Response to interpellation 2023/24:482 on 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 moose management and forest damage. KD considers that management should be adaptive, locally anchored, and based on cooperation between forestry and hunting interests 1. KD argues that one must ensure increased forage quantity, that the damage should be manageable, and that forestry can contribute to balance through wildlife-adapted forest management 1 2. KD wants a viable moose population of high quality and argues that management should be decentralized 1 3. S considers that the moose population is decreasing sharply and risks becoming red-listed 4. S argues that current management has focused too unilaterally on forest damage 4. S wants a modernized management of hoofed game 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 what measures I and the government intend to take to prevent shooting decisions from not being followed and to ensure order in the Swedish wildlife management.
Since 2012, there has been a system of moose management areas, and the moose management shall be adaptive, meaning that the moose management shall be locally anchored and adapted to new or changed conditions, for example predator occurrence or damage to forests. The management should steer towards the goals that have been set and continuously monitor and analyze the moose management.
The purpose of the moose management is that the actors involved together shall create a more sustainable moose management, that is, that the system is built on cooperation and respect for each other's interests and that the county administrative boards' decisions are respected. As a minister, I can or may not influence individual cases.
The Government considers that the moose population should be viable and of high quality, while at the same time the damages to forestry must be manageable. The total wildlife pressure as well as access to food must be included in the calculation when analyzing damages to forests.
One cannot have a one-sided focus on reducing the moose population, but one also needs to look at measures that contribute to increased food availability. In addition to reducing the size of the ungulate populations, improved site adaptation of forestry, which contributes to increased food quantities in the forest, helps to improve the balance between forest and wildlife.
The question of moose management and the connection to forest damage is complex and partially polarized. That is why cooperation between forestry and hunting interests is so important.
I will continue to follow the work of the authorities and the research, and not least the meetings and conversations that I have initiated between the different stakeholders. I hope that the landowner and hunter interests will be able to reach an agreement themselves and that we can achieve a direction forward that is sustainable over time.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister Kullgren, for the answer! It has been some time since the interpellation was submitted, but I can state that it remains very relevant.
We have discussed the situation of the moose on several occasions, and we can state that the general situation for the Swedish moose population is becoming increasingly worse. The moose population continues to decrease, unfortunately, despite several warning signs across the entire country. The moose population will soon potentially be red-listed. It may not be threatened as a species, but rather as a huntable game animal.
It can be stated that the current moose management has had an all too one-sided focus on reducing forest damage. It was primarily when the forestry companies began to sound the alarm about all too large forest damages, mainly on pine, that there was a major change in the view on Swedish moose management.
We can now state that despite the fact that we have reduced the moose population across the country by surely 35-40 percent, the forest damage has continued to be quite extensive, according to the forest companies and the forest owners. The question that more and more people are asking is whether it is really only the moose that cause these damages. I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that it is the collective grazing pressure from our wildlife population that causes damage to the forest.
We Social Democrats have long advocated that moose management areas should be given a deepened mandate where a comprehensive grip is taken on the entire ungulate population, and also include analyses of feed availability within these areas. What worries me even more in the acute situation that has now arisen for the moose population is the fact that there apparently prevails a bit of "law of the jungle" when it comes to culling rules and how these are complied with.
I must say that I was shocked when I read and received information that several large forestry companies are obviously not following the shooting decisions that have been made, but instead they seem to decide for themselves how many and which moose should be shot, with the consequence that hundreds more moose have been shot beyond the decided allocation.
I consider this development to be catastrophic and completely absurd. It must be immediately curbed and, of course, involve some form of punishment. From what I have shared so far, it is primarily about three counties where large forestry companies themselves have decided what should be felled.
In the event that the government and the authorities do not take any measures against these obviously large deviations, which should constitute some form of poaching offense, it unfortunately sends quite clear signals to all of Sweden's landowners. Obviously, as a landowner, one can decide for oneself how much game one wants on one's land.
It surely cannot be the size of the estates themselves that should determine whether recommendations and guidelines are actually to be followed. At the same time, Madam Speaker and Mr. Minister, we now see that several large forestry companies are replacing their hunting leaders – hunting leaders who have undergone hunting training where one also learns to take the wildlife into account.
My question to the Minister is: Do you really believe that it is possible for the hunters to influence the large landowners and that they can find a solution to this problem in agreement?
