Response to interpellation 2025/26:397 on the management of the hunting season process
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers that decisions on hunting seasons should be based on scientific knowledge and that the processes should be transparent and legally secure 1. KD argues that the current system is more organized than the previous one and that the government wants a strong and viable moose population 2 3. KD considers it extremely central to have a good and broad dialogue with relevant organizations 4. S considers that the process has been characterized by a lack of dialogue and lack of clarity 5. S argues that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal lacks consideration for the hunting organizations' opinions 5 and that extended hunting season for adult moose as well as protection hunting on moose calves risks weakening the population 6. S considers that a common buck hunting start on May 1 is problematic for the wildlife's reproduction 7 and that instead more roe deer and goats should be shot to manage the population 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)
Madam Speaker! Tomas Kronståhl has asked me what general measures I intend to take to ensure a predictable and legally secure management of hunting seasons, how I intend to strengthen the dialogue between the government, responsible authorities, and relevant actors, such as the hunting organizations, and whether I am prepared, within my area of responsibility, to review the governance of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
Madam Speaker! It is of central importance to me that decisions on hunting seasons are based on available scientific knowledge, that the decision-making processes are transparent, and that the application is uniform and legally secure.
The Government amended Section 2 of the Hunting Ordinance (1987:905) during 2018 and gave the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency the responsibility to review the hunting times regulated in the ordinance at least every sixth year. The first review took place in 2019–2020, and the Government made decisions on new hunting times in 2021 based on the underlying material.
The next proposal for adjusted hunting times shall be submitted by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to the Government by June 2026 at the latest. The review covers, among other things, the hunting times for general hunting, protection hunting at an individual's initiative and license hunting, the time of day different types of game may be hunted, times for the use of dogs during hunting and hunting training with dogs.
Naturvårdsverket began the work with the review in 2024 and has, prior to the work, established guidelines for the design of hunting seasons. This concerns, among other things, biological frameworks, such as a species' mating and breeding period, and legal frameworks, such as regulations and international agreements that Sweden has committed to, which includes, among other things, the directives decided within the EU.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has a preparatory group for the work consisting of representatives from Birdlife, Jägarnas Riksförbund, Lantbrukarnas Riksförbund, the county administrative boards, Skogsindustrierna, Skogsstyrelsen, Svenska Jägareförbundet, and Naturskyddsföreningen. The group has a responsibility to collect and submit proposals for changes to the hunting seasons to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency sent out a preliminary proposal for consultation on December 15, and the last day to submit comments was February 16 this year. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has not yet submitted any proposal to the government.
When it comes to the question of strengthening the dialogue between the government, responsible authorities and relevant actors, such as the hunting organizations, I want to emphasize that dialogue and consultation constitute an integrated part of the preparatory and decision-making processes.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the government has not yet received the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's final proposal on hunting seasons, where the agency has taken into account the submitted referral comments. The government continuously follows up on the agencies' work, among other things through reporting and dialogue within the framework of the ordinary agency management. The government continuously assesses the need to develop the agency management.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank Minister Kullgren for the answer.
It is positive that the government has not yet received the proposal from Naturvårdsverket, as that gives me the opportunity to influence it.
Let me provide a little background. Sweden has a long tradition of responsible hunting and wildlife management. It is based on knowledge, local anchoring, and a balance between use and conservation. Hunters are a central part of this work, not least through their contribution to wildlife monitoring, road safety, and biodiversity.
Just as the Minister said, Naturvårdsverket has the task of reviewing our hunting seasons once every six years. Unfortunately, during this year's management, it has caused great concern. The criticism has been extensive, not least from Svenska Jägareförbundet, which argues that the process has been characterized by a lack of dialogue, lack of clarity, and late notifications. Other actors within wildlife management have also raised similar points.
Decisions on hunting seasons are not a technicality, but they are crucial for planning, ethics, and trust. When decisions are delayed or perceived as arbitrary, it risks undermining trust in the entire administrative system. It hits particularly hard against hunters and landowners who want and need long-term rules of the game.
The agency Naturvårdsverket has a great responsibility in this work, but the ultimate responsibility rests, as always, with the government. It is the government's task to ensure that the agencies have clear mandates and sufficient resources and that the decision-making processes function.
