 800-812.
IUCN 1987. The IUCN positionstatementon translocationof
livingorganisms.- IUCN, Gland, 20 pp.
IUCN 1988. Captivebreeding- the IUCN policystatement.Species10: 27-28.
Jaren,V. 1988. Elgforskningog elgforvaltning.- Direktoratet
for naturforvaltning,Trondheim.
Jelinek, R. 1986. Rotwildbewirtschaftungin Hegegemeinschaften. - pp. 38-69 in Prinz Reuss,ed. RotwildGraz (A)
19-22. Jun1986. CIC, Paris.
Jenkins,D., Watson,A. & Miller, G.R. 1963. Populationstudies on red grouse, Lagopus lagopus scoticus (Lath.) in
northeastScotland.- J.Anim. Ecol.32: 317-376.
Jeppesen,J.L. 1987. The disturbing effects of orienteering
and hunting of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). - Danish
Rev.Game Biol.13,3: 1-24.
41
nina utredning018
König, R. 1983. Abschussplanung und Bejagung des
rnånnlichenRehwildesnach Altersklassen.- pp. 137-150
in Hofmann, R.R. ed. WildbiologischeInformationenfQr
den Jäger.Jagd + Hege AusbildungsbuchIl. Seconded.
EnkeVerlag,Stuttgart.
Lack, D. 1954. The natural regulationof animal numbers.Oxford Univ. Press,Oxford.
Lahti.S. & Helminen, M. 1974. Castor fiber and C. canadensis in Finland.- ActaTheriol. 19: 177-189.
Lampio,T. 1982. Hunting rationalization- a tool for manage• ment of waterfowl populations.- pp. 107-112 in Proc.
Tech. Meet. WesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Paris).
Lampio,T. 1983. Waterfowl hunting in Europe,North America and some African and Asian countriesin 1980-81. IWRBSpec.Publ.3: 1-35
Lang,G. 1986. Genetik und Cerviden.- pp. 405-422 in Prinz
Reuss,ed. RotwillCraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Larsen,T. 1972. Norwegian polar bear hunt, management
and research.- pp. 159-164 in Herrero, S. ed. BearProceedings.IUCN, Morges.
Lassig,J., ed. 1987. Firstperiodic assessmentof the state of
the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 19801985; backgrounddocument. - BalticSea Environ.Proc.
17B.
Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. - Schribner'sSons,
New York.
Leopold,A. 1936a. Deer and Dauerwaldin Germany. J. For.
34: 366-375, 460-466.
Leopold,A. 1936b. Notes on game administrationin Germany. - Arn.Wildl. 25,6: 85, 92-93.
Lever,C. 1985. Naturalized mammalsof the world. - Longman, BurntMill.
Lever,C. 1987. Naturalized birds of the world. - Longman,
BurntMill.
Lindlöf, B. 1979. Bortkastade pengar at plantera ut buroppfdddaskogsharar.- SvenskJakt17: 886-888.
Lindner,K. 1937. Die Jagdder Vorzeit.- Gruyter& Co., Berlin
- Leipzig.
Lindner,K. 1940. Die Jagdin frühen Mittelalter. - Gruyter &
Co., Berlin.
Lindner,K. 1973. Beitrågezu Vogelfang und Falknereiim Altertum. - Gruyter, Berlin- New York.
der Jåger.- Repr.
Lindner, K. 1985. Zum Selbstverståndnis
Jagdund Hund (15-18), 15 pp.
Lindström,E. & Mörner, T. 1985. The spreadingof sarcoptic
mange among Swedishred foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) in relationto fox populationdynamics.- Rev.Ecol.(TerreVie)
40: 211-216.
Linn, I.J., ed. 1979. Wildlife introductionsto Great Britain.Nature Conserv.Council,London.
Litjens,B.E.J.,Pelzers,E. & Haaften, J.L.van 1989. Die Entwicklung_vonMuffelwildpopulationenin Gatterrevierenin
den Niederlanden.- Z. Jagdwiss.35: 213-220.
jepsen, P.U., ed. 1985. Vildtreservaterneog vandfuglene. Landbrugsmin. Vildtforvaltning, Vildtreservatkontoret,
Kalø.
