Europe - nina.no · the Soviet Union. - NINA Utredning 018: 1-47. A review is given on principles and practices used in wildlife management in Europe outside the Soviet Union. Emphasis

Ø18. Wildlifemanagementin Europeoutsidethe SovietUnion

SveinMyrberget

NORSKINSTITUTTFORNATURFORSKNING

Wildlifemanagementin Europeoutsidethe SovietUnion

SveinMyrberget

NORSKINSTITUITFORNATURFORSKNING

•

ninautredning018

Myrberget, S. 1990.Wildlife management in Europeoutside the Soviet Union.NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.

Trondheim, June 1990

ISBN 82-426-0085-6ISSN 0802-3107

Classification of the publication:Norwegian: Jaktbart vilt-English: Game species

Copyright (C) NINANorwegian Institute of Nature ResearchThe report may be sited when reference is given

Editors: Eli Fremstad and Svein MyrbergetLayout: Eva M. SchjetneKari SivertsenNINA, Grafisk kontor

Print Bjærum Grafiske a/s

Edition: 500

Adress:NINATungasletta 2N-7004 TrondheimTlf.: 47 + 7 58 05 00

nina utredning 018

AbstractMyrberget, S. 1990. Wildlife management in Europe outsidethe Soviet Union. - NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.

A review is given on principles and practices used in wildlifemanagement in Europe outside the Soviet Union. Emphasis isplaced on game species, but some conservation measures forthreatened mammals and birds are also described. Manage-ment practices vary from country to country. The most pro-ductive game harvesting systems are found in areas wherelandowners control hunting rights, or where the harvest isstrictly controlled by official authorities or hunting organiza-tions. In some other countries where hunting rights are free,many game populations appear to be over-exploited, andgeneral opposition to hunting is increasing. There are about8 million hunters in the area described, i.e. 1.6 hunter perkm2 land area.

Key words: Game management - wildlife - fauna protection -hunting.

Svein Myrberget, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research,Tungasletta 2, N-7004 Trondheim, Norway.

ReferatMyrberget, S. 1990. Viltstell i Europa utenom Sovjet-Unionen.-NINA Utredning 018: 1-47.

En oversikt er gitt over prinsipper og praksis brukt i viltstellet iEuropa, Sovjet-unionen unntatt. Vekten er lagt på jaktbarearter, men også noen vernetiltak for truede arter er beskrevet.Metodene benyttet i viltstellet varierer fra land til land. Demest produktive jaktbare bestander har man i land hvorgrunneierne eier jaktretten eller hvor myndigheter eller jeger-organisasjoner strengt regulerer jaktuttaket. I en del andreland hvor jaktretten er fri, er åpenbart mange viltbestanderoverbeskattet, og motstanden mot jakt er økende. Det er ca.8 millioner jegere i området, dvs. 1,6 jeger pr. km2 landområ-de.

Emneord: Viltstell - faunavern - jakt - jegere.

Svein Myrberget, Norsk institutt for naturforskning, Tungas-letta 2, 7004 Trondheim.

3

© Norwegian institute for nature research (NINA) 2010 http://www.nina.no Please contact NINA, NO-7485 TRONDHEIM, NORWAY for reproduction of tables, figures and other illustrations in this report.

ninautredning018

PrefaceIn 1987, I was invited to write a chapter for a planned bookon InternationalWildlife Management on the situationin Eu-ropeoutsidethe SovietUnion. In keepingwith my promisetodo so,the manuscriptwasdeliveredto the editorsin 1988.

However, it soon became obviousthat there would be con-siderabledifficulty in obtaining reportsfor all continents. Inthe autumn of 1989, the bookprogramwasdissolved.

This report is a slightlyrevisedversionof the chapter intend-ed for the book. Most changeshave been editorial,or are re-lated to adjustmentsin the emphasison different manage-ment schemes.Recentinformationand referencesare added.SomeFennoscandianmanagementpracticesare describedingreater detail. However, the report largelyfollows the planand styleof the originalmanuscript.

Many personsand organizationshavefulfilledmy requestforinformation.In particularI would liketo thank E.Ueckermann(FRG)and J. Kovacs(Hungary). Among the many other per-sonswho have kindly given me information, I will mentionthe following:M. Adamic(Yugoslavia),R.Anderegg(Switzer-land), P. Bjurholm(Swedep), J. Bojarkski(Poland), D. Bloch(The Faeroes),J. Castroviejo(Spain), S. Eis(Denmark), A. Er-mala (Finland), H. Gossow (Austria), J. van Haaften (TheNetherlands),J. Harberg (Aaland Islands,Finland), J. Harra-dine (UK), A. Krier (Luxembourg), C. Krogell (Finland), A.Merriggi (Italy), K. Perzanowski(Poland), S. Siebenga (TheNetherlands),T. Serez(Turkey), M. Spagnesi(Italy), F. Spina(Italy), H. Tenedios(Greece), P. Vikberg (Finland), A. Volken(Switzerland)and J.Whelan (Ireland).A numberof colleagueshavemade usefulcommentson a preliminarymanuscript,in-cluding H. Strandgaard (Denmark) and D. Potts (UK), towhom I send specialthanks. However, I am personallyre-sponsiblefor any possibleerrorsor misunderstandingspre-sentedin the report.

Amy Lightfoothasgiven valuablelinguisticassistance.Anne-BritSolbakkendid much of the typing; KariSivertsenand EvaSchjetnetechnicallyedited the final version.The NorwegianInstitutefor Nature Researchand the Directoratefor NatureManagement have providedfinancialsupportfor which I amverygrateful.

SveinMyrberget

Trondheim,January1990

4

nina utredning018

Contents

Abstract Referat Preface

side334

1 introduction 61.1 Wildlife versus game 61.2 What is wildlife management 7 7

2 Historical perspective 82.1 Prehistory 82.2 Historical times up to 1850 82.3 Synthesis 11

3 Authority to manage wildlife 123.1 Official authorities 123.2 Hunting rights 123.3 The number of hunters 133.4 Hunting organizations 143.5 Education in wildlife management and hunting 14 •

4 Management systems 154.1 Migratory birds 154.2 Resident small game 164.3 Big game hunting outside Fennoscandia 194.4 Big game in the Fennoscandia 214.5 Large mammalian predators 23

5 Game population distribution, status and harvest...„245.1 Waterfowl 245.2 Other small game species 255.3 Big game 265.4 Carnivorous mammals 275.5 Economic value of hunting 28

6 Challenges and special problems 296.1 Pollution 296.2 Human use of land and resources 306.3 Wildlife damage 31

7 Fauna protection 327.1 Threatened species 327.2 introductions 337.3 Game management versusconservation 33

8 Wildlife research 34

9 Conduding remarks 35

10 Summary 36

il Sammendrag 37

12 References 38


nina utredning 018

1 Introduction

The purposeof this report isto presenta shortreviewof howwildlife is managed within Europe. Emphasisis placed onmanagement principles. Some management practices arealso described in detail, in particular those undertaken bycentralor localauthoritiesand by huntingorganizations.Thereportdoesnot providemanyguidelineson how privateindi-vidualsmay aidwildlife.

