Response to interpellation 2024/25:620 on the social issue 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 social objective in moose management and the new hunting legislation. KD argues that the government wants to create a modern, simple, and long-term sustainable hunting legislation 1 2. KD emphasizes that the moose population should be of high quality and in balance with the forage resources, while at the same time, damage to forests should be manageable 2 3. KD wants the management to be decentralized and that the parties themselves agree on solutions 4 3. S considers that the moose has an intrinsic value and should be seen as a resource for food 5. S wants a clearer social objective where the moose receives a specific utility and proposes an independent chairperson to increase acceptance 6 7.
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)
Mr. Speaker! Isak From has asked me if I and the government intend, in the preparation of the hunting legislation, to present proposals that clarify the societal objective in the management of moose so that it becomes clearer what the policy's goal is with the management of moose.
At the beginning of 2024, the government decided to appoint an inquiry into a modernized hunting legislation. The purpose of the inquiry is to create a modern hunting legislation for long-term sustainable hunting and wildlife management that is easy to apply. The government decided on 23 January 2025 to extend the inquiry period until 31 December 2025, while a partial report was to be submitted no later than 7 April 2025.
According to the assignment, the Hunting Legislation Inquiry was to analyze, among other things, whether additional legislative support was needed for a pilot project involving multi-species management of ungulates and, if so, submit proposals for a solution. The inquiry submitted the partial report Certain Changes to the Hunting Legislation (SOU 2025:32) on 2 April. The inquiry made the assessment that no additional legislative support was needed, but that the ordinance (2009:1474) on wildlife management delegations could be clarified, and that government mandates could facilitate the participation of county administrative boards and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in a pilot project.
An additional task reported in the partial report was to improve the implementation of EU legal rules in the hunting area and to ensure that the implementation does not concern species other than those covered by the EU rules. In that regard, the commission has submitted a proposal for a new provision that simplifies the possibilities for protection hunting of mammals that are not covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Bern Convention, or equivalent national protection. Roe deer are some of the species that will be covered by the new provision.
Developing a social objective for moose management is, however, not covered by the commission's mandate.
The hunting legislation investigation's partial report will be referred and processed by the Government Offices. I neither want nor can I precede that process by stating today which proposals the government will subsequently submit.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker and Minister for Rural Affairs! Now we are going to talk about something important: the Swedish national symbol, the elk.
The moose touches us. The great moose migration on SVT has been downloaded and streamed by millions of people all over the world. The moose fascinates us. For 8,000 years, the moose has been vital for human survival. And the moose is the most depicted species on all the rock carvings in all of Scandinavia. Hunting pits can still be found in the same places that today house moose, sometimes also in places that show grazing damage.
Mr. Speaker! I have submitted this interpellation based on the perception that it is not the moose that is the important thing in moose management, but that other issues are more important. Today, it is the moose management and moose care areas that prepare and decide on the moose allocations. The landowner side has the casting vote in that management. And on more and more occasions, disagreements arise, especially linked to inventories and which grazing damages have actually occurred and which damages are caused by the moose.
When one cannot reach an agreement and does not trust one another, the question returns to politics. What does politics want with the Swedish moose population? What is the societal goal?
I think it is reasonable to submit this interpellation because the government is now preparing new hunting legislation. They are also preparing and intend to present a proposal for a new hunting authority. Then, one can perhaps address one of the most important questions that the Swedish hunting community raises: What is the societal goal for moose management? And where is the moose in that goal? Are only other factors important? Is it only traffic, grazing damage, and other factors that are important, or does the moose have an intrinsic value?
In the previous debate here in the chamber, Minister Johan Pehrson raised the issue of total defense. The moose is indeed an important resource. Many people have moose meat in their freezers. Moose meat is a delicacy. The moose represents an opportunity to put food on the table and provides several, thousands, of portions of food every year. I think that is missing from the debate.
Where is that resource? Can that resource be increased? Is it something that the Minister is willing to look at in his preparation of the new hunting legislation?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I am quite certain that Isak From knows that in this situation, when the investigation report has just been sent out for consultation – it was sent out this week – I cannot comment on the proposal in detail or how we will land on different parts. Isak From must put up with the fact that I may not be as precise as I understand the member wants me to be in the debate here today. But that is part of the rules of the game.
What I can say is that the government's purpose with the investigation is to create modern legislation for long-term sustainable hunting and wildlife management that will also be easy to apply.
Crucial for us to be able to have a high-quality moose population is that we have forage resources that correspond to the grazing pressure. It speaks for itself. I know that many forest owners want to create more grazing area for moose and other ungulates. What we must keep in mind is that an adaptation of forestry to create more forage resources often takes time. For example, wildlife-adapted clearing and management of thicket environments are measures that can make a difference relatively quickly.
In addition to forage, the moose management must also take into account other important public interests. These can include the presence of predators, traffic safety, agriculture, damage to forests, and the impact on biodiversity.
Authorities, organizations, landowners, and hunters shall together create a sustainable moose management. The Government considers that the moose population should be viable and of high quality, but at the same time, the damage to forestry must be manageable. The total wildlife pressure as well as the availability of food must be included in the calculation when analyzing damage to our forests.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! The review series that is available on Svensk Jakt's website and which has been published in seven or eight parts clearly shows that the policy has established a goal. It was assumed and decisions were made here in this chamber in 2010, during the Alliance government's time. The basis for this was, for the most part, a Social Democratic investigation, which Göran Persson's government initiated in 2005. The Social Democrats were the only party that had reservations in that report. I will come to that later.