Johnsen,S. 1947. Ulven.- pp. 268-228 in Føyn,B.and Huus,J.
eds.NorgesdyrelivI. Cappelen,Oslo.
Järvinen,0. & Varvio, S.-L 1986. Pronenessto extinctionof
small populationsof seals:demographicand genetic stochastieityvs.environmentalstress.- FinnishGame Res.44:
6-18.
fårvinen, 0. & Miettinen, K. 1988. Sista paret ut? Om naturvårdensbiologi-.- Miljdforlaget,Helsingfors.
Kalchreuter,H. 1977. Die Sachemit der Jagd.- BLV,Miinchen
- Bern- Wien.
Kalchreuter,H. 1987. Wasserwildim Visier.- BLV,München Wien - Zürich.
Karlsen,S. 1978. Tap av bufeog reinog våre,ørnersforholdtil
dissedyra.- Viltrapp.6: 1-59.
Kierdorf,U. & Kierdorf,H. 1990. Chronicfluoridetoxicosisin
game animals.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 (Trondheim). In
press.
Klaus,S.,Andreev,A.V., Bergmann,H.-H., MüIler, F., Porkert,J.
& Wieser,J.1989. Die Auerhühner.Seconded. - Die Neue
Brehm-Blicherei86, Ziemsen,Wittenberg Lutherstadt.
Klemm, C. de 1979. legal aspectsof habitat preservationfor
westernPalearcticwaterfowl. - pp. 192-201 in Proc.Tech.
MeetingWesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Paris).
Ober den Einfluss einer
Korsch, J. von 1985.
Prådatorenbejagungauf Auerwildpopulationenin zwei
Schwarzwaldrevieren.- Allg. Forst-u. Jagd-Ztg.156: 106111.
Kowalski,K. 1986. Die Tierweldt des Eiszeitalters.- Wisserschaft. Buchverlag,Darmstadt.
av villrein. Krafft,A. 1981. Utbredelseog bestandsstørrelse
Viltrapp.18: 1-92.
Krause,G.H.M., Arndt, U., Brandt,C.J.,Bucher,J., Kenk,G. &
Matzner, E. 1987. Forestdecline in Europe:development
and possiblecauses.- pp. 647-668 in Martin, H.C. ed. Acid
precipitation.ReidelPubl.Co., Dordrecht- Boston.
Kristiansson,H. 1985. Vildsvinetsbiologi och skadegörelse.Zool. Inst.Univ.Lund,unpubl.slutrapp.37 pp.
Krysiak,K. 1967. The historyof the Europeanbisonin the Bialowiezaforestand the resultsof its protection.- ActaTheriol. 12: 323-332.
Krzemien,M.P. 1987. XVIII Congressof InternationalUnionof
Game BiologistsKrakow- PolandAugust1987. - Mysliwiec,
Krakow.
Kurt&I, B. 1968. Pleistocenemammalsof Europe.- Weidenfeldt & Nicolson,London.
König, E. 1976. Wildschadenproblemebei der Waldverjungung. - Schweiz.Z. Forstwesen127: 40-57.
König, R. 1982. Zur Planung des weiblichen Rehwildbestandes.- pp. 113-126 in Hofmann, R.R.ed. Wildbiologische Informationenfür den Jäger.Jagd+ HegeAusbildungsbuch I. Seconded. EnkeVerlag, Stuttgart.
•
42
nina utredning018
Loudon,A.S.I. 1987. The influenceof forest habitat structure
on growth, body size and reproductionin roe deer (Capreolus capreolus L.). - pp. 559-567 in Wemmer, C.M. ed.
Biology and management of the Cervidae. Smithsonian
Inst. Press,Washington-London.
Lovari,S. 1984. The biology and management of mountain
ungulates.- Helm Ltd., London.
Love,J.A. 1988. The reintroductionof white-tailedsea eagle
to Scotland:1975-1987. - Res.& Surveyin nat. Conserv.,
NCC 12: 1-48.
Lund-Høje, K. & Grønvold, S. 1987. Glyphosateapplication
in forest - ecologkal aspects.- Scand.J. For. Res.2: 455468.