We Social Democrats safeguard a knowledge-based and locally anchored wildlife management. This means that those who are affected must also be given real opportunities for influence. It also means that decisions must be made in a timely manner and with good foresight.
Madam Speaker! If we are to continue to be able to claim that we have a wildlife management that in reality is based on local anchoring among both landowners and hunters, it is absolutely crucial that significantly greater consideration is taken for both what the hunting organizations and what the individual hunters think and experience.
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal unfortunately bears witness in many respects to the exact opposite. In the proposal for new hunting seasons, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has, according to several different associations, organizations, and experts, neither requested nor listened to what the hunting organizations have for opinions and arguments. The proposal for new hunting seasons bears witness to that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's focus has entirely lain on facilitating the possibilities to significantly reduce, above all, the ungulate populations – and this without regard for either ethical hunting rules or the size of the populations. In several cases, special consideration is also not taken regarding their possibility for reproduction.
Madam Speaker! I believe that hunting and its traditions constitute an important popular movement and tradition in Swedish culture. We Social Democrats want to safeguard and preserve this well-established tradition among the people. But – and this is important – if not even our authorities safeguard the wildlife and its living conditions, but only focus on reduced grazing damage or the forestry companies' pursuit of a minimum of ungulate wildlife at all costs, this will and desire will become very difficult to satisfy.
Against this background, I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. My first question is: When does the government intend to make a decision in this matter – before or after the election? This may be important, depending on whether the government will have time to refer the matter back or not. My second question is: Do the minister and the government also intend to take into account the interests that the hunting organizations put forward in this issue?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I believe it would be easy for Tomas Kronståhl and me to reach an agreement on hunting seasons. Just like the interpellator, I advocate for a knowledge-based, locally anchored wildlife management where those affected are given the opportunity to have an influence. The government's and my starting point is that the operational wildlife management shall be decentralized.
Previously, there was a hunting season preparation under the auspices of the Swedish Hunters' Association with representatives from hunters and nature conservation interested organizations. That preparation submitted a proposal to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency regarding changed hunting seasons, and after the referral process, the Agency submitted a proposal to the Government. That handling of the hunting seasons was discontinued in 2000 on the Association's own initiative. Since it is the Government that makes decisions on hunting seasons, it meant that the Government subsequently received a number of individual cases annually with petitions for changes to the current hunting seasons.
Hunting seasons are a central tool for wildlife management. A regular review is a prerequisite for adaptive wildlife management. In order to follow the development of the huntable species and to streamline the processing, the then government tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency with developing a system for managing hunting seasons.
The system that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency presented constitutes the basis for the hunting season process we have now. It is fundamental that the management shall be adaptive, transparent, and clear. We have a system where the hunting seasons are reviewed at regular intervals – simply a system with more order than the one that applied before it was introduced. Furthermore, it was well-received and requested by the Swedish Hunters' Association.
Regarding the additional questions, we have not yet received the proposal from Naturvårdsverket, and I do not know what it will look like. The Agency has had a consultation round, and I do not know what has been changed based on what was sent out for consultation. But we will not drag our feet here. If we see that we have a proposal that we can accept and that there is support for, we will of course act, but it is a bit early to state an exact date for the decision on the hunting seasons.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I am also quite convinced of that. I want to include a few things that I have read in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal and which I find very striking.
Let me give an example, Madam Speaker. The moose is an important game animal, and it is an obvious part of Sweden's nature and hunting culture, and also of the countryside. For many people, it is the very symbol of the Swedish forest landscape. Therefore, I believe that moose management must be characterized by responsibility, long-term perspective, and caution.
Naturvårdsverket is now proposing that hunting seasons and other measures should be increased. Proposals are put forward to extend the hunting season for adult moose and to enable protection hunting on moose calves at an individual's initiative for an additional one and a half months, from March 1 to April 15. That proposal is part of Naturvårdsverket's ongoing review.
This is happening at the same time as the moose has been the subject of growing concern for several years. The moose population has been decreasing for a long time in large parts of the country. It has also been red-listed precisely because of this negative development, even if it does not look exactly the same across the entire country, because it does not. But the picture in many places is nevertheless the same: there are fewer moose, there are fewer observations, there is weaker calf production, and there is an increased concern for the entire population's future, especially in southern Sweden.
