Response to interpellation 2025/26:103 on the funding of 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 financing of moose management and whether today's hunting fees are too high. KD argues that the system has functioned well since 2012 through local anchoring and self-financing 1 2. KD emphasizes that the size of the moose population has decreased while the forest damage remains, which requires a multi-species management 3. KD highlights that the investigation proposes that hunting fees be abolished in favor of an increased wildlife management fee 1 2. C argues that the culling has decreased while the costs for the county administrative boards have increased, and questions whether the fees are used for the right purposes 4. C wants a model that is more equitable and adapted to the hunting community's needs 5 6.
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! Mikael Larsson has asked me if I consider today's culling fees for moose to be too high and if I and the government intend to review today's model for financing the moose management and come forward with a proposal for a new model.
In 2012, a system of moose management areas was introduced and it was decided that moose management shall be adaptive. This means that moose management shall be locally anchored and adapted to new or changed conditions, for example predator occurrence or damage to forest. The management should steer towards the goals that were established in the bill A New Moose Management (prop. 2009/10:239).
Regarding financing, it was judged that the county administrative board's costs for maintaining moose management areas and registering license areas would be financed through harvest fees for all felled moose. According to the bill, the harvest fee should be determined by the county administrative board based on the costs for an ecosystem-based adaptive management of the moose.
I am aware that the hunting fees vary between the counties. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has, in a letter to the government, submitted an alternative proposal for funding, so-called area funding, and the government has tasked the ongoing Hunting Legislation Inquiry (dir. 2024:11) to investigate the legal conditions for such funding.
The Hunting Legislation Inquiry submitted the partial report Certain changes to the hunting legislation (SOU 2025:32) in April 2025, which has been referred.
In the partial report, the investigation proposes that instead of an area fee, a multi-species management of moose should be financed through an increased wildlife management fee, and that the harvesting fees on moose should be abolished.
The partial report of the Hunting Legislation Inquiry is currently being prepared within the Government Offices together with the submitted referral comments.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the Minister for Rural Affairs for the answer and use this interpellation debate to really dig into this important issue, which, from what I understand, is a very important issue for many hunters.
I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs is a hunter himself, which means being part of the Swedish folk movement with everything that entails. Every year, 10,000 hunters hunt all around Sweden, and the hunting community is important from several different aspects: wildlife management, forest and land, and food supply, but perhaps also that which I work with in my daily life in the Committee on Defence, namely strengthening the preparedness. It is about both the food supply and what the hunting community can contribute when it comes to strengthening and equipping Sweden's total defence, and I know that the hunter and hunting organizations truly want to be involved in this.
The Minister referred in the response to the system for financing the moose management that was introduced in 2012. As a result of this, the culling has unfortunately decreased in many places. At the same time, we receive reports from some places that the county administrative boards' costs regarding this have increased during the same period.
The idea behind the introduction of the system of fall fees was that the moose management should be self-financed. The costs that the County Administrative Board has for this would be covered by what the hunting association pays from the moose they fell. The money could go to the wildlife management, as we discussed, but for example also to shooting ranges.
The basis of the issue is probably that the county administrative boards' costs have increased and that they vary as much as they do today. I represent Västra Götaland here in the Riksdag, and there the fees have skyrocketed. Many probably wonder if the hunting fees are used to fund other parts within the county administrative board's area of operation, beyond, for example, wildlife management and shooting ranges and supervision of this, which they actually would not do with the system that was introduced.
It is good that the model should be locally anchored with moose management areas, as the Minister touched upon. The County Administrative Boards are, after all, the government's or the state's extended arm in the counties, trying to work as decentralized as possible and obtain the local anchoring that is needed. But the system might not work. The County Administrative Board might choose on its own to use the money for things that they are not actually supposed to be used for. Therefore, my question in the first stage, Mr. Speaker, is how Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren and the government ensure that the money paid in linked to the financing of the moose management actually goes to what it is supposed to be used for and not to something else within the County Administrative Board's area of operations.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I am aware that the hunting fees vary quite significantly between the counties. Since 2012, as has been said, the goal has been for the moose management to be self-financed. In practice, this means that revenues from hunting fees and the registration of land within moose hunting areas shall balance the costs that arise in the management. It is a system that is based on local anchoring and accountability and also aims to create a balance between costs and revenues within the moose management. It has, for the most part, functioned well.
That the trapping fees today differ between counties is due, among other things, to the differences in moose availability in the counties. In counties with a limited moose population, a higher fee is required for the system to be self-financed with the current model. But the Hunting Legislation Inquiry has, in its report, submitted proposals regarding the financing of the management. We have already taken several steps to review how future hunting and wildlife management shall be financed. The inquiry has stated in its partial report that the trapping fees shall be abolished. It is proposed that the multi-species management for ungulates be financed via an increase of 90 kronor on the state hunting license, the so-called wildlife management fee.
This is a rather complex issue. Changes in funding affect both hunters, landowners, and authorities. They must, if they are to be implemented, be done in a way that is well-thought-out and anchored in reality. For that reason, the partial consideration needs to be properly prepared before the government takes a final position on the matter. Therefore, I cannot be clear about where this will lead.
I also want to emphasize how important the hunting corps is for our entire wildlife management and much more. They contribute in many ways to a knowledge-based management. We have good conditions to continue to safeguard our wildlife and Swedish hunting in the long term.
I know that many hunters want to see a clear connection between what one pays in and what one actually gets back. I think that is completely reasonable. Therefore, it is important that we ensure that every krona is used in a way that strengthens hunting, nature conservation, and local engagement.