Luther,H. & Rzoska,J.1971. ProsjectAQUA:a sourcebookof
inland waters proposedfor conservation.- IBPHandbook
21. BlackweHSci. Publ.,Oxford - Edinburgh.
Lutz, W. 1986. Wasserflächenund Wasserflugwild.- Parey,
Hamburg- Berlin.
Lyster,S. 1985. Internationalwildlife law. - GrotiusPubl.Ltd.,
Cambridge.
Madsen,F.K. 1979. Naturfredningssagens
historiei Danmark.
- OdenseUniversitetsforlag.
Madsen, J. 1987. Statusand management of goose populationsin Europe,with specialreferenceto populationsresting and breeding in Denmark. - Dan. Rev. Game Biol.
12,4: 1-76.
Marcström,V., Keith, L.B., Engren,E. & Cary, J.R.1989. Demographic responsesof artic hares(Lepus timidus) to experimental reductionsof red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and
martens(Martes martes). - Can. J.Zool. 67: 658-668.
Marcström,V., Kenward,R.E.& Engren,E. 1988. The impact
of predation on boreal tetraonids during vole cycles:an
experimentalstudy.- J.Anim. Ecol.57: 858-872.
Marjakangas,A. 1985. The effect of artificalfeeding on the
mineral nutrition of the black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) in
winter. - pp. 514-523 in Int. GrouseSymp.WPA. 3 (York
1984).
Marquiss,M. & Newton, I. 1982. The goshawkin Britain.Br. Birds75: 243-260.
Martin, P.S. 1971. Prehistoricoverkill.- pp. 612-624 in Detwyler, T.R. ed. Man's impact on environment. McGrawHill BookCo., New York.
McKelvie, C.L. 1987. A future for game? - Allen & Unwin,
London.
Mech, L.D. 1982. The IUCN-SSCWolf SpecialistGroup. - pp.
327-333 in Harrington, F.H. and Paquet,P.C. eds.Wolves
of the World. NoyesPubl., ParkRidge.
Mehlum, F. & Ogilvie, M., eds. 1984. Current researchon
arcticgeese.- NorskPolarinst.Skrifter181: 1-168.
Mikkelsen,J.D. 1986. Rovfugl og fasanudsætningeri Danmark. - DanskeVildtunders.,40:1-32.
Miljöministeriet1986. Betånkandeavgivet av kommisjonen
för skydd av hotade djur och växter. - Kommit&
betånkande1985,43. Helsingfors.
Miller, I., ed. 1981. Red deer management. - Red Deer
Comm., Inverness.
Miller, G.R. 1980. The burning of heather moorland for red
grouse.- Bull.Ecol.11: 725-733.
Moore, N.W. 1987. The bird of time. - Cambridge Univ.
Press,Cambridge.
Moss, R., Weir, D. & jones, A. 1979. Capercailliemanagement in Scotland.- WPAWoodland GrouseSymp.1: 140155.
Murton, R.K.1971. Man and birds.- Collins,London.
Murton, R.K.,Westwood, N.J. & Isaacson,A.J.1974. A study
of wood-pigeon shooting: the exploitation of a natural
animal population.- J.Appl. Ecol.11: 61-82.
Myers, N., ed. 1985. The GAIAAtlasof planet management
for to day'scaretakersof tomorrow'sworld. 7 GAIA Books
Ltd., London.
Myrberget, S., ed. 1979. Moose management in Fennoscandia. - Medd. norskViltforsk.3,8: 1-68.
Myrberget, S. 1985. Is hunting mortality compensatedfor in
grouse populations, with special reference to willow
grouse?- pp. 329-336 in Trans. IUGB Congr. 17 (Brussels).
Myrberget, S. 1987. Introductionof mammals and birds in
Norway includingSvalbard.- Medd. NorskViltforsk.3,17:
1-25.
Myrberget, S. 1988. Hunting statisticsas indicatorsof game
population size and composition.- Statist.J. UN ECE5:
289-301.
Myrberget, S. 1990. Game management in Europeoutside
SovjetUnion. - Trans.IUGBCongr. 18 (Krakow).In press.
Mysterud,I. & Falck,M.M. 1989. The brown bearin Norway,
II: management and planning. - Biol. Conserv.48: 151162.
