Wolf Hunting and Management in Sweden
Last year, hunting was implemented as one of the tools for managing the Swedish wolf population. The legislation was supported by close to 80 % of the Members of Parliament and regulating the wolf population through hunting is supported by a majority of the Swedes. The decision was, however, considered controversial amongst conservation bodies in Sweden and abroad. With this year’s hunt under way, wolf management again attracts attention nationally and internationally.
I am the Conservation Manager of the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (SAHWM), which was founded in 1830 to restore, preserve and manage game populations. One of my tasks is to write about wildlife management and hunting on SAHWM:s blog. As our wolf management has attracted international attention, I will try to give some insights into Swedish game management, and particularly wolf management, in English also.
The Swedish Wolf Population
Wolves were hunted in Sweden until the sixties and were extinct for about a decade or so, before establishing themselves again in the early eighties. Today, the population numbers at least 250-300 individuals and was increasing by 16 % annually. In 2009, the Swedish Parliament decided to attempt to maintain the population at the current level. This is done through hunting specific individuals that have taken livestock or pets repeatedly. This can only be done after application to the county board, but owners are also allowed to defend livestock and pets that are under direct attack. There is some additional, strictly controlled, hunting in areas with reproducing wolves in order to maintain a constant population size. The quotas are set taking any previous mortality into consideration and were approximately 10 % of the population in 2010. This year’s monitoring could not be finished before the quotas were determined and this year’s bag limit will be a smaller percentage of the actual population. The goal of a constant wolf population is temporary and will be evaluated in 2012.
Already in the eighties, the Swedish parliament decided that reproducing wolves should not be allowed to remain inside the reindeer husbandry area, which comprises the northernmost 40 % of Sweden. This decision was taken to ensure that the indigenous Sami people could maintain current levels of reindeer husbandry. At the same time, however, this effectively reduced contact between the increasing Swedish wolf population and the Finnish and Russian wolves. The current distribution of wolves covers about 20-25 % of Sweden, just south of the reindeer area.
Swedish Wolf Genetics
The current population was founded by two individuals, first breeding in 1983. Only three new immigrants have entered the breeding population since then. As a result, the Swedish population is highly inbred and all individuals except those descended from the two most recent immigrants are more closely related than full-siblings. So far, litter size has been shown to be reduced by inbreeding and some malformations have been found. Serious effects of inbreeding appear to be rare, however. Even so, low genetic variation remains a serious threat to long term population viability. As a result, plans for translocations of wolfs are being drawn up. Also, the decision not to have wolves in the reindeer area has been questioned, which would enable natural contact between the populations.
Attitudes to wolves
There is strong public support for having the wolf in Sweden and the support is increasing at the national level. In 2009, 71 % of the Swedes expressed that they were pleased to have wolves in Sweden, as compared to 64 % in 2004. At the same time, the support in the counties actually harbouring the wolves is decreasing. At the two extremes is the county of Stockholm, where 81 % were positive to having wolves in Sweden, and the county of Dalarna, where only 56 % were positive. Furthermore, a majority of the population is in favour of decreasing the national target for the wolf population in several of the municipalities within the counties with wolves.
Sweden has got approx 270 wolves, 3200 brown bears, 700 wolverines, 1500-1800 lynx and at least 1800 golden eagles. Excluding reindeer (which are held where wolfs basically don’t occur), the 270 or so wolves are responsible for 71 % of all attacks on livestock and pets from any of the large predators. There is a strong support at the national level in Sweden for regulating the wolf population through hunting, to decrease the risk of wolfs taking livestock or pets.
Thus, the average Swede wants to have a viable wolf population, but feels that the population should be regulated to decrease conflicts and problems. The acceptance of the wolf is decreasing where it occurs, which may be a serious threat to the conservation and management of the wolf, unless counteracted.
Wolf Management
Several scientific evaluations of the Swedish wolf population show that it is viable at the current population size, given that there is immigration from Finland every second year or so (and given that the immigrants breed). Alternatively, targets for viability may be reached through translocation of pups or adults from other populations. Current acceptance of the wolf is decreasing where it occurs and the adopted management strategy strives to gain acceptance for translocations by freezing the population at the current level. Thus, improving the genetic status of the wolf population goes hand in hand with regulating the population size through hunting.