Svensk Jakts review shows that those who actually work with and have now set a numerical goal for moose management is the Swedish Forest Agency, which in large parts has adopted the large-scale forestry figures regarding what the moose damage inflicts on society. It is reasonable that one can review that. But when one requests the documents, one does not receive them; they then become classified. It is clear that it creates further mistrust.
How are we to reach an agreement if we do not trust each other? Here, both parties, both the hunting side and the landowner side, have a responsibility.
That is why the questions are now coming to politics. What do we want? What is the social goal? Where is the moose? It is not just about the forest or some other parts.
In the government's response, it is highlighted that the missions of the wildlife management delegations may need to be clarified. I share that assessment. It is welcome. The wildlife management delegations, with all involved parties, do a job, but when it is to be realized in the moose management and maintenance areas, it is not taken further. In those cases, only the large-scale forestry figures are used as a basis. Then those who work in the wildlife management delegations feel: Why should we commit to a task in this operation if we are not being listened to?
I think it is reasonable to have a clarification of their mandate. It is particularly important if we are now to succeed with an attempt at multi-species management, which I welcome. If we are to manage the ungulate wildlife jointly, it will mean that other damages can arise. We have seen, for example, in trial areas in Västerbotten that red deer tend to push out the moose. Then one can get greater damages in smaller areas, because the two species do not really thrive together. There is, therefore, absolutely reason to look at this.
We can observe that the questions remain. Another question that still remains and which we have motioned for year after year is that society should have a stronger voice in the moose management system. We think that there should be an independent chairperson appointed by society – it could be the County Administrative Board or the wildlife management delegation – so that there is a clearer steering towards society's goals. We believe that it would increase the acceptance for the management.
I will return and ask the question whether the government is willing to look at this after the referral bodies have responded. If the government now sends out the investigation for consultation, the referral responses will be important.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I note, just as I did in my previous contribution, that this has been sent out for consultation. When it comes back, the preparation will continue. I rule nothing out in this situation.
I can also state that since I took office as Minister for Rural Affairs, I have held a number of meetings with relevant actors within the management of moose and hoofed game. My message has been that it is better for the parties, i.e., landowner interests and hunting interests, to agree together on how they want the management of hoofed game to function, rather than for politics to decide over the parties' heads.
LRF, Sveaskog and Svenska Jägareförbundet submitted a joint letter on May 6, according to an agreement at a previous meeting with me. The parties see the value of a respectful dialogue climate – it has not always been the case – between landowners, farmers and hunters with a common goal, namely a high-quality roe deer population and reduced damage in forest and agriculture.
I also note that the parties agree that the moose management system shall remain, but that there are opportunities for improvement and development. We will now analyze this content and see if there is anything the government needs to do in light of the parties' proposals so that we can move forward with it.
I also want to point out that there is no nationally set goal regarding wildlife damage to forests. Neither the government nor the Riksdag has set such a goal. Skogsstyrelsen is the sector-responsible authority for forests, and Naturvårdsverket is the sector-responsible authority for hunting and wildlife according to the hunting legislation. According to the Authority Ordinance, authorities shall cooperate to take advantage of the benefits that can be gained for individuals and for the state as a whole.
The government's starting point is that the operational wildlife management shall be decentralized. Decisions shall be made at local and regional levels based on the conditions prevailing there.
Isak From (S)
Mr. Speaker! Now, this is not a forest debate, but from our point of view, the forest shall of course be utilized. It shall be utilized in a long-term sustainable manner. The forest provides a great return, builds prosperity and creates jobs throughout the country. There should be no doubt about that.
We have seen how the forest policy that has prevailed perhaps has not created the best conditions to cope with the climate change situations that arise, such as storms, fungal attacks, insect attacks, rats that eat up the seedlings and so on. In many parts of this, the moose is the culprit.
I think we should address the forest damage in the forest policy and that the moose deserves its own objective where it receives its own benefit. There are special reasons to ensure that the moose population we have is managed in a long-term sustainable manner. Provide resources! Create opportunities for social interaction, meat in the freezer, and delicacies. There are strong reasons to give the moose that space.
There is another reason why we need to look at this, and that is the acceptance of hunting. Sweden perhaps has the highest acceptance among the population for hunting. In that case, the ethics – how one hunts, to what extent, and when one hunts – are incredibly important. If we are to hunt moose and ungulate game at all times, that is to say during all hours of the day, year-round – moose corridors in deep snow and so on – the acceptance drops. We can see that. It is harmful to the moose, and it is harmful to the acceptance of hunting.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! As has been said, 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.
Wildlife damage to forests 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 wildlife populations is needed. It is not enough to focus only on how many moose there are. I want the moose management to create a moose population of high quality that is in balance with the grazing resources and where consideration is taken for other important public interests.
When it comes to the Hunting Legislation Inquiry's proposals in the partial report, it is, as said, too early for me to say exactly what we will proceed with. We are currently preparing it and welcome the views of the referral bodies. I will also continue to follow the work of the authorities and research, and not least the dialogue that I have initiated between the different interests. I hope, as said, that the stakeholders themselves will be able to reach an agreement and that we can achieve a direction forward that is also sustainable over time.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.