Naess,A. & Mysterud, I. 1987. Philosophyof wolf policiesI:
Generalprinciplesand preliminaryexploraticinof selected
norrns.- Conserv.Biol.1: 22-34.
N4y, J.G. & Bencze,L. 1973. Game management, administration and harvestin Hungary. - Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1: 121127.
Nahlik, A.J.de. 1974. Deer management. - David & Charles,
London.
Newman, J.R. 1970. Hunting and hunter education in
Czechoslovakia.- Wild. Soc.Bull.3: 155-161.
Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology,of raptors. - Poyser,
Berkhamsted.
Nielsen,M., Vyff, K. & Johansen,A. 1967. De gamle levende
hegn. - K.Jörgensen,Kolding.
Niethammer, G. 1963. Die Einbürgerungvon Såugetieren
und Vögeln in Europe.- Parey,Hamburg - Berlin.
Niethammer, J. & Krapp, F., eds. 1982. Handbuch der
SåugetiereEuropas:-Akad.Verlag.,Wiesbaden.
Niewold, F.J.J.& Nijland, H. 1988. Die Chancendes westeuropäischenMoor- und Heidebirkhuns.- Z. Jagdwiss.33:
221-241.
43
nina utredning 018
Nilsson,L. & Fog, M., eds. 1984. Studieson Fennoscandian
populationsof bean goose (Anser fabalis), greylag goose
(Anser anser) and lesserwhite-frontedgoose(Anser erythropus). - Swed.Wildl. Res.13: 1-221.
Ninov, N. 1990. Bestandsentwicklung
und Trophåenqualitåt
des Damhirschesin der VolksrepublicBulgarian.- Trans.
IUGBCongr.19 (Trondheim).In press.
Nordell, S. & Weinberg, U. 1983. Jakten,jågaren och lagen.
Thirded. - Proprius,Stockholm.
Norderhaug, M. & Norderhaug, A. 1986. Naturen og vi:
Håndboki naturvern.- Universitetsforlaget,
Oslo.
Nowak,E.1974. On the "huntingpressure"on waterfowlin Europe.- pp. 406-422 in Proc.Int. Conf.Conserv.Wetlands&
Waterfowl(Heiligenhafen).
Nygren, T. 1984. Hirvikannaninventointija verotuksensuunnitteluSuomessa.- SuomenRiista31: 74-82.
Nyholm, N.E.I. 1981. Evidenceof involvementof aluminiumin
causationof defectiveformation of eggshellsand of impaired breedingin wild passerinebirds.- Environ.Res.26:
363-371.
F. von 1974. Der ökonomiskeWert der Wildproduktion in Europa(ohneSowjetunion).- Z. Jagdwiss.20: 85-95.
O'Connor, R.J.& Shrubb,M. 1986. Farmingand birds.- CambridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge.
OECD 1987. OECDenvironmentaldata:compendium1987. OECD,Paris.
L'OfficeNational de la Chasse1986. Enquetenationalesur les
tableauxde la chasseå tir. Saison19831984. - Bull.MensuelSommaire108: 1-88.
Olsson,M. & Sandegren,F.1989. Är miljögiftetPCBfråmstaorsakentil utternsnedgangi Europa?-Viltnytt27: 63-71.
Onderscheka,K. 1986. lst die Fiitterungdes Rotwildesin der
Kulturlandschaft
desalpinenRäumeseinebiologiskeAbsurditåt oder ein Beitrag zur Erhaltung der Funktion des
Ökosystems?
- pp. 386-395 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz
(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Owen, M., Atkinson-Willes,G.L. & Salmon,D.G. 1984. Wildfowl in Great Britain.- CambridgeUniv.Press,CambridgeLondon- New York.
Parker,H. 1984. Effectof corvidremovalon reproductionof willow ptarmigan and black grouse.- J. Wildl. Manage 48:
1197- 1205.
Parslow,J.L.& Everett,M.J. 1981. Birdsin needof specialprotectionin Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg.
Pastor,X. 1988. The Mediterraneandeservesbetterthan this.Naturopa60: 18-20.