Currently, Sweden has been criticized by the EU because the wolves are not allowed to reproduce in the reindeer area. Simultaneously, the UN is criticizing Sweden because it is felt that the number of large predators makes reindeer husbandry difficult. Up to 50 000 of the 250 000 reindeer in Sweden are taken annually, predominantly by the lynx. Adding wolves to the existing lynx, brown bear and wolverine populations would make the problems much larger. This illustrates that large carnivore management is a complex issue and that biological, social and societal issues must be handled simultaneously.
The public attitudes to the wolf, where it occurs, more or less preclude increasing population size further, at least with the current distribution. Furthermore, densities and dissent are currently high in some areas and need to be reduced through direct actions, including hunting. If the wolf population is allowed to expand, thus decreasing local densities and increasing acceptance, a sustainable management of the wolf population can be achieved at the current population size.
Hunting the Wolf
The Swedish wolf population is one of the best studied populations in the world. We have good estimates of the growth rate of the population and the distribution of individuals. Furthermore, we have an almost perfect pedigree for the whole population, meaning that we know which individuals are inbred and which are not. Sweden has a track record of succeeding first with a sustainable management of the brown bear and more recently with the lynx. Both populations were in a situation similar to that of the wolf a couple of decades ago. Through extensive monitoring and conservation work, in combination with limited and strongly regulated hunting, the populations have been able to grow and expand. Allowing limited hunting was one of the key active measures taken to increase acceptance for large carnivores where they occur. This obviously has worked and the EU experts on management of large carnivores, LCIE, strongly support the Swedish wolf management strategy, including limited hunting.
The Swedish wolf packs inhabit large territories, on average 1000 km2. In order to reduce the risk that any of the recent immigrants or their offspring are killed, hunting is only allowed in territories inhabited by inbred individuals. This strategy proved successful in 2010, when no offspring to recent immigrants were killed during the hunting season. As far as we know, this has also been true for the season of 2011. As a result of culling inbred individuals only, average levels of inbreeding have decreased in the population. With the addition of new immigrants, or translocations planned for in the absence of immigration in 2011, the genetic status of the Swedish wolf population will be improved. In this manner, the Swedish wolf population will reach the viability goal set, given that immigration occurs regularly or that translocations are performed.
The Position of the Swedish Hunters
Hunting has strong traditions and a high acceptance in the Swedish society; game management, including hunting, is supported by 86 % of the Swedes. The Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management is amongst Sweden’s largest NGO:s, with 190 000 members out of Sweden’s 265 000 hunters. We support viable populations of all species native to Sweden, including the large carnivores. We regard wise use of our native game populations as an intrinsic part of a sustainable society and feel that it is essential to focus not only on preserving biodiversity, but also to sustainably use it and restore biodiversity already lost. Here, regulating game populations, and adapting other forms of land use to game management, provides valuable contributions. The principles underlying the current Swedish management of the large carnivores constitute an integral part of our view on game management and wise use of our natural resources.
In short, regulating the wolf population provides the local acceptance necessary for its conservation.
Fredrik Widemo is Associate Professor in Animal Ecology and the Conservation Manager at the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management. He is acting as SAHWM:s expert on the effects of wildlife management, and other forms of land use, on biodiversity.
SAHWM is an NGO, but holds a public commission to inform hunters and the public about game, game management and hunting. Also, SAHWM is in charge of game monitoring and of training hunters in Sweden.
Per,
I will adress the first two paragraphs of your response in a new text tomorrow.
The brown bear and lynx may not be exact parallels to the wolf, but we have convincingly shown that it is possible to allow limited hunting while allowing the national population to grow and spread to new areas.
Dear Fredrik, thank you for your taking your time to respond to my previous comments. I do however fail to see how the licensed hunt can be compared to the targeted hunt of problem wolves. In my mind there is a need to make clear distinction between real and perceived risks. The targeted hunt addresses the real risk that problem wolves pose. The licensed hunt is according to your reply done to relieve the concerns that a future attack on pets, children or livestock might occur, i.e. to reduce the perceived risk that wolves make up. I beg to differ that this could be accomplished with hunting. On the contrary, it would tend to confirm the beliefs of wolves as dangerous animals, and thus increase the perceived risk and concerns. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples where educational means have been successfully used to reduce the fear and increase the acceptance of large predators. In other words, concerns cannot be addressed with hunting unless the factor causing the concerns goes extinct. Educational measures can.