The original proposalfor this report excludedthe Europeanpartof the SovietUnion(USSR).lt doesnot includeany infor-mation on wildlife in Cyprus,the Azoresor Madeira. Areassituatedoutside the Palearctic(e.g. Greenland) are also ex-

, cluded, as are small republicslike Monaco and San Marino.No informationwas availablefrom Albania.

The northern limit of Europeis 800 N at Svalbard(Norway).EuropeincludesIceland in the northwest,and the southernborder is formed by the Mediterranean and the islandsofMalta and Crete (approximately350 N). The total land area,exclusiveof the USSR,comprises4900 km2, and the popula-tion isabout 500 million.

The naturalhabitats,culturesand historyof Europeare asvar-ied as the multitude of economic and political systems.Therefore, practicesand principlesof wildlife managementalsodifferfrom countryto country.

The informationgiven is not equallycomprehensiveand de-tailedfor all partsof Europe.Thisis mainlydue to restrictionsin the author'spersonalknowledge,which is more adequatefor Nordic countries.Much of the literaturestudiedwas writ-ten in Englishand German. Hence, Mediterraneanareasarelesswell coveredthan other partsof Europe.

1.1 Wildlife versus game

This report mainly considersspeciesrecognizedas "game",i.e. speciesof birds and mammals which are hunted. Thedefinitionalsoincludesall specieswhich were formerlyhunt-ed or which may be huntedin the nearfuture.

In this report the term "hunting"is not restrictedto the Brit-ishinterpretation"huntingwith hounds".It includesall formsof harvestingwild mammalsand birds,suchasshootingandtrapping, consistentwith the definition given in the lrishWildlifeAct of 1976. The term alsocompriseshunting meth-ods like falconry and the useof bow and arrow, which areonly permitted in a few countries (e.g. Turkey and Den-mark).

• The definitionof "game"does not take into considerationthepurpokeof the harvest,which may be exploitationas meat,skinsor trophies.Much hunting isdone for the sakeof sport.Some speciesare controlled for various reasons.In somecountries,the pkking of eggs of certain speciesis regulatedby game acts,e.g. in Norway and on the Faroes.Commercialsealingand whaling are not included in the categorygamehunting.

Specieswhich are hunted vary from countryto country andwith the passageof time. As an example, the stoat (Mustelaerminea) and the squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) were importantsourcesof fur in Fennoscandiauntil World War II, but aresel-dom exploited today. Eider ducks (Somateria mollissima)have been protected in Norway for more than 100 years,while they constituteone of the most important game spe-ciesin Denmark. Most raptorsand owls are protectedin themajority of Europeancountries today, although they wereonce heavilypersecuted.

Many countrieshave compiled listsof "game" and "non-game" species.Within the latter categorya group of "pesi"speciesmay be defined.Definitionsand their usagevaryfromcountryto country.An example regardingbirdsis the GameAct in Great Britain,which stipulatesa closedseasonfor Galli-formesbirds.The Wildlifeand CountrysideAct 1981 includedhunting regulatiorisfor some "sportingand quasi-sportingbirds"(see RSPB1989). The last act alsolisteda number of"pest"specieswhich may be caught or killed by authorizedpersons.

In certaincountries,laws regulatinghunting alsogovern theprotectionof non-hunted species.Such is the case in Nor-way, where nearly all mammals, all birds, amphibiansandreptilesare referredto in the WildlifeAct. Seals,which are re-garded as game in most other Europeancountries,are notcoveredby the WildlifeAct in Norway (but sealsare regardedasgame on Svalbard).

Thisreportdoes not exclusivelytreat problemsdirectlyrelat-ed to game and pestspecies.Protectionmeasurespertainingto other birdsand mammals and their habitatsare alsodis-cussed,in Whichcaseemphasisis placedon faunalconserva-tion.

Forpracticalreasons,the contentsof the report are confinedto wild living birdsand mammalswith the exceptionof mi-crotine rodents,bats, insectivoresand whales.The definitionof "wildlife"isthusmuch more restrictedthan the Britishcon-cept,which includesall fauna and flora.

nina utredning018

1.2 What is wildlife manage-ment?

I adhere to the definition given by Giles (1978, p. 4): "Wildlifemanagement is the science and art of making decisions andtaking actions to manipulate the structure, dynamics and re-lations of populations, habitats and people, to achieve speci-fic human objectives by means of the wildlife resource".

The most important elements of wildlife management aremanipulation of wildlife populations and their environment.Wildlife management should serve definite purposes, butshould not be restricted to increasing hunting yields.

As an example, let us examine the objectives of hunting andhence of game management described by the German Hunt-ing Association (DJV 1987, translated from German): Huntingis applied conservation, when used as a means of safeguard-ing the survival of a diverse animal and plant life. Huntingshould exploit several game species, while endeavoring tomaintain the total indigenous fauna, and at the same timeensure the balance between game populations and their na-tive habitat. Threatened species should be protected, and op-portunities should be provided for the re-establishment ofspecies which have been eradicated. The destruction of habi-tat exploited by free ranging populations of game speciesshould be prevented.

Exploitation, including taking care of meat, skins and tro-phies, is a fundamental aspect of game management. How-ever, hunting which is indifferent to the future of a popula-tion, or which entails cruel or inhumane methods is not gamemanagement. Major issues include planning exploitationstrategies and endorsement of laws and provisions pertainingto hunting, and anti-poaching measures.

Wildlife management also involves conservation and im-provement of wildlife habitats. However, human interferenceor alteration of habitat may benefit one species, while havingnegative consequences for another. The habitats of threat-ened species are of particular importance, Habitat manage-ment is today the most important aspect of wildlife manage-ment.