(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind you of the rules of conduct in the chamber, which always in all instances go through the Speaker. One does not say "you", "you" [accusative], and so on.)
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! The question of moose management and the connection to forest damage is, as has been said, complex and polarized. That is why it is so important with close cooperation between forestry and hunting interests.
The hunting right belongs to the property owner, and here I have an absolute wish. It is important that there is a respect for each other's interests among both hunters and forest owners - not infrequently they are both forest owners and hunters - and a respect for the fauna we have and the fauna we want in Sweden, with the species of animals we have.
That is why I already called for a meeting last summer with the actors from the different interests - forest and ungulate management. The focus of this meeting was on the balance between wildlife, fodder, and grazing damage. As recently as in November, I had a follow-up meeting with a smaller circle from the same interests.
It was a good and constructive meeting which resulted in the organizations promising to talk together and jointly return with concrete proposals, both regarding wishes for what the government can do and regarding what they themselves intend to take responsibility for and what measures they assess can be taken.
When I speak with the different interests around a table in a calm and level-headed tone, the discussion becomes different. There are no forest owner interests or hunting interests that cannot see each other's perspectives and understand the whole. This is the basis for us to move forward in a good way.
I believe it continues to be important that those who have a direct interest in these issues also have a large part in the decision of how we handle them moving forward. My ambition is that the parties shall reach an agreement on how this shall function. I have been clear that the alternative is that the government and the Riksdag decide exactly how it shall be. I believe this is a signal that is as good as any and which makes one more inclined to reach an agreement.
It is important that we have a knowledge-based discussion, Madam Speaker, regarding the moose management. Even though the population has decreased over several years, we can state that the damage to the forest has not decreased to the same extent. The moose population has decreased. This is problematic, but just as the member touched upon, I think it is important that it is not threatened as a species. But if the moose density were to become too low, it could take a long time to get a huntable population again, not least in areas with high predator density.
Just as the member believes, I consider that consideration must be taken of the total hunting pressure, that is to say, that all huntable deer must be included in the calculation. There must be room for a viable moose population while we manage the damage to forestry in a manageable way.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Kullgren for the reasoning.
I can state that I also do not want to create a situation where we in the Riksdag decide exactly how it should look. I also want the decisions to be made as close as possible to those they affect. But at the same time, I see a worrying development for the future hunting and wildlife management regarding moose. I have received statistics and culling data from several moose management areas, Madam Speaker, and let me give three examples here of what I consider to be, at the very least, gross deviations from the county administrative boards' decisions.
These are, therefore, facts from moose management areas that are wholly or to a very large extent owned by the large forestry companies. In area one, moose have been shot in numbers that exceed the county administrative board's decision by 32 percent. Area two has 23 percent overshooting, and in area three, it is a full 58 percent overshooting. These overshootings have, as far as I know, occurred without any consequences whatsoever from authorities or the state.
At the same time, I note that the moose population in several areas has fallen sharply. As we touched upon earlier, it has fallen by surely 35-40 percent across the entire country. Västerbotten stands out with a halving of the moose population over ten years, and in Norrbotten, the moose population has decreased by 47-50 percent. Several hunting groups in southern Sweden also testify that they actually refrain from shooting their allocation due to the lack of moose.
Madam Speaker! If we examine the county administrative boards' wildlife data, we can observe that in a significant part of the moose management areas, they fail to shoot the allocated cull quota, which obviously is due to the lack of moose. At the same time, we know, as I said earlier, that several hunting groups voluntarily refrain from shooting – and this is thus happening at the same time as we see that several large forestry companies actually shoot up to 50 percent over their allocation.
For me, these examples appear as clear evidence that today's moose management has unfortunately failed. If this is allowed to continue, it will lead to the moose population not only becoming red-listed as a species but also losing its role as a very important game animal with very long hunting and cultural traditions in our country.
We Social Democrats have for several years maintained that today's moose management, which is to take place in cooperation between hunters and forest owners in moose management areas governed by three forest owners and three representatives for the hunters, and where the landowners always hold the chairmanship and the casting vote, has unfortunately failed in its mission. There is now a majority in the Swedish Riksdag, Madam Speaker, who supports the demand for a modernized management of antlered game where one looks at the entire antlered game population's impact on the forest but is also tasked with looking at the food availability for the game, in order to create a clearer and fairer picture of the combined situation for both forest and game at the site.