I am glad reaffirmed SAHWM’s views that more immigration is needed to sustain the Swedish population of wolves. I am however concerned that no solid plans how this are to be achieved has been presented, neither by SAHWM, nor by the Swedish government. The obstacles are numerous and should have been sorted out before the licensed hunt was introduced.
I am afraid I still fail to see the similarities between the strategy you propose for managing the wolf population, and the rather successful restoration of the Swedish bear population. The bear population was not restored by release of bears bred in captivity, by opening up new migration routes, by convincing other countries to increase their population numbers, by allowing the population to spread and establish itself in areas used for reindeer husbandry, and so on. There simply was not a need to. The truth of the matter is that restoring the bear population was very straight forward. All it took was a decreased hunting pressure, which resulted in a population growth from a minimum of 130 individuals to today’s numbers of 2500-3000. Plain and simple. To me the management strategy you propose for the Swedish wolf population, i.e. increased hunting pressure and a decreased population size, is rather the opposite to this.
Per,
thank you for a detailed response to my background on the Swedish wolf management. As I’m sure you’ve seen, I’ve been getting responses to my text in Swedish as well here. We might extract the original text and comments in English later on, so I will respond to any comments in the language in which they were written.
You’re quire right that it is the licensed hunt that is most controversial. To my mind, however, the rationale behind the licensed hunt is very much the same as the one behind the more ”selective” hunt. There is a widespread national acceptance for regulating wolf numbers in order to reduce problems with livestock and pets taken. In my experience, concern for livestock and pets is also the major reason that many people in rural parts of Sweden, where wolves occur, are negative to wolves. In some municipalities, there is already a majority for decreasing the national population. Not to mention the local one… Thus, we already have a situation where people in some of the core areas want to have fewer wolves. They don’t want to have to wait for repeated attacks to occur and then have to apply to the County Administrative Board and wait a couple of weeks for the outcome. They want to have lower wolf densities, period. The underlying reason, however, is exactly the same: concern for livestck and pets. Fewer wolves will, inevitably, lead to a lower risk of attacks on livestock. One could expect stronger effects per wolf removed by targeting problematic individuals, but this is beside the point.
I am not at all saying that it is obvious how one should strike the balance between a more selective and a licensed hunt. One could of course be more lenient with the requirements for agreeing to a selective hunt. In favour of a selective hunt is the fact that we try to target the individuals creating the largest problems (and there certainly is variation in this respect). At the same time, it is certainly much better to hunt wolves during January, when we know that pups can take care of themselves even if parents are shot. Selective hunting is performed throughtout the year, leading to larger ethical problems. Furthermore, finding and hunting wolves when there isn’t any snow is difficult, meaning that selective hunting runs a much smaller chance of success during a large part of the year.
I fully agree the the current rate of immigration is insufficient.
If you read the wolf management plan of SAHWM you will find that it states that we want a viable Scandinavian wolf population and that the extinction risk should not exceed 10 % over a 100 yrs. You will also find that based on the available scientific knowledge at the time this would require 200 indivduals. SAHWM doesnt feel that Sweden should carry the whole Scandinavian population, but decided that Norway ought to harbour 50 and we should accept 150. Thus, this number stems from the viabilty analysis performed by leading international and national scientists at the time. Many more analyses have been run since and some aspects of the action plan are outdated anyway, e.g. as we now have County Game Management Boards. Estimates of minimum viable population size have not changed very much, however.
I have not cited any figures on attitudes collected after the first hunt in 2010; the comparison made was between 2004 and 2009 and I have used the data from 2009 as the most updated information we have.
My point about the other large predators is that we have managed them in a qualitatively simliar manner as we are now doning with the wolf. And succeeded extremely well, doing so.
Tänk om frågeställningen skulle ha varit, kan du tänka dig att ha vargar springande runt husknuten där dina barn ska leka.
I stället för en att luddig fråga som om vi ska ha varg i landet.
I den enkät som Folkationen Ny Rovdjurspolitik med ca.2500 pers. genomfört visar det sig att ca. 96% inte vill ha varg springande in på knutarna.
Enkäten visade även att acceptansen stiger med avståndet till vargen.
Vargen som är världens 3 mest förekommanda rovdjur räknat efter människan och rödräven.
Därför kan man undra hur vissa får ljuga och sprida lögner om att den är utrotningshotad.