A third theme of wildlife management concerns solving or di-minishing problems caused by certain wildlife species, suchas damage to forests, livestock and fisheries, and diseasescommon to game and livestock or human beings.

The fourth major theme of wildlife management involvespractical measures for assisting specific wildlife populations,e.g. re-stocking, feeding, carnivore control, production of

game foods, and helping vulnerable populations and species.Many hunters seem to believe that these are the most impor-tant measures of wildlife management, but often they aremainly of local significance.

In most countries the major goal of wildlife management is toprotect the naturally occurring abundance and genetic varia-tion of wildlife species. The European Council Convention onthe Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats,which was signed at Berne in 1979, resolved that populationsshould be maintained at a level corresponding to ecological,scientific and cultural requirements, while taking into accounteconomic and recreational requirements and the demands ofsub-species, varieties, or other forms which are regionally en-dangered. This is now the basic goal for wildlife managementin western Europe. In principal, the same applies to all of Eu-rope.

7


ninautredning018

2 Historical perspective

The historyof hunting and wildlife management in Europespansover 5 different Eras,but the timing variessomewhatwithin the continent: a) prehistoricEra,b) the Eraof ClassicCivilizationfrom 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D. followedby great so-cial disturbance,c) the Eraof aristocratichunting rightsandexploitationof game stocksfrom 800 AD. to 1850, d) the Eraof conservationawarenessand predator control until 1950,and e) the Eraof moderngame managementand naturecon-servation.During period (e), managementmeasureshave in-creasinglybeen basedon resultsfromwildliferesearch.

Only the first three Eras(a-c) are treated in this chapter.Thedivisionof Erasdoesnot relateequallywell to allcountries.

2.1 Prehistory

Neanderthalman livedin Europeduringthe lastice age, andwas replacedby modern man in the great interglacialperiodabout 35,000 yearsago. Both of thesetypesof human werehuntersand gatherers(Cornwall 1968). They hunted largemammals, and the fauna existing at that time (the upperPleistocene,100,000 - 10,000 B.C.) was very different fromtoday's(Kurten1968, Kowalski1986).

Among the large prey specieswhich are now extinct werethe woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenious), the woollyrhinocerus (Coelodonta antiquitatis), the giant deer (Megalo-ceros giganteus), the auroch(Bos primigenius), the steppewi-sent (Bison priscus) and the cavebear(Ursus spelaeus). Other

- specieslike the cave hyena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea), thecavelion (Felis leo spelaea), the saigaantilope (Saiga tartari-ca) and the caballine horse (Equus przewalskii) have disap-peared from Europe, but still exist in other areas, partly asother sub-species.

Total or partial extinction during the upper Pleistocenepri-marilyaffectedlargerherbivores,andthe carnivoresand scav-engerswhich exploited them. These extinctionscan hardlybe explained by climatic variation alone. Extinctionstookplaceparallelwith the expansionof prehistorichuman popu-lationsand their advancementas big game hunters.There-fore one cannot eliminate the possibilitythat hunting mayhave contributed to the exterminationof some large mam-malsduringthe Pleistocene(Martin 1971).

The substantialclimatic changeswhich took place through-out the Pleistocene,affected vegetation and fauna. Duringcolderperiods,arcticanimalslikereindeer(Rangifer tarandus)and muskoxen(Ovibos moschatus) were evenfound in south-ern Europe.In certain time periodsand in some areas,hunt-

ers specializedon particularprey specieslike the cave bear,the woolly mammoth, primitive horsesand wild reindeer(Berger& Grönberg1931, Lindner1937, Spiess1979).

Examinationof late stone age settlement sites from after10,000 B.C. indicatesthat other prey speciesbecame moreimportant, includingsomewhich aresignificantgame speciestoday (Howell1972, Clutton-Brock1981). Among thesewerethe red deer (Cervus elaphus), wild boar (Sus scrofa), and theroe deer (Capreolus capreolus), while small game like hares(Lepus spp.) were probably lessexploited. Fur bearinggamewas alsovital. Birdswere exploited to the extent permittedby available hunting techniques, and then particularlyincoastalareas(e.g. Scheel1947).

There isno informationon whether any kind of game mana-gement, was practiced in prehistoric times. As previouslymentioned,somegame specieswere probablyexterminated.However,the abundanceof carvingsand paintingsmade bystoneage man in cavesand on rocks,indicatestheir magicalfunction related to fertility and hunting luck (e.g. Lindner1937).

About 5,000 B.C., animal husbandryand agriculturebecamethe mainway of livingin largepartsof Europe(Clutton-Brock1981). The consequenceswere enormousfor wildlifehabitat.Huntingand trappingcontinuedto be majoroccupations.

2.2 Historical times up to 1850

The golden age of Greek and Roman civilization.-Throughout the first millenium B.C. until around 500 A.D.,Greek and Rornanculture influenced most of Europe.Thisculture was influenced by Egyptian, Babylonian,Assyrian,Phoenecianand Jewish/Christiancivilization.Severalof thesecultureshad developedsophisticatedformsof game manage-ment (Chalmers1936, Alison1978).

Hunting•was regarded as sport among the aristocratsofGreece, although this was ndt always highly approved. In600 B.C., Solon prohibited Atheniansfrom hunting, in thebelief that hunting led to neglect of other culturalactivities(Leopold 1933). He also introduced a bounty systemforkilledwolves(Canis lupus) (Johnsen1947).

The first book about hunting was written under the title Cy-

negeticus by Xenophonwho livedfrom 440-354 B.C.(seeDa-kyns1897). The bookdiscusseddifferenttypesof huntingonpopular game speciessuch as deer, wild boar and hares.Hunting was regardedas a meansof encouragingthe physi-cal developmentof young men and improvingtheir morals.Hareswere oftensetfree after being caught, asa tokenoffer-ing to the goddessof the hunt.

nina utredning018

Around 100 A.D., the area controlled by the Roman Empirewas bounded on the north by the Donau and Rhine riversand the narroweststretchof Scotland.The Romansimprovedtraditional hunting technology including weapons like thespear, the arrow, the useof traps, nets and lime sticks.Fal-conry was introduced into Europe in the 4th century A.D.(Tillisch1949, Lindner1973).

The first real hunting lawswere introduced by the Romans.No one owned live game, the principleof res nullius, but alandowner could prohibit hunting on hisown land. Owner-ship rights to game first applied after the game was killed,and thisalsoappliedto illegallyhunted game (Lindner1937).