Pedersen,H.C. & Nybø, S. 1989. Effekterav langtransportert
forurensingpå terrestriskedyr i Norge: en statusrapport
med vekt på S02, NOx og tungmetaller.- NINA Utredning
5: 1-54.
Pedersen,P.H., Nordhuus,I., Jaren,V., Andersen,J.A.,Sæther,
B.-E. & Lanestedt,G. 1988. CERSIM:Bestandsmodellfor
elgforvaltningen. I. - Direktoratet for naturforvaltning,
Trondheim.
Petterson,J.-0., ed. 1987. Viltforskningenspraktiskanytta. NaturvårdsverketRapp.3361: 1-70 + Appendix.Solna.
Phillips,J., Råen,S.G. & Aalerud,F. 1984. Responseof willow
grouse to serial burning of mountain vegetation in Numedal, S. Norway. - pp. 55-68 in Proc.Int. GrouseSymp.
3 (York).
Phoebus,G. 1978. Das Buchder Jagd.Transl.by G. Biss.- R.
Mohn, Freiburg.
Piersma,T., Beintema,A.J., Davidsos,N.C., Munster, 0. &
Pienkowski,M.W. 1987. Wader migration systemsin the
eastAtlantic.- Wader Study Group Bull.49, Suppl./IWRB
Spec.Publ.7: 35-56.
Pimlott, D.H. 1975. The wolf in Europein 1973. - Wolves,
IUCN Publ.New Ser.,Supl. Pap.43: 17-27.
Popelin,E. 1969. Reportof the InternationalConferenceon
the Muscrat.- EPPOPubl.A 47: 16-17,
Potts,G.R. 1979. Mathematical modelsasan aid to studiesof
game bird populations.- WPA Woodland GrouseSymp.
1: 115-119.
Potts,G.R. 1981. Fewerwoodpigeons?- Game Conserv.Ann.
Rep.12: 83-87.
Potts, G.R. 1984. Grey partridges:how a computer model
can help to solvepracticalgame managementquestions.
- Game Conserv.Ann. Rep. 15: 56-59.
Potts,G.R. 1986. The partridge.- Collins,London.
PremierMinistre.1986. Chasse:organisationdes associations
communalesagreees.-J. Off. Rep. Francaise66,142: 126.
Pulliainen, E. & Sulkava, S. 1986. Odocoileus virginianus
(Zimmermann, 1771) Weisswedelhirsch.
- pp. 217-232 in
Handbuchder SåugetiereEuropas2/II. AULA,Wiesbaden.
Prior,R. 1987. Roestalking.- Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge.
Putman, R.J.,ed. 1989. Mammals as pests. - Chapman &
Hall, london - New York.
Raesfeldt,F. von 1898. Das Rotwild.- Parey,Berlin.
Ranerås,U. 1985. Mål och principeri svenskmiljöskyddslagstiftning.- NaturvårdsverketRapp.1988: 1-156.
Rands,W.R.W. 1986. The survivalof gamebird (Galliformes)
chicksin relation to pesticideuse on cereals.- Ibis 128:
57-64.
Rapport, D.J. 1989. Symptoms of pathology in the Gulf of
Bothnia (Baltic Sea): ecosystemresponseto stressfrom
human activity.-Biol.J.LinneanSoc.37: 33-49.
Ratcliffe,P.R. 1987. Distribution and current statusof sika
deer, Cervus nippon, in Great Britain.- Mammal Rev.17:
39-58.
Read, A.F. & Harvey, P.H. 1986. Genetic management in
zoos.- Nature 322: 408-410.
Reimers,E., Villmo, L., Gaare, E., Holthe, V. & Skogland,T.
1980. Statusof Rangifer in Norway including Svalbard.pp: 774-785 in Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).
Reimoser,F. 1986. Zur Wildschadenproblematikbeim Rotwild im Mitteleuropa. - pp. 330-351 in Prinz Reuss,ed.
RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
44
nina utredning 018
Reuther, C. & Festetics,A. 1980. Der Fischotterin Europa:
Verbreitung, Bedrohung, Erhaltung. - Aktion Fishotterschutz, Oderhaus- Göttingen.
Robertson,P.A. & Whelan, J. 1987. The ecologyof wild and
hand-rearedpheasantsin Ireland.- IrishBirds3: 427-440.