The purpose of the moose management is to create a high-quality moose population that is in balance with the available grazing resources and that takes into account important public interests such as predator occurrence, traffic safety, agriculture, damage to forests and the impact on biodiversity.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister Kullgren, for the answer! This is an issue that is truly engaging. I refer to Västra Götaland, but I am completely convinced that the issue of moose culling fees also engages in many other parts of the country as well. I have myself submitted a motion on just that issue in the Riksdag, linked to the fact that the system needs to be changed and adapted to today's conditions, also in order to remove the county-specific or regional differences that mean that the costs and what one pays in fees differ so much within the country.
I would like to assert that when it comes to issues that engage voters all around the country, this is a kitchen table issue for the Swedish hunting community. It has been discussed for a long time and was perhaps especially relevant when the moose hunt began a few months ago.
The investigation taking place in connection with the hunting legislation is, of course, extremely important and welcome. It is good that efforts are being made to ensure that it becomes more equitable in terms of the fees and how this is to look.
The Minister refers in the response to the proposals in the partial report and that one must see what emerges in the final proposal which is presented and which decisions will also be made on further ahead.
I also want to take the opportunity in the debate on this interpellation to go back to what I said in the previous interpellation debate regarding the local anchoring and for whom the systems we build in Sweden, based on legislation or different handling methods, should be adapted. Should they be adapted according to what our Swedish hunting corps thinks and how the hunting works, or according to what the authorities think fits best?
I believe that more must be done to achieve balance. This should not only occur in the manner of the state administration but must also be adapted, because even in this interpellation, it is fundamentally about people with voluntary commitment and a great interest in hunting. They contribute, as the Minister for Rural Affairs pointed out, to biological diversity, to the management of forest and land, and to the fact that we keep up with our wildlife. They also contribute to strengthening the preparedness.
I have a second question for the Minister for Rural Affairs, Peter Kullgren, on this. Referral responses have been received from those affected by the investigation into the hunting legislation. How can the government work to ensure that some form of model is achieved that is both adapted to our Swedish hunting corps and fits our Swedish administrative model? We must not once again end up in a situation where fees increase in some counties and are lower in another county, and where it is not known if they are used for what we have stated from the beginning. How does the Minister for Rural Affairs and the government want to ensure that there is a real effort to adapt this to the hunting corps?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I apologize, Mikael Larsson, for not answering your question when you kindly asked it again. What are the funds used for? I have no exact answer, but even I have heard that hunters have a concern that the money they pay in is used for peripheral matters. I assume that such is audited in the regular audit of the operations and that money intended for a purpose also goes to that. But obviously, we have a constant responsibility to ensure that is the case.
There is a great focus on the moose. In the management, one must, among other things, take into account forest damage. We can state that the size of the moose population has decreased radically while the grazing damage has not decreased in the same way. It is obvious that we need to look at the management in a more multi-species oriented way. What is it that affects the different factors that were mentioned, ranging from traffic damage, agricultural damage, damage to forests and wildlife pressure?
For very many hunters in our elongated country, the moose is no longer the primary or even the secondary game, but that type of hunting is something one only takes part in once in a while, if one is lucky. So that is how the development has looked for a long time.
For the government, it is important to continue working for an administration that ensures Sweden continues to have a high-quality moose population.
The investigations we have commissioned and which we are now beginning to receive back were initiated because we see a problem and understand that something must be done. But I unfortunately cannot promise anything here today about exactly how it will turn out. However, interesting proposals have been put on the table, and it may be time to move from a system that is also focused on moose in terms of financing to a system with a broader perspective.
How do we land this so that it gains acceptance and becomes easy to manage in everyday life for all these people? I believe we achieve that by having a close and good dialogue, and we have received many wise inputs during the consultation process. I now look forward to evaluating these inputs and also to having a good dialogue with those it affects until we make any decisions before we launch any kind of new system.
Mikael Larsson (C)
Mr. Speaker! I thank Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren for the answer. I share the view that the moose is a part of the management of various species and that other ungulates have increased. What one mostly runs into in our forests is probably other types of deer and wild boar. But the moose has been, is, and will continue to be important as well.
I believe it is important to find a model that can be accepted by as many as possible, especially linked to the hunting organizations and the hunting corps we have. We want to strengthen these as part of the Swedish popular movement, which I started by saying, and get more people hunting, not fewer. We also want more people to choose to eat moose meat and for game meat to be served in restaurants, in school kitchens, and within elderly care.
My contribution is therefore a hope that the work in the investigations, at the ministry, and subsequently in the state agencies and authorities shall be permeated by the idea that this shall suit as many hunters as possible so that they do not again question the fees that are paid and wonder where the money goes or does not go. Let us hope that this now becomes a way to make a more balanced and fair assessment based on the fees that are paid around the country.
I would like to conclude by thanking the Minister for the answers and the interpellation debate, and I hope that we can continue to follow the issue together in order to resolve it.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Moose management concerns many, of course hunters and those who own forests and land, but also people who protect nature and wildlife in our country. The government's goal is clear. We want a moose management that is fair, long-term, and locally anchored. Therefore, I believe that we should build upon what works when it comes to financing and practical management, but that we must also dare to change where it is needed, as said, preferably with as much anchoring and acceptance as possible.
The government safeguards the hunter's role, the wildlife, and the balance that ensures that both the forest and the moose can continue to be part of the Swedish landscape for generations to come.
I thank you for an interesting and urgent interpellation and debate.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.