A commonercould hunt smallgame, but rightsto deer, wolfand brown bear (Ursus arctos) huntingwere reservedfor thearistocracy,who alsohad exclusivepriviledgesto keepcertainbreeds of hunting dogs (Whisker 1981). Laws prohibitinghunting on cultivated land were enforced and game parkswere established.

There is no evidenceof activewildlife managementin Greek/Romanculture.Huntingwas not alwaysan honourablesport,as evidenced by the thousandsof animals killed in bloodytheatrical performancesin arenas (Auguet 1972). Most ofthese animalswere imported from other partsof the world,but some Europeanspecieswere alsoused. In many partsofEurope,ruthlesshunting and trapping by the Romansresult-ed in the declineof severalwildlife populations.Neither didChristianethicsintroduce any moral obligationsfor protect-ing wildlifepopulations(Whisker1981).

Some animalsescapedfrom captivity. New specieswere in-troduced to Europein this manner, while other speciesex-tended the rangeof their distribution.The pheasant(Phasia-nus colchicus) is one example. Mythology states that thepheasantwas introduced into Greecefrom Kolchisnear theBlackSea by Jasonthe Argonaut around 1300 B.C. (Hill &Robertson 1988). The Romans later introduced them toFrance and Germany. The fallow deer (Cervus dama) wasbrought from AsiaMinor and kept in game farms.Theywerebrought to France and Germany around 400 A.D. (SOU1983). Rabbits(Oryctolagus cuniculus) only occurred in thewild in Spain, Portugaland the south of France2,300 yearsago, but they were spread to most of the Mediterraneancountries by the Romans and Phoenecians(Clutton-Brock1981). Doves (Columba livia) establishedsemi-feralpopula-tions (Lever 1987). The doormouse (Glis glis) was consid-ered a delicacyby the Rornans,and was in recent times inEnglandafter escapingfrom captivitytreated asa pest(Lever1985).

Germanic tribes.- Hunting and trapping were vital to thesurvivalof Germanictribesliving north of the RomanEmpire.

At the time of Christ there was an abundanceof game likethe wolf, deer, wisent (Bison bonansus), auroch and moose(Alces alces). JuliusCæsar (100-44 B.C.) related that theabundanceof game in Germany made hunting restrictionssuperfluous(Whisker1981).

With the exceptionof agriculturalland, hunting was usuallyopen for all free men, but was largelycontrolledby familiesand village societies(Lindner 1940). Hunters were givenrightsof ownershipwhen preyanimalswere localizedsuchasthrough tracking.Thiswas alsothe casein the Nordic coun-trieswhere lawswritten down in the 11-13th centuriescon-firmed individualrightsto particularhunting terrain, bearsinhibernationand the nestsof birdsof prey (ØstlieS.a.).Theselaws alsocontained rulesfor dividing up the yield. In somepartsof Sweden and in Iceland, hunting rights belongedtothe landowner(Lindner1940).

Beforethe fall of the westernRomanEmpire(476 A.D.), andduring the followIng two centuries,considerableunrest re-sulted in large migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes.Therefore, hunting regulationspreviouslybound by customno longer applied. In addition, soldiersoften relied upongame for food. In many placeswildlife populationsrapidlydeclined.

Hunting priviledges of the aristocracy.-After the fall of theRoman Empire, a gradually increasingportion of huntingrights was taken over by the aristocracy(Leopold 1933,Whisker1981). The establishmentof royal"forests"in Germa-ny from 648 A.D. was important for the development ofhunting rightswithin the restof Europe.Theseforestswereformerlycommon landwhere the rightsto hunt somespecieslikedeeror wild boarwere reservedfor the king and hismen.A kingcouldhand over hisrightsto the aristocracy,a cloister,or a free city, which in turn might transfersome of them tothe common people (Lindner 1940). After the developmentof feudalism,which enjoyedits peakon the continent around1000 A.D., most land and hunting rightswere controlledbythe king and his feudal chieftans.To the presentday, mostEuropeanhunting ritualsand termsare of Frenchoriginfrommedievaltimes(Phodpus1978).

Anglo-saxonsin Great Britain,originallyadheredto unwrittengermanic laws.The oldestgeneralgame law was introducedby the Danishking Knut in 1016. The law establishedthat noone owned wild animals,but that the king had some'huntingpriviledges.

Feudalismwas establishedin England by William the Con-queror (1066-1087), who also introduceda systemof royal"forests".Rightsto private "chase"were alsomaintained. Ille-gal huntingwas punishableby deathor mutilation.

9


ninautredning018

The firstEnglishlaw pertainingto the forestand wild animalswas introducedby Henry Il in 1184. This and later lawsstat-ed that all hunting of the most important wildlife specieswas a priviledge reservedfor aristocracyand the church.Fencingof game forestswas permitted, and managementwithin such parksincluded many types of measures(Gilbert1979). By the end of the 11th century there were 31 redand fallow deer parksand more than 70 hayes,i.e. lessfor-mal enclosuresfor deer (Vandervell& Coles 1980). Theselawsresultedin an extreme stateof bureaucracyand the ap-pointmentof knightsfor the purposeof protectingthe hunt-ing rightsof the king.

After 1200, violation of hunting laws was not as seriouslypunishedin Englandas previously.The bureaucraticsystemwas graduallydissolvedby corruptionand as a consequenceof the BlackDeath of 1348/49. Byaround 1600, mostof theroyalforestshad beenturned overto privatelandownerswhowere alsogiven the right to control trespassingand hencehunting on their property. In 1578-80 more than 700 deerparkswere registered(Vandervell& Coles1980).

Hunting priviledgesoffered hunting as a meansof physicaltrainingand enjoymentfor the nobility.Noblemencompetednot onlyfor quantitiesof game, but alsofor the qualityof tro-phies,particularlyred deer antlers.The weight and numberof pointsof the antlerswere carefullyrecorded,and the bestwere mounted (e.g. Bubenik1989).

Establishmentof regaland aristocratichuntingpriviledgesoc-curredsomewhatlater in the Nordiccountriesthan in CentralEurope.Hunting big game becamethe exclusiveright of theSwedisharistocracyin 1351 (SOU 1983). Swedishfarmerswere completely deprived of shooting rights in 1647, andalsoof all trapping apart from carnivoresin 1664. The hunt-ing rights of Swedish landownerswere renewed in 1789(Nordell & Weinberg 1983).