Roistad,J. & Wegge, P. 1987. Distributionand sizeof capercaillie leksin relationto old forestfragmentation.- Oecologia 72: 389-394.
Rolstad,J. & Wegge, P. in press.Capercailliehabitat: a critical
assessemntof the role of old forest. - Proc. Int. Grouse
Symp.4 (Lam).
RSPB1989. Wild birds and the law. - The RoyalSocietyfor
the Protectionof Birds,Lodge.
Rificker,J. & Stålfelt,F. 1986. Das Elchwild:Naturgeschichte6kologie - Hege und Jagddes europäischenElches.- Parey, Hamburg - Berlin.
Rumohr-Rufidhof,W.-H. von 1990. Die Entwicklungdes Sikawildesin Schleswig-Holstein.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19
(Trondheim). In press.
•Saliba,L.J.1988. The Mediterranean- a hundredmilliontourists.- Naturopa 59E: 13-15.
Salo, L.J.1976. Historyof wildlife management in Finland.Wildl. Soc.Bull.4: 167-174.
Sandberg,N. 1985. Vinterffiring av rådjur. - pp. 138-141 in
Praktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF- DN - MVA,
Oslo.
Scheel, H. ed. 1947. Den danske jagt i fortid og nutid. Hirschsprung,Köbenhavn.
Schneider,T., ed. 1986. Acidificationand its policy implications.- ElsevierSci.Publ.,Amsterdam.
Scott, D.A. 1979. Problemsin the managementof waterfowl
populations.- pp. 89-106 in Proc.Tech. Meeting Western
PalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Paris).
Scott, D.A. 1980. A preliminaryinventoryof wetlandsof internationalimportancefor waterfowl in West Europeand
NorthwestAfrika.- IWRB.Spec.Publ.2: 1-128.
Scott, D.A , ed. 1982. Managing wetlands and their birds.IWRB,Slimbridge.
Schröder,W. 1985. Management of mountain ungulates.pp. 179-196 in Lovari, S. ed. The biology and management of mountain ungulates.Helm Ltd., London.
Sennstam, B. 1974. Effects of orienteering on wildlife. Skogshögskolan,
Inst. Skogzool.,Res.Notes 17: 1-60.
Serez, M. 1990. Das Grosswildin der Türkei. Entwicklungszustand und Jagdgesetz.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 (Trondheim). 1npress.
Sheddon, C.B. 1986. Status of European quarry species.Brit.Ass.Shootingand Conserv.,Wrexham.
Siivonen,L. 1957. The problem of the short-termfluctuations
in numbersof tetraonidsin Europe.- Pap. Game Res.19:
1-44.
Skogland,T. 1986. Density dependent food limitation and
maximal production in wild reindeer herds. - J. Wildl.
Manage. 50: 314- 319.
Skogland,T. 1987. Radiocesiumconcentrationsin wild reindeer at Dovrefjell,Norway. - Rangifer7: 42-45.
Skogland,T. & Espelien,1.S.1990. The biologicaleffectsof
radiocesiumcontamination of wild reindeer in Norway
following the Chernobyl accident. - Trans. IUGB Congr.
19 (Trondheim).1npress.
Smart, M. 1987. Internationalconventions.- Wader Study
Group Bull.49, Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ. 7: 114-117.
Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1976. Threatenedmammals
in Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg.
Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1981. Threatenedmammals
in Europe. Akad.,Verlag,Wiesbaden.
SOU 1983. Vilt och jakt. - StatensOff. Utredningar, Stockholm, 1983: 1-21.
Soule,M.E., ed. 1987. Viable populationsfor conservation.CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge.
Spagnesi,M. & Apollonio,M. 1985. le vocazionifaunistiche
con particolarereferimentoallespeciedi mammiferiogetto di caccia:situazioneattuale e potenziale. - Atti Conv.
ProgettoFaunisticodel'Appennino(Pescara):5-19.
Spenik,M. 1985. The controlof healthstatusof game and its
organization in Czchoslovakia.- pp. 743-749 in Trans.
Congr. 1UGB17 (Brussels).