S-Å
Dear Fredrik,
Thank you for your thorough attempt to summarize the status and hunting of the threatened Swedish wolf population. However, after reading your text I wish to clarify a few things you brought up. First of all you seem to confuse, or at least fail two accurately describe, the hunting that goes on in Sweden. Killing wolves to protect pets and livestock has been allowed in Sweden for more than two decades. The 2009 decision by the Swedish parliament you refer to allows for non-selective (apart from a few individuals) licensed hunt of wolves, irrespectively if they pose a threat to pets or livestock or not. During 2010 eleven wolves were shot in order to protect pets and livestock, and 28 during the licenced hunt. That is, the vast majority (72%) of the wolves that were legally hunted in Sweden 2010 was not hunted in order to protect pets and livestock, as the introductory part of your text suggest.
While the hunting of targeted “problem wolves” that has been documented to attack pets and/or livestock is somewhat debated, it is not very controversial. It is the non-selective licensed hunt introduced in 2010 that has been criticized and questioned by large parts of the general public, conservation bodies, scientists, and Janez Potočnik, the European Commissioner for Environment. As you duly note the Swedish wolf population is isolated, highly inbred, and low in numbers. There is no doubt a population with these characteristics is facing extinction or severe reduction in the long-term. There is also a consensus within the scientific community that every single individual in such a population is important for the long-term survival.
You are right at pointing out that the average level of inbreeding decreased in the population as a result of the 2010 hunt. However, this is not the same as saying the genetic variation and population viability has improved. For example, killing all Swedish wolves but the three most distantly related males would most definitely decrease the average level of inbreeding, but it would certainly not increase the viability of the population. A constant immigration of breeding non-related wolves would as you correctly state increase the viability of the population, even if the absolute numbers did not increase. However, your own numbers of three immigrated wolves since 1983, or about one every decade, is a far cry from the necessary number of one every second year. So far neither the Swedish government nor SAHWM (the organization you represent) has presented any firm ideas or plans how such high immigration rates (compared to today’s levels) are to be achieved. It should also be noted that SAHWM has as a goal a further 45% reduction of the today’s population (to 150 individuals), which would require an even faster immigration rate of breeding, non-related wolves.
Finally I just want to point out that whether you look nationally or internationally, there is no scientific literature available demonstrating that hunting increases the local acceptance of large predators. On the contrary, the numbers you are referring suggest that acceptance of wolves in the counties actually harboring them has decreased since the hunt was introduced in 2010. I also think the comparison you make between the situation of Swedish wolves and the situation of the Swedish bear population a couple of decades ago is a bit far fetched. There were about 670 bears in Sweden 1991, the population was not isolated, and it was considerably less inbred than today’s wolf population.
Best Regards,
Per Bengtson
Krister,
den undersökning jag plockade de siffrorna ur är den av dem som jämför attityderna 2004 och 2009, dvs 2009:1. I Dalarna var 56 % positiva och i Gävleborg 57 %. Mycket riktigt var det 36 % av befolkningen i Dalarna som ville sänka måltalen, men i fyra kommuner var det en majoritet. Samt två kommuner i Gävleborg. Mest intressant tycker jag egentligen förändringarna är, och då måste man förstås jämföra två år.
Om det kommit ännu en med exakt samma fråga har jag missat det. I så fall är ju en tolkning att jakten kan ha bidragit till att öka acceptansen från 56 till 64 %… Frågan måste dock förstås vara exakt likadant ställd. I den underöskning jag refererar till frågade man vad man tycker om att det finns varg i Sverige.
Vad beträffar opinionen i Dalarna så var vid undersökningen som genomfördes i maj-juni 2010, 64% av de tifrågade nöjda med vargsituationen eller ville ha fler vargar. 36% ansåg att det nationella målet skulle sänkas vilket jag tolkar som att de också ville minska vargantalet i Dalarna. Detta framgår av Ericsson/Sandströms stora attitydunderskning, det är väl den som du relaterar till Fredrik?
Beträffande varg i renskötselområdet gäller inget undantag vad beträffar Art och Habitatdirektivets stränga skydd. I Finland finns ett undantag dock inte så totalt att vargar inte skall kunna vandra in till Skandinavien. Det riksdagsbeslut som fattades i Sverige (2001) innebär att ”enstaka föryngringar utanför renskötselns åretruntmarker där de gör minst skada” tillåts för att garantera utbyte med ostliga populationer. Riksdagen fattade inget nytt beslut 2009.
Kerstin (inte F.).