In Denmarkthe king and noblemenexdusivelyheld huntingrightsin 1537, and a death penaltywas imposedfor exten-sivepoaching(Hansen1928). In 1781, the Danishlandown-ersgot back most of their hunting rights. Hunting rightsinFinland, Norway, and Switzerlandcontinued mainly to beheld by farmersand other landowners,with the exceptionofthe Swedish/FinnishAalandIslands(Salo1976).

The 16th and 17th centurieshavebeencalledthe goldeneraof hunting(Bubenik1976). Farmersand cloisterswere forcedto assistthe aristocracyduring the hunt, which was oftenconducted regardlessof ripening crops. The situation wasparticularlyabusedin Franceand Germany,where aristocraticpriviledgeswere first revoked after the revolutionsin 1789and 1848. After the FrenchRevolution,Codex Napoleon re-placed Rornanlaw and proclaimedthat game belonged to

the people.Thiswasthe caseboth in Franceand in countriesoccupiedby Frencharmies(e.g. Bubenik1989).

Hunting seasons.-Accordingto the first Englishbook abouthuntingwritten by EdwardII Duke of Yorkin 1406-1413 (seeBaillie-Grohman& Baillie-Grohman1907), traditional limita-tionson hunting methodsand hunting seasonswere alreadyenforced at that time. Good sportsmanshipprohibited theshootingof pregnant animals,or femaleswith smallyoung.Seasonalchangesin the conditionof furs and peltswere alsotaken into consideration.Customsconcerningthe protectionof animalsduringthe breedingseasoncan be tracedto mucholder traditions,asdescribedin the FifthBookof Moses22:6-7 (seeGilbert& Dodds1987).

Regulationsfor the protection of individual wildlife specieswere firstlegallyenforcedin Englandin 1536 (Whisker1981).However, the moosewas seasonallyprotected in Swedenasearly as 1351 (SOU 1983). Much older Swedishlandscapelaws enforced seasonalprotection of the squirrel (Lindner1940). In Germany local restrictionsin hunting seasonsofbrown bearsand wild boarswere enforced already in 890(Lindner1940).

Active wildlife management.- Organized management de-signedto increasegame populationswas first initiatedin Eu-rope after 1500. Most of the methods usedwere Indirect",i.e. they were aimed at preventing habitat encroachmentsuchas burningcovervegetation,or disturbanceduring thebreedingseason(Leopold1933).

By deliberateintroductionsor escapesfrom captivity, manygame speciesexpandedtheir distributionin Europealsobe-fore that time (see above). It islikely that vikingsbroughtgrey partridges(Perdix perdix) to Öland and Gotlandin Swe-den already around 500 A.D. (J. Dahlgren in Andersson1988).

Pheasants,were kept in Great Britain in the 11th century(Vandervell& Coles1980), and were introducedinto Irelandaround 1500 (Lever1987). Rabbitsgraduallyspreadto mostof Europeafterescapingfrom captivity(Clutton-Brock1981).Reddeer and roe deer were introducedto the Aalandislandsaround1500 (Salo1976). Mallards(Anas platyrhynchos) werebred and releasedin Englandfrom at least 1651 (Leopold1933).

The popularityof game introductionsand stockingincreasedafter 1700. Pheasantswere imported to Swedenin the begin-ning of the 1700's, and the wild boar was re-introducedtoÖland in Swedenin 1731 (Berger& Gröndahl1931). The ca-percaillie(Tetrao urogallus) was re-introducedto Scotlandinthe 1800's, and stockingsof pheasant and grey partridgetook placein severalcountries(Lever1987). Brownhares(Le-

10

nina utredning018

pus capensis) were introducedinto Irelandin the 1800's (Lev-er 1985).

Aroundthe sametime, activehabitat management measuresalsobecamemore common. Forinstant,partridgeswere win-tered in indoor pens in Swedenin 1760. Salt lickswere setout and cabbagewas plantedasextrafodder for game popu-lationsin Swedenat the sametime (SOU 1983).

Combating predatory animals.- Much huntingwas done tocombat predatoryanimalsresponsiblefor injuringand killingdomesticlivestockor preferredgame species.The wolf was amajor target for such measures.The last wolf was killed inEnglandin the 1500's, in Irelandin the 1600's, in Scotlandinthe 1700's (Bibikov1988), and in Denmark in 1813 (Weis-mann 1931). From about 1350, all of the inhabitantsof Swe-den were obliged to contribute to the extermination ofpredators,and after 1442 all Swedishfarmerswere requiredby law to maintainspecialwolf nets(SOU 1983).

A systemof bountieswas already introduced in Englandinthe 1500's.A wolf bountywasestablishedin Swedenin 1647(Johnsen1947). Otters (Lutra lutra) were controlledbecauseof their supposeddamage to fisheries(see Baillie-GrohmanBaillie-Grohman1907). A bountysystemdesigned to controlbirdsof prey and owls was introducedin Swedenin 1741 toincreasesmall game populations(SOU 1983). Bounty sys-tems covering a varying number of specieswere in use inmanycountriesaround1800.

The effects of hunting on wildlife populations.- The effectof hunting on wildlife populationsdepended somewhat onthe effectivenessof the methodsemployed. Trapping meth-ods in general usewere continuallyimproving (Frank1984).The crossbowwas alreadycommon by 1100. Hunting gunsbecame available around 1500. By the beginning of the1500's, the shotgun had alsobeen developed (e.g. Brander1971). The practiceof usingpointingdogswassteadilymorepopular during the 1600's. However, truly effectivehuntingweaponswere not inventedbeforethe beginningof the 19thcentury(e.g. Hansen1928, Danneviget al. 1983).

In associationwith the developmentof more effectiveweap-ons in the 1600's, and the more widespread use of guns,many wildlife populations in England, Central Europe andSpainwere overexploited(Whisker1981). The qualityof deertrophiesdeclined(Bubenik1989).

Populationsof otter were alreadyheavilyreducedin Swedenin the 1500's.The wild boar becameextinct in Englandin the1500's, likewisethe capercailliein Great Britainaround 1790(Lever 1987). The last living auroch died in Poland in 1627(Szafer1968). The only smallgame speciesto be completelyeradicated by hunting was the great auk (Alca impennis),

which becameextinct in 1844 on Iceland(Greenway1967).Royalhuntson swans(Cygnus spp.)duringthe moultingperi-od (Weismann1931) led to populationdeclines.The beaver(Castor fiber) was exterminated on the BritishIslesaround1200, and in most of the remainderof Europein the period1500-1800.