Spiess,A.E. 1979. Reindeer and caribou hunters. - Acad.
Press,New York.
Spina, F. 1987. Baltic birds through the Mediterrianean.
Some aspectsof birdsconservationin Italy. - BalticBirds
IV. Vår Fågelvårld,Suppl.11: 207-210.
Spitzer, G. 1982. Der Jagdprüfungsbehelf.Tenth ed. Österreich.Jagd-und Fischerlei-Verlag,
Wien.
Stenseth,N.C. & Steen, H. 1987. Små bestandersdynamikk
med spesiellreferansetil bjørn, jerv og ulv i Norge: et teoretiskstudium.- Viltrapp.45: 1-53.
Stensaas,I., ed. 1989. Wildlife management in Norway. - Direktoratetfor naturforvaltning,Trondheim.
Stirling, I. 1986. Researchand management of polar bears
Ursus maritimus. - PolarRecord.23: 167-176.
Stokes,P. & Piekarz,D. 1987. Ecologicalindicatorsof the
state of the environment. - EnvironmentalInterpretation
Div. EnvironmentCanada,Toronto.
Strandgaard, H. 1972. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)
population at Kalø and the factors regulating its size. DanishRev.Game Biol.7: 1-205.
Strandgaard,H. 1979. Roedeer: a casestudy.- Naturopa 32:
19-21.
Strandgaard,H. 1985. Agricultureand wildlife. - pp. 511-526
in Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels).
Strandgaard,H. & Asferg,T. 1980. The Danishbag record,II.
-DanishRev.Game Biol.11,5: 1-112.
Stålfelt,F. 1966. Älgstammensbeskattning.- Svenskjakt 104:
484-486.
Sulkava,S. 1980. Populationof the wild forest reindeer,Rangifer tarandus fennicus Lönnb.1909, in Finland.- pp. 681684 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp. 2 (Røros).
45
nina utredning018
Swartenbroekx,J.M.L 1985. Wildsoorten en wildbeheer in
- pp. 51-64 in Trans.Congr. IUGB 17 (Brussels).
Szafer,W. 1968. The ure-ox, extinct in Europesincethe seventeenth century: an early attempt at conservationthat
failed. - Biol.Conserv.1: 45-47.
Szukiel,E. 1987. Ecologicalsituationon Cervidaein West Sudetes.- pp. 197-198 in Abstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow).
Sørensen,0.1., ed. in press.The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.)
in Europein the mid 1980s. - Aquilå.
Sørensen,0.J., Mysterud, I. & Kvam, T. 1984. Sentral registreringav storerovdyri Norge. - Viltrapp. 30: 1-158.
Tahon, J. 1985. Le succesde l'etourneausansonnet(Sturnus
vulgaris) dans lesecosytemesamenages.- pp. 535-543 in
Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels).
Tamisier,A. 1985. Hunting asa keyenvironmentalparameter
for the western Palearcticduck populations.- Wildfowl
36: 95-103.
Temple, S.A.ed. 1977. Endangeredbirds.- Univ. Wise. Press,
Madison.
Thorisson,S. 1980. Statusof Rangifer in Iceland. - pp. 766770 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).
Tillisch,C.J. 1949. Falkejagtenog dens historie. - Haase &
Sønsforlag, Köbenhavn.
Tinbergen, N. 1951. The studyof instinct.- ClarendonPress,
Oxford.
Troostwijk,W.J.D. van 1976. The musk-rat(Ondatra zibethicus L.) in the Netherlands,its ecologicalaspectsand their
consequencesfor man. - R.I.N. Verhandlung7: 1-136.
Ueckermann,E. 1955. Ein Erklärungsversüch
der bei Rotwild
im Westdeutschland anzutreffenden Unterschiede im
Körpergewicht.- Z. Jagdwissenschaft
1: 92-94.
Ueckermann,E. 1960. Wildstandsbewirtschaftung
und Wildschadensverhütungbeim Rotwild.- Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.
Ueckermann,E. 1964. Erhebungüber die Wildverlustedurch
dem Strassenverkehr
und die Verkehrsunfälledurch Wild.
- Z. Jagdwissenchaft
10: 142-168.
