Response to interpellation 2022/23:376 on changed focus in moose management
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns the mandate of moose management and the need to balance the size of the moose population against forest damage. KD considers that the focus has been too one-sided on the size of the moose population and that the total wildlife pressure as well as other ungulates must be included in the calculation 1 2. KD wants the management to be local and decentralized in order to create a moose population in balance with the grazing resources 3. S argues that the current focus on damage levels is a simplified view of the problem since there is no direct correlation between the number of moose and damage 4. S wants to broaden the mandate of the moose management groups to include all wildlife species 4. S emphasizes that the survival of the moose population must be prioritized to avoid red-listing 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Tomas Kronståhl has asked me if I and the government have any intention of changing the mandates of the moose management authorities to prevent the Swedish moose population from risking damage.
I agree that too much one-sided focus has been placed on the size of the moose population and the damage caused by moose. Very recently, I have sent out an invitation to the various actors who have an interest in the management of ungulate game. Sometimes the moose is unfairly blamed for damages, especially within forestry. I believe that the total wildlife pressure must be included in the calculation and that there must be room for a viable and strong moose population, while at the same time the damages to forestry must be manageable. That will be my message at the meeting.
In the longer term, improved site adaptation within forestry also contributes to an improved balance between the size of the moose population and the availability of feed. Pleasantly enough, we have seen positive results here during recent years, not least an increased proportion of pine regenerations in southern Sweden.
In line with the forest bill from 2021, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Forest Agency have been tasked to report, by September 30, 2023, at the latest, on possible measures and, if necessary, propose regulatory changes to achieve the desired balance between ungulate populations and forage availability and thereby reduce the levels of damage to forests. The bill's direction is that a "clear reduction of the ungulate populations based on local and regional conditions should occur in the near term, while forest management is adapted for increased forage amounts".
I assess that there are grounds to await the reporting before proceeding with any potential measures.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren for the answer.
The moose is the largest animal in the Swedish forest and has in many ways also become a symbol for Sweden. But the moose is not only associated with hunting but also with Swedish nature, wilderness and tourism, and has come to become one of the most important symbols for Sweden as a country, not least as a tourist destination.
In 2012, the new moose management was introduced. The country was then divided into 149 moose management areas as well as moose management groups. Their stated task is to significantly reduce forest damage, especially to pine forest, through a reduction of the moose population.
Madam Speaker! We can now see several results, including research results, showing that only 3 percent of these 149 moose management areas have achieved an average damage level to the forest under 5 percent, which was the goal. We can simultaneously state that the culling of the Swedish moose population is over 35 percent within many areas. With an unchanged ambition and unchanged directives from the state, we risk that the EU will red-list the moose as an endangered species in some parts of our country.
Many hunters, researchers, and nature enthusiasts see today's one-sided focus on the moose population as the greatest threat to grazing damage on our young forests as directly incorrect and a major threat to the moose population itself.
The moose as a symbol and as a huntable and manageable game animal is what primarily unites the Swedish hunting community. If there is no future possibility for moose hunting, it will significantly diminish the Swedish popular movement that safeguards hunting and its historical heritage.
The moose is also under heavy pressure from several sides, not least in southern Sweden. The moose management focuses on forest damage, but there are many other animals that affect the moose's grazing opportunities. It is very important that we also look at red deer, fallow deer and roe deer, which are also ungulates that graze and damage our forests. Even though the moose is the largest deer, it is actually also the animal that is first pushed aside by grazing pressure from other deer.
If nothing is done, the moose population will likely be red-listed in several areas. In Värmland and Dalarna, it is the wolf, together with moose management, that constitutes the greatest threat to the population. There, the wolf takes between 150 and 175 moose per year, which means that many areas have completely ceased moose hunting so that the moose population is not completely wiped out.
Generally, it is bad for the Swedish moose population in most areas. Therefore, a new prioritization must be made where the survival of the Swedish moose population is put first before it is too late.
I must once again pose my question to Minister Kullgren: Does the Minister and the government have any plan or ambition to prevent a catastrophe for the Swedish moose population by making a change in the mandates of the moose management areas?
I also want to mention that even the Social Democratic government worked very actively on the predator and wolf issue to move it from Annex V to Annex IV in the Birds and Habitats Directive so that the wolf becomes manageable. This is today's problem. I believe I at some point told Minister Kullgren that it is probably easier to hunt wolves in opposition than in a majority.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! Since 2012, we have had a system with moose management areas and that the moose management shall be adaptive, which means that it shall be locally anchored and adapted to new or changed conditions such as the presence of predators or damage to forests. The management should steer towards and follow up on the goals that have been set within the framework of the moose management. It is important to continuously follow up and analyze the moose management.
At present, we have no intentions to change the system. We are, of course, following the debate and look forward to the Swedish Forest Agency's and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's report on the assignment regarding possible measures to achieve a desired balance between moose populations and forage availability.
It is important that we have a knowledge-based discussion about the management of moose. Even though the population has decreased over several years, it does not automatically mean that the moose is threatened as a species. But naturally, we will follow the development and what Artdatabanken reports.