In spite of their deficiencies,hunting laws introducedafter1000 A.D. did protect many wildlife populations,by limitingthe number of personsallowed to hunt. When these restric-tions were removed, many game populationswere quicklyoverexploited.AlreadytWoyearsafter the revolutionof 1848in Germany,regulationsconcerningminimumsizeof huntingareaswere introduced to reduce hunting pressure(Uecker-mann 1984).

Some changesin human useof landscapeswere favourableto manywildlifespecies,su,chasreforestationof earlierarableor barrenland (e.g. Ueckermann1984). Of particularimpor-tance were plantings and other measuresto increasetheamount of hedgerowson agriculturalland in the 18th and19th century (e.g. Nielsen et al. 1967, O'Connor & Shrubb1986, Moore 1987).

2.3 Synthesis

Many of the game managementstrategiesusedin Europeto-day were developed in the 1800s, althoughmany practicalmeasureswere introducedevenearlier.

Leopold(1933) describedthe order of successionof differentgame management measuresas follows: 1) restrictionofhunting, 2) control of predators,3) establishmentof gameparks,4) introductionsof game, and 5) improvement ofwildlifehabitat. However,the order of successionof points1and 2, measureswhich both started in pre-historictimes, islargelybuilt on the fact that hunting predated animal hus-bandry.

The goals of game management had until 1850 changedfrom a meansof safeguardingaristocraticpriviledges,to pro-tection and improvement of wildlife populations.Althoughpublicationsconcerning animal rights date back to 1723(Whisker1981), these attitudeswere not reflectedin histori-calgame management.

11


nina utredning 018

3 Authority to managewildlife

Wildlife management is generallycarriedout by officialau-thorities, landowners, personswith legal hunting rights attheir disposal,or even by anyone, e.g. in their gardens.Toeducatemanagement personellat different levelsand hunt-ers, a varying number of educationalprogramshave beenstarted at universitiesor lower grade schools,or are orga-nizedby differentassociations.

In thisreviewwe concentrateon game management.If otheraspectsof wildlife management are taken into consideration,manyother authorities,associationsand privatepersonsdo aformidablejob.

3.1 Official authorities

Game management was traditionally administeredby theMinistryof Agricultureand Forestry.This is still the caseineastern Europe, and in some western countries includingWest Germany (GFR), Finland,and Sweden.This is alsothecase in Turkey (Anonymus 1986b). Today, game manage-ment is the responsibilityof the Ministryof the Environmentin some countrieslike UK, France,Luxembourgh,Denmarkand Norway. Tasksrelatedto game managementare carriedout in Iceland by the Department of Education.In Irelandwildlife problemsare since 1987 handled by the Dep. of Fi-nance,Officeof PublicWorks(WildlifeService1989).

State,canton and provincialofficesmay alsomake lawsandregulationsconcerning wildlife management. Law enforce-ment may be delegatedto lower levelsof administration.Forexample, in accordancewith the Wildlife Act of 1981, mostlegal decisionsconcerningwildlife in Norway are made bythe Directoratefor Nature Management. However,manycas-esare handledat the county level(18) or by municipalgameboards(about 450).

3.2 Hunting rights

The hunting priviledgesof the aristocracyhave even beenmaintaineduntil World War Il in partsof Yugoslaviaformerlybelongingto Turkey (Isakovic1970, Adamic 1986a). Today,wildliferesourcesare sharedby the peopleof Yugoslaviaandmanged by the government. This is alsothe casein other.

easternEuropeancountrieseven when wildlife habitat is pri-vately owned. Hunting terrain is divided into territories(re-viers)which are managed and usedby huntingclubs(New-man 1970, Briedermann 1981, Krzemien 1987). In East

Germany (GDR) these territories may range in size from1,000 to 4,000 hectares.

Hunting terrain in westernEuropeis largelyprivatelyowned,but many areasare common propertyor belong to the gov-ernment (e.g. seeFACE1986). Hunting rightsusuallybelongto the landowner,who makesuseof them personallyor leas-esthem to individualhuntersor hunting associations.Officialauthoritiesmay, however,in somecountries(e.g. in Norway)demand that the landownersellgame licensesto the public,or that propertiesarejoinedinto commonwildlifeareasin or-der to meet the minimum area requirementsfor hunting biggame.

Hunting isopen to allof the citizensof Portugal,Italy,Greeceand Turkey, in all areasexcept national parksand reservesand someagriculturalland, but regionalauthoritiesmay pro-hibit hunting in someareas.In some cantonsin Switzerland,all citizens may exercisethe right to hunt within cantonboundariesaccordingto a "patent"system(DJV1987).

In many countriesproperty must be of an establishedsizeifthe landowner wishesto exercisehunting rights. In someprovincesof France,the municipal government administershunting rightson all propertiessmallerthan 25 hectares.Inother parts of France,hunting rights on propertiesof lessthan 20, 40, 60, 80 hectaresrespectivelyare administeredbya municipal hunting association(Premier Ministre 1966).Hunting territorysizeis alsoregulatedby the governmentinWest Germany and other western countrieswhere the "revi-er"systemisused.

At the open sea,and alsoon the shorelinein manycountries,hunting is in generalopen for everyone.Certainspeciesmaybe hunted regardlessof hunting rights, as is the casewithlarge carnivorousmammals in Finland (Anonymus 1989b).SwedishLappsare allowedto hunt on some privatepropertybelongingto others(Nordell & Weinberg 1983).

Legal provisionsin many countriesdelegate hunting rightsand responsibilitiesto huntersassociations.In suchcasesprin-cipal decisionsare made through joint cooperationbetweenhuntersassociationsand Centralor localauthorities.Thissys-tem of game managementis largelyconfinedto easternEu-rope, but is also partly used in some western countrieslikeWest Germany.Hunting associationsare alsodelegatedsomeauthority in Swedenand Finland,but have no officialstatusin Great Britain,Denmarkand Norway. However,someof theoperational expensesincurred by hunting associationsinthesecountriesarecoveredwith governmentfunds.

In many countrieswith private hunting rights, the ownermust pay a generalstate hunting fee to be allowedto hunt.

12

ninautredning018

In addition he may pay the state for each licenseon fellingbig game. (See Stensaas(1989) concerningpracticein Nor-way).