My question to Minister Kullgren is: When the announcement from the Riksdag has been decided, will the minister expedite a management of roe deer where even the chairmanship is either rotating or impartial?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank the member for his commitment and supplementary questions.
First, I want to say that I absolutely understand and can in many ways share the frustration and concern over the development of the moose population. One must also be clear that it is obvious that food availability, predator pressure, and hunting pressure are the main reasons why the population looks the way it does today. This also applies to the conditions for how large a population we can have, and there one must also include the damages.
Just as the member and the undersigned seem to agree, it is important that we look at the total grazing pressure in the forest. Other ungulates are also suffering severely in the forest, and we must take that into account in a much better way. However, it is nothing that the interests themselves do not also see. We can state that the moose population has decreased by almost 27 percent over time. We do not, however, see that the grazing damage has decreased at the same rate, which is evidence of what I just mentioned.
One thing that the forestry industry has done is to plant more spruce in the forest. This has caused other vegetation, which is positive fodder for, among other things, moose, to have decreased to a relatively large extent. Here, I am pleased that the Swedish Forest Agency has for several years been working with the project Mera tall to increase the number of pine regenerations on lands where pine is the most suitable tree species, which has led to the proportion of pine having increased during planting.
Another measure that forestry can take is to have wildlife-adapted forest management that affects the availability of fodder throughout the forest's entire rotation period. The conditions for increased fodder availability become better when landowners cooperate and measures are carried out from a landscape perspective. A diverse forestry with plenty of berry bushes and deciduous trees implies a reduced vulnerability to wildlife grazing. Forest edges rich in deciduous trees, bushes, and stands with a mixture of deciduous trees, or other measures that involve an increased fodder availability for all ungulates, can reduce the grazing pressure on Scots pine saplings in the surrounding landscape.
I do not want to contribute to a situation where the moose population is no longer huntable. From the government's side, we want a moose population of high quality. Measures will therefore need to be taken if nothing happens relatively soon. I have initiated a process of dialogue with various stakeholders – both private, small-scale forest owners and the very large forestry companies, as well as wildlife management and the hunters – and I am keen that they be given a chance to come forward with how they want the moose management to look going forward. I intend to give them that chance, but if they do not succeed, we will proceed with other measures.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for a good approach to the issue. I believe it is very important that we deal with the problems that actually exist.
We are not primarily talking about the smaller forest owners – they are often hunters themselves – but it is still a matter of achieving some form of balance in this. I do not believe that anyone besides the large forestry companies still believes in the one-sided connection between grazing damage and the moose population, Madam Speaker. Of course, it is as I have said before, that several wildlife species have an impact. Also, the availability of several different types of forage and other factors have an impact.
The question also arises somewhere whether this with 5 percent damage implies reasonable conditions. How did it look previously? I can state, after conversations with very many forest owners, that it is on very few occasions that there has been only 5 percent damage in any form on pine forest. I think it is important that we introduce measures to reduce these damages, not least by saving different food sources - RASE, we usually say - and I think that we should educate as many as possible in that.
Madam Speaker! I would simply like to conclude by stating that we definitely cannot have a situation where the large forestry companies do as they please and unilaterally decide what, how much, and which species shall exist in their specific forests. Instead, we must seriously investigate these examples and, in my opinion, deviations from moose management areas where they have both deliberately and without consequences deviated so significantly from the decided allocation.
I hear what Minister Kullgren says, but I will press again if we do not see that there is any result in the matter.
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. The moose management shall be local and regional.
The wildlife damage to the forest is determined by both how much feed there is and how much wildlife there is. To reduce the damage most effectively, active management of both the feed and the populations is needed. It is not enough with a single focus on the number of moose.
I want the moose management to create a high-quality moose population that is in balance with the grazing resources available in the forest, taking into account important public interests such as road safety, agriculture, damage to forests, and the impact on biodiversity. I will continue to follow the work of the authorities and research and, not least, follow up on the conversations that I have initiated between the different interests. I hope, as I said, that the stakeholders themselves will be able to reach an agreement so that we can achieve a sustainable direction forward.
With this, I would like to thank you for the debate. Possibly it will be a rerun - if nothing happens!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.