The issue of moose management and the connection to forest damage is complex and highly polarized. Therefore, cooperation between forestry and hunting interests is important. The hunting right belongs to the property owner, and it is my wish that hunters and forest owners cooperate. It is important that there is a respect for each other's different interests. That is why I have invited the relevant organizations to a meeting with a forward-looking orientation, with a particular focus on the balance between wildlife, fodder, and grazing damage, but also to discuss cooperation regarding these issues.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I also, of course, have great respect for the forest owners' all-too-great grazing damages, not least on Scots pine forest. The moose population was far too large in the 80s and 90s, and the grazing pressure on the Scots pine forest then led to more and more forest owners starting to plant spruce forest on virtually all land, unfortunately even on Scots pine land. It has turned out that this was not a good development for either the wildlife or the landowners.
It was therefore actually a well-intended initiative that was decided and launched in 2012 when moose management areas and groups were formed to try to achieve a co-management between forage availability and the size of the moose population.
Madam Speaker! Several research reports now show that there is no connection between the number of moose and the amount of damage to the forest; they are not compatible. There is nothing to indicate that today's ceiling on forest damage can be achieved solely by shooting more moose. Not even if the moose population is practically eradicated will the damage completely cease.
Today, the moose management groups are driven to a very large extent by the damage levels in the forest. Several other extremely important components are not taken into account. If one is to succeed in reducing the damage levels in the forest, one must also incorporate the forage aspect. How much wildlife forage is there in the landscape? How much pine is planted? How much rowan, aspen, and willow is available for the moose and the ungulates? And what other types of ungulates that also constitute a grazing pressure are there in the area?
We Social Democrats see the problem with today's excessively large focus on the level of damage to the forest related solely to the size of the moose population as an incorrect and simplified picture of the problem that must be corrected. We believe that the so-called ÄBI, the moose grazing inventory, in itself has an important function and is a good and reliable inventory method when it comes to grazing damage by game on the forest, but we truly wish that the mandate becomes a bit broader and also, Madam Speaker, covers the very important forage availability for the game in the inventoried areas. If this inventory were to be conducted in this way, we would, within the same areas as those currently examined regarding game damage, also obtain significantly more facts on the extent to which there is availability of other grazing forage or, for example, pine forest in the area.
Madam Speaker! Today's moose management groups are completely focused on managing the moose. This is, as I have previously mentioned, to a large extent based on the levels of forest damage, which do not necessarily decrease depending on the size of the moose population. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe it is high time to broaden the moose management groups' mandate to include the management of all wildlife species that can or should be managed based on what grazing damage can arise for both agriculture and forestry as a result of excessively large wildlife populations of various types. Such damages are seen today in several places in Sweden.
Does the Minister share my view of this situation regarding the moose and the wildlife resources? Is he prepared, following this investigation, to change the mandate for the moose management areas and the wildlife management delegations?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! We share much of what Tomas Kronståhl says. When we look at the future, it is obviously important that we do not forget the challenge of the damage that wildlife de facto causes for people, business, and nature. Thanks to an incredibly skilled hunting corps, we have largely been able to manage the damage that wildlife causes. The Swedish hunting corps fulfills an incredibly important function when we are to balance dense wildlife populations.
I am aware that the issue of moose management and the connection to forest damage is complex and polarized. That is why it is so important that we achieve this mutual and respectful conversation and understanding for one another. I also realize that an overly one-sided focus has been placed on the size of the moose population and the damage that the moose contribute to. Greater consideration needs to be taken for all ungulate populations, not just the moose. I truly understand the frustration and concern regarding both the spread of wolves and the development of the moose population. I am aware that not all grazing damage comes from moose, but that other species of game also have an impact.
In addition to a capable hunting corps, it is also important to have a robust and purposeful authority structure. The Government intends to shortly appoint an inquiry to investigate the forms for and propose a new hunting and wildlife management authority that shall be responsible for wildlife management at the national level.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Kullgren for the answer. From the answers, it sounds as if we largely share the view that it is important to preserve the moose population and that the focus must be changed slightly for the moose management areas. Regarding the work that the minister now has ahead of her, I want to send along that the cooperation that currently takes place between the hunting corps and the landowners is important. I believe it is important that we make it permanent in some way and continue with that work in a clear manner. Then I might possibly think that there should be impartial chairs in these moose management groups; one must be equally important.
Madam Speaker! Even if there may be many among the public in this country who do not believe that the hunting corps with its organizations is truly the corps that protects the wildlife in our forests and lands most of all. It is without doubt that it is they who establish that we shall have a rich animal and natural life in our lands. Therefore, it is very important that they are involved in this work in a clear way and feel that they are at least as important as anyone else.
With that, I would like to wish the Minister a pleasant weekend.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! It is my and the Government's starting point that the operational wildlife management should be decentralized as far as possible. Moose management shall be local and regional. I want the moose management to create a moose population of high quality that is in balance with the grazing resources and takes into account important public interests such as predator occurrence, traffic safety, agriculture, damage to forests and the impact on biological diversity.
I will continue to follow the authorities' work, the research, and the debate regarding moose and forest management. As I said in my response to the interpellation, I judge that there are reasons to await the reporting of the assignment to Naturvårdsverket and Skogsstyrelsen before proceeding with any measures.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.