Huntersand landownerswith hunting rightsare most inter-ested in carryingout practicalgame management schemes(e.g. Lindner1985, FACE1986). During a Swedishstudycar-ried out in 1978/79, 74% of all huntersinterviewedrepliedthat they had participatedin practicalgame managementanaverageof 6 daysannually(SOU 1983). More activeSwedishhunterscontributed the most time to pursuinggame man-agement. In easternEurope,and those areasof western Eu-ropewhere the "revier"systemhasbeen introduced,practicalwildlife management is obligatoryfor all personspossessinghunting rights.

3.3 The number of hunters

Table 1 containsa surveyof the numberof huntersin thosecountriesfor which information is available. Unfortunatelydata is lackingfor somecountries,which in mostcasesprob-ablyhaverelativelyfew hunters.

Accountingfor countriesfor which informationis lacking,thetotal numberof huntersin Europeoutsideof the USSRisesti-mated at about 8 million. This figure correspondsto about1.6 huntersper km2 land area, or about 1.6% of all the in-habitantsof Europe.Huntersare usuallymale;asan exampleonly 3-4% of the huntersin Sweden(SOU 1983) and 2% inNorwayarefemale.

Table 1. Numberof huntersin differentEuropeancountries.(Basedon officialstatistics,Adamfi1984, FACE1986).

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkFinlandFranceGerman DemocraticRep.German FederalRep.Great BritainGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSpainSwedenSwitzerlandYugoslavia

Total

Number ofhunters

105 00028 00083 000

118 000170 000285 000

1 850 00041 000

265 000650 000350 000

33 000117 000

1 450 0002 500

33 000200 000

90 000250 000

50 0001 050 000

320 00035 000

267 000

7 842 500 2)

Huntersper km2

1.30.90.70.94.00.93.40.41.12.72.70.41.74.81.01.00.61)0.32.70.22.10.70.91.0

1.6

Huntersper1000 inhabitants

13.92.89.3

, 7.633.358.233.5

2.54.4

11.535.1

3.132325.4

6.82.3

48.22.4

24.62.2

27.138.6

5.411.5

15.9

Svalbard not included.Except Albania, Andorra, The Channel Islands, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Malta, Monaco, San

Marino and Turkey.

13


ninautredning018

As can be seen from Table 1, Denmark, France, Greece,Spain,Portugaland Great Britainhavehigh densitiesof hunt-ersrelativeto total area. Thisfigure is particularlyhigh in Ita-ly with about 5 huntersper km2. Statisticsfor easternturopeand Fennoscandiaindicate less than one hunter per km2area.

The percentageof huntersin the generalpopulationalsovar-ies geographically(Table 1). In Nordic countries,this per-centageisespeciallyhigh (up to 6% in Finland).Thispercent-age is particularlyhigh (17%) on the FinnishAaland Island(Harberg 1988). More than 3% of the populationof Irelandand Greeceare hunters.The percentageof huntersislowerineastern Europe, West Germany, the Netherlands and Bel-gium.

3.4 Hunting organizations

Membership in hunting associationsmay be obligatory orvoluntary.There are often severalnational hunting associa-tions in each country. National federationsin countriesbe-longingto the EEC(EuropeanEconomicCommunity) are af-filiatedwith FACE(Federationof HuntersAssociationsof theEEC). FACEwas establishedin 1978 with headquartersinBrussels,and represents6.5 millionhunters.The InternationalHuntersUnion, CIC (Conceil Internationalde la Chasseet laConservationde Gibier, InternationalCouncilfor Game andWildlife Conservation)has influencedthe progressof gamemanagementin Europein severalways.

In western Europe, membership in one or more nationalhunting associationis voluntary. One exceptkm is Finland,where all hunters belong to a central huntersorganization(JägernasCentralorganisation).In a municipalityall inhabi-tantswho havepaid their hunting license,form a game man-agement association(Anonymus 1989b).-No one may be-long to more than one association. There are nomembershipsfeesand the organizationissubsidizedbyfundsfrom the government hunting licensingsystem.The organi-zation isdivided into 15 districtsand comprises297 associa-tions.

Membershipin a hunting associationisobligatoryin easternEurope,becausehunting associationscontroland dispenseallhunting rights which are leasedfrom the government. Nohuntersareallowedto join more than one club, but they maybe invited as gueststo the hunting territoryof other clubs.Most clubsin EastGermanyleasethe rightsto 3 to 5 huntingreviers(Briedermann1981).

3.5 Education in wildlife manage-ment and hunting

In German speaking countries, training and education inwildlife management is traditionallyassociatedwith forestryprograms (see Ueckermann1984). For example, in Austriahigher educationis providedat the AgriculturalUniversityatWien, and there are two junior collegeswith training pro-gramsfor professionalkeepersor conservationofficers.Hunt-ing organizationsare responsiblefor training and educationof professionalhunters.

In Great Britain, Norway and Sweden, higher education inwildlife managementand wildlife ecologyisalsoprimarilyof-fered by agriculturalcolleges.In some countrieslike Franceand Finland,there are no highereducationprogramsin wild-life management.Wildlifeecologyisoften includedasone as-pect of a generaleducationin zoologyat universitiesin mostEuropeancountries.

Comprehensivetraining at lower levelsis availablein manycountriesincludingGreat Britain,Denmark, Finland,Norwayand Sweden. Many young people in Great Britainbetween16 and 17 yearsof age, participatein a two year educationalprogramson practicalwildlife management. Personswishingto becomeprofessionalkeepersor huntersusuallytakeon ap-prenticeships.

Hunter examinationshave been obligatoryin easternEuropefor many years. In Poland,all huntersmust first practicein ahunting associationfor one year. If the candidate makesagood impression,he or she is permittedto take a courseanda theoretical examination.All candidatesmust document aworking knowledgeof practicalwildlife managementand theuseof weapons.After three yearsas an authorizedhunter, anew courseis offeredwhich qualifiesthe candidateto shootmale deer. In easternEuropeancountries,hunter authoriza-tion isusuallyassociatedwith the right to own a weapon.

Theoreticaland practicalhunting exarninationshavebeen in-troduced in severalwestern Europeancountries.Obligatoryexaminationswere introduced in Finland in 1964, Denmarkin 1969, Francein 1976, the Netherlandsin 1978, Sweden1982, and Norway in 1987. A type of hunting examinationhasexistedin Austriasince1938.

The content of hunting examinationsvariesfrom country tocountry (e.g. Helminen 1977, Briedermann 1981, Spitzer1982, Swartenbroekx1985). Theoreticaland practicalaspectsof wildlife management and marksmanshipmay be tested.The only requirementon Icelandisa declarationof satisfacto-ry marksmanshipfrom localpoliceauthorities.In Swedentheexam allowsthe purchaseof certaintypesof guns.