Ueckermann,E. 1971. Die Fütterungdes Schalenwildes.Second ed. - Parey,Hamburg - Berlin.
Ueckermann, E. 1977. Der Schwarzwildabschuss.- Parey,
Hamburg -Berlin.
Ueckermann, E. 1981. Die Wildschadenverhlitungin Wald
und Feld.Fourthed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.
Ueckermann, E. 1982. Der Rehwildabschuss.
- Parey, Hamburg - Berlin.
Ueckermann, E. 1984. Jagd und JagdgeschichteNordrheinWestfalen.- Rheinland-Verl.GmbH, Köln.
Ueckermann,E. 1986a. JagdlicheRaumordnung- dargestellt
am Beispeildes Rotwildes.- pp. 160-172 in Prinz Reuss,
ed. RotwildGraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.
Ueckermann, E. 1986b. Die Fütterung des Schalenwildes.
Third ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.
Ueckermann,E. 1987. Managing German red deer (Cervus
elaphus L.) populations.- pp. 505-516 in Wemmer, C.M.
ed. Biologyand management of the Cervidae.Smithsonian Inst.Press,Washington-London.
Ueckermann,E. & Scholz, H. 1981. WIdåsungsflächen.Second ed. - Parey,Hamburg - Berlin.
Vaag, A.B. 1987. Landsplanfor forvaltning av bjørn, jerv og
ulv. - DN-Rapp. 1987,6: 1-37.
Vader, W., Anker-Nilssen,T., Bakken,V., Barret,R. & Strann,
K.-B.1990. Regionaland temporal differencesin breeding
successof fish-eatingseabirdsin Norway aftercollapsesof
herring and capelin stocks. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19
(TrondheiM). In press.
Valkesjärvi,P. & ijås,L. 1989. Ruokitunteeriparvenelintavoista ja talviruokinnarivaikutukisista.- SuomenRiista35: 4360.
Vandervell,A. & Coles, C. 1980. Game & the Englishlandscape.- Debrette'sPeerageLtd., London.
Vikberg,P. 1988. Inplanteringav rådyr - läget idag. - Jågaren
37,1: 26-28.
Volk, H. 1986. Zur Belastung von Natur und Landschaft
durch der Wintersport.- Allg. Forst-und Jagdz.157: 238243.
Waddington, R. 1958. Grouse:shootingand grousemanagement. - Faberand FaberLtd., London.
Wagenknecht,E 1965. BewirtschaftungunsererSchalenwildbestånde.- VEB,Berlin.
Wagenknecht,E. 1981. Rotwild.- VEB,Berlin.
Watson, A. & Jenkins,D. 1968. Experimentson population
control by territorial behaviour in red grouse. - J. Anim.
,
Ecol.37: 595-614.
Watson, A. & Miller, G.R. 1976. Grouse management. Second ed. - Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge.
Wegge, P. 1984. Skogbruketog storfuglbiotopene.- Viltrapp.
36: 84-90.
Weismann,C. 1931. Vildtetsog JagtensHistoriei Danmark.ReizelsForlag.
Westerling,B. 1989. Läget på rabies-fronten.- Jågaren38,3:
8-9.
Whelan,J. 1990. Introducedspeciesin Ireland:impacton native'fauna and productionsystems.- Trans. IUGBCongr.
19 (Trondheim).In press.
Whisker,J.B.1981. The right to hunt. - N. RiverPress.
Wiig, Ø. 1988a. Change in the degree of infestationof parasitic nematodesin grey seals(Halichoerus grypus) from
Froan,Norway. - Faunanorv., Ser.A 9: 47-49.
Wiig, Ø. 1988b. Grønlandsselog selinvasjon:Hva vet vi - hva
tror vi. - Naturen 1988,2: 35-41.
Wildlife Service1989. Report for 1988. - StationaryOffice,
Dublin.
Willebrand, T. 1988. Demography and ecology of a black
grouse(Tetrao tetrix L) population. - Unpubl. dr. thesis.
Univ. Uppsala.
Wolfe, M.L. & Berg,F.-C.von 1988. Deer and forestryin Germany: half a century after Aldo Leopold.- J.For.86,5: 2531.
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. Jaktlovgivningeni Norge 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