In practice, this means that the moose is already under pressure in large parts of Sweden. In such a situation, the starting point for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency should obviously be to show great restraint. Instead, the state now risks opening up for further hunting pressure on both adult animals and calves. It is difficult, Madam Speaker, to understand the logic in this.
If a species shows signs of long-term decline, it should be self-evident that the management's precautionary principle should be strengthened, not loosened. Simultaneously extending the hunt for adult moose and opening for protection hunting on moose calves long after the regular hunting period sends completely wrong signals. It risks further weakening the population in areas where it is already down to levels that cause strong concern among both hunters and landowners.
There is also a clear hunting ethics dimension to this. To hunt adult moose further into late winter means hunting during a period when the animals are most vulnerable after a long winter with limited food availability and strained energy balance. It becomes even more incomprehensible to subsequently allow protection hunting on moose calves on one's own initiative during March and half of April. If this were to be implemented, Madam Speaker, the relevance and meaning of the moose management plans are completely undermined. It is important that the Minister takes this with them in their continued work.
It is also not reasonable that moose management is increasingly shaped by the one-sided focus on grazing damage where the solution time and again is to shoot more moose. Sustainable management must weigh the needs of forestry, the legitimacy of hunting, biodiversity, hunting ethics, and the long-term survival of the moose population.
In view of this, I would like to ask the Minister for Rural Affairs: Is the Minister prepared to work to ensure that the proposal for extended hunting time for adult moose is not implemented, given that the moose population in large parts of the country is already under pressure? Is the Minister prepared to work to ensure that the proposal for protection hunting of moose calves on private initiative from March 1 to April 15 is never implemented?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I will not participate in this finger-pointing at the walls before we have a proposal. I am somewhat more restricted in forming opinions before we have completed our preparation in the Government Offices. We will move forward. As I have said, I have not yet received any proposal from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, but when we receive it, we will absolutely sink our teeth into it as quickly as possible so that it lands as well as possible.
The government has previously clearly declared that we want a strong and viable moose population in Sweden. The moose is almost to be considered a national game animal for us. The situation for the Swedish moose population has been challenging for a long time, not least due to the availability of fodder and at times too high hunting pressure. It is this that has had consequences in the listing.
It is not a desired development, and I have been clear about this previously. As I said, I cannot go into individual parts of a proposal that has not yet reached the government. We do not know what changes are made after the referral process that has now taken place, and therefore it is difficult for me to go into detail on that. But we will follow the work closely, and we will conduct a thorough evaluation when we finally receive the proposal.
Tomas Kronståhl (S)
Madam Speaker! I want to make another joint submission to the government and Minister Kullgren in this matter.
During the previous implementation, there were requests to have a common start for the ram hunt across the entire country on May 1. This is a very unpopular decision in southern Sweden. There, it is considered sufficient to have August 16 as the start date for the ram hunt.
What it is about is that the management of wild animals cannot only be about the number of animals but must also be about the herd's quality, age structure, reproductive capacity, and long-term sustainability. Precisely for that reason, it is problematic to start the hunt for roe deer bucks at a time of year when the animals are still in a very sensitive phase of their biological cycle. In southern Sweden, spring has arrived long ago in early May, and territory claiming has begun. The animals are in a period where they establish behaviors and structures that are significant for the rut and continued reproduction. If one opens up for hunting of bucks so early, it involves a tangible risk of hitting those individuals who contribute to the herd's quality, not least older and more well-developed bucks.
It is also important to say it as it is: If the goal for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, or for the state, is to reduce the density of wild animals in certain areas, it is not reasonable if the starting point is that one should shoot more roe deer. In that case, it is instead a matter of shooting more fawns and goats to reach the herd.
I wish, Madam Speaker, that the Minister also takes this request with them into the continued government work.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Madam Speaker! I thank Tomas Kronståhl for a good dialogue regarding the hunting seasons. Unfortunately, we are at a stage in the process where I cannot say very much. That is, as said, because we have not received the final proposal from the agency.
As part of the initial questions being addressed, it is extremely central that there is a good and broad dialogue with the relevant organizations. The referral process is an important part of that dialogue. There, views can be submitted to the authority, which has the opportunity to consider them before it submits the proposal to the government.
Again: We have not received the proposal, but I look forward to sinking my teeth into it when it finally arrives. Thank you for a good debate!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.