Jag skrev väl ”71 % of the attacks”, inte ””71 % of the animals attacked”? Jag avstår från att kommentera att du hänför bin till ”livestock or pets”/husdjur.
Tack!
Googlar man dyker det förstås upp, liksom om man söker på Facebook. Men det kommer även spridas aktivt internationellt, exempelvis genom FACE.
Tackar!
Bra skrivet Fredrik, men hur ska dom engelskspråkiga hitta till dokumentet?
Svensk forskning har mycket gott rykte i världen, inom EU i synnerhet.
Som debatten numera är upplagd kan det uppfattas som mycket tyckande i egen sak.
Överskatta inte motståndet här i Sverige, få människor tycker väldigt mycket på många ställen. Som jag skrivit förr är detta ett mediajippo, den absoluta majoriteten är likgiltiga. Ett sett att avdramatisera debatten är ju faktiskt att säga som det är, regeringen agerar efter forskarrön, inte subjektiv opinion.
Men vi har forskning i världsklass, lyckligtvis med pragmatiska forskare som tar intryck från alla sidor. Det finns ju en forskarunderbygd plan för vargens överlevnad i sverige, för det behövs inte 1000 vargar, så enkelt är det.
1000 vargar kommer inte tillföra nåt för den som tycker vargen bara är vacker och skall finnas för dom kommer inte se några i alla fall, men det innebär en horibel skillnad för dom som skall försöka bedriva hobby, näring eller bara bo på landsbygden.
2006 besökte jag en by utanför staden Cluj i Rumänien, tyska bosättare hade köpt en maskin och jag var där och supportade pga språket. Dom hade får och under dagen jag var där såg jag tre vargar runt elstängslet (f.ö. dom enda levande vargar jag någonsin sett) Besättningen var 500 tackor, varg predationen var nära 40% av avkomman trots alla elstängsel som var finansierade av EU investeringsfonder (våra skattemedel). Det fanns skottpengar på vargen och en kille livnärde sig på att hålla efter varg och Björn.
Iom inträdet i EU 2007 försvann möjligheten att hålla efter vargen, fårbesättningen upphörde samma år. Rumänien tar nu krafttag för att skjuta ner vargstammen, med EUs goda minne…är det samma union?
Mycket bra Fredrik , snyggt och proffsigt. :)
Uppgiften att vargar skulle stå för 71 % av attackerna mot husdjur och sällskapsdjur är helt tagna ur luften. Bara förra året så angrep ju t ex björnar minst 13 bikupor, bara det måste ju ha resulterat i flera 10 ooo tals husdjur dödade av björn.
Magnus,
jag klurade litet över detta men valde att inte gå hela vägen med referenser och länkar till alla olika studier; anledningen är att de i samtliga fall är skrivna på svenska. I något fall finns det för all del någon vetenskaplig publikation på engelska också på delar av resultaten. Man skulle förstås kunna lägga till en lista på slutet för svenska läsare, men texten är inte avsedd för dem. En rad med att samtliga fakta kommer från undersökningar utförda av SLU, GU, NINA osv osv hade inte heller direkt tillfört något. Det blev ganska långt och tungt ändå… men visst hade det varit en möjlighet.
Nix, detta är inte forskning utan förvaltning, eller snarare ett försök att ge en bild av förvaltningen och hur den är tänkt att fungera. Myndigheter och aktörer skapar förvaltningsstrategier delvis utifrån forskningsresultat, såväl biologiska som samhällsvetenskapliga, men inte enbart. En hel del av det som Skandulv gör är för övrigt inte heller forskning, i ordets strikta bemärkelse.
Jag hetsjagar varken argument eller annat; det är inte min grej ;-)!
Med all respekt till en ambitiös inlaga.
SLU och Scandulv nämns inte överhuvud taget. Det är inga gissningslekar vi sysslar med utan forskning. Forskningen är anledningen till varför vi har vargjakt överhuvud taget, inte jägarförbundet. Dom är världsbäst på svensk vargforskning och det är värt att nämna för alla, såväl EU parlamentariker som SNF och SRF medlemmar.
Visst är ni duktiga på att försvara vargjakten på ert sett, men utan forskningen med Liberg i spetsen hade vi haft noll och inget att komma med på faktasidan. Glöm inte det i hetsjakten på goda argument, regeringen lyssnar på forskningen och inte primärt medlemsorganisationer.
Annars så var det bra.
/Magnus