14

nina utredning018

SomewesternEuropeancountriesincludingGreat BritainandItaly, do not have obligatory hunter examinations.Both ofthese countrieshave high densitiesof hunters.The Ministryof the EuropeanCouncil (CE 1985a) has ratified a proposalrecommendingthe introductionof obligatory hunter exami-nationsin all member countries.

4 Management systems

Management principlesmay vary from country to country,and with the speciesof animalinvolved(e.g. Dagg S.a.).Vari-ationoftendependson the purposeof exploitationor protec-tion, whether the speciesis migratoryor stationaryand howhuntingrightsare administered.

One comprehensivelaw concerninggame managementandhunting isfound in most countries.In Great Britainthere arefive lawsconcerninghunting (SOU 1983).

In the past, hunting laws itemized all wildlife specieswhichwere protected, as well as closedor open seasonsfor legalgame species.When protectionor hunting seasonof a parti-cularspecieswas not specifiedin regulations,the specieswasregarded as legal game. Today, the opposite practice hasgraduallybeen introducedin all countries;and all huntingisprohibited unlessspecificallymentioned in hunting regula-tions.

Here "big game" comprisesall large herbivorousmammals.However,thisdefinitionis not alwaysconsistentwith hunters'language.Forexample,in Norway, roedeer arenot tradition-

, ally recognizedasbig game, whereasbrown bear are includ-ed.

Environmentalconservationlaws and regulationscontrollinghuman use and disturbanceof nature (forestry,agriculture,fishing,industry,pollution,development,recreation,trespass-ing and traffic) have significantconsequencesfor wildlifemanagement. Several veterinary regulationsalso apply towild animals.

4.1 Migratory birds

The most important management tactics for pbpulationswhich visitseveralcountriesduring the courseof a year are:

regulationof hunting pressurein different countriesandconservationand management of breeding, moulting,

restingand wintering localities.

The managementof migratorybirdsis primarilya nationalre-sponsibility,but internationalcooperationisvital. In westernEuropeagreementsand conventionslikethe EECDirectiveof1979 on the Conservationof Wild Birds,and the 1979 BerneConventionareof major importance(Batten1987). The Ram-sar Conventionon Wetlands of International ImportanceasWaterfowl Habitat in 1971 has alsocontributedsignificantlyto improved management of migratory birds(Klemm 1979,Smart 1987). The 1979 Bonn Convention on the Conserva-tion of Migratory Speciesof Wild Animalshashad a minimal

15


ninautredning018

effect becauseno bilateral or multilateral agreementshavebeen concludedto date (UNEP, pers.comm). In total 14 Eu-ropeancountrieshave signedthe Bonn Conventionin 1989.In 1988, 8 countrieswere partiesto the BarcelonaConven-tion concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas(Grimmett & Jones1989).

The RamsarConventiondoesnot only promotethe conserva-tion of certain listedwetlands, but alsothe "wiseuse"of allwetlands. A conferenceof the Contracting Partiesin 1987adoptedthe followingdefinitionof the conceptof "wiseuse"of wetlandsas "theirsustainableutilizationfor the benefit ofhuman kind in a way compatiblewith the naturalpropertiesof the ecosystem".The conferencerecognizedthat compre-hensivenationalwetland policieswill be a long term process,and hence urged that immediate action shouldbe taken tostimulatewiseuse(IWRB,pers.comm.).

Managementof bird specieswhich breed in Europeand mi-grate to other partsof the world, cannot be regardedmerelyfrom a Europeanperspective.Hence,work hasstartedto pro-duce an agreement under the Bonn Conventionfor westernPalearcticwaterfowl, but it hasbeen recognizedthat it will bedifficult to develop such a management plan (UNEP, pers.comm.).

(a) Hunting regulations.- Despitethe availabilityof adequateinformationon migrationroutesof mostwetland birds,hunt-ing pressureis not regulatedalong European"flyways",suchas is the casein North America (Scott 1982, Piersmaet al.1987, Boyd& Pirot 1989). One reasonmay be that huntingstatisticson relevantspeciesare lackingfor severalcountries(seeBertelsen& Simonsen1986).

Internationalagreementson the prohibitionof non-selectivetrappingmethodslikenetsand baitedtrapshavebeena majorstepforward.However,in severalcountries,netsarestillusedto catchmigratorybirds(Bertelsen& Simonsen1976). The an-nualnetcatchof birdsin Italyisestimatedat 320,000 individu-als,while statisticsfor Franceare more than one millionbirds,mostof which are larks(Alaudidae).A "guestimate"done forthe standingcomtnitteeof the BerneConvention(CE 1986),indicatedthat more than 100 millionpasserinebirdswere an-nuallycaughtin Europe(includingCyprus),mostof them ille-gally.Alsoindiscriminateshootingof birdstakesplacein manycountries,e.g. in Malta (CIC, pers.comm.).

National regulationof hunting pressureon migratorybirdsismainly enforcedthrough closedand hunting seasons.In re-centyears,dailyor annualbag limitshavebeenintroducedinsomecountries(seeLampio1983).

About 45% of the autumn population of Europeanducksisestimatedshot during the hunting season(Scott 1982). An

additional 20-30% may be wounded (Lampio 1982). Manyduck populationsare probablyover-exploited(e.g. Harradine1985, Tamisier 1985), demonstrating the importance ofmeasuresfor regulatinghunting pressure.About 16% of theautumn populationof geesein Europeis shot (Scott 1982).Following the recent introduction of strict regulationsongoosehunting, most goosepopulationshave increased(e.g.Mehlum & Ogilvie1984).

(b) Habitat management.- The ICBP(InternationalCouncilfor Bird Preservation)and the IWRB(InternationalWaterfowland Wetland ResearchBureau)have worked out criteriaforinternationallyimportant bird areas(see Scott 1980). Thesecriteriamainly apply to waders,waterfowl and birdspassingthrough "bottle-necks"during migration.

Registrationof significantwetland areashasbeen carriedoutin Europeoverseveraldecades,e.g. by the AQUA project(Lu-ther & Rzoska1971). The first publishedsurveyof westernEuropeincluded 15 countriesand 500 different areas(Scott1980). The IWRBand the ICPBhave continuedthis work of-ten commissionedby the EEC. By 1986, 11 countries re-mainedto be investigated,and only short listsof internation-ally significant areas were compiled for an additional 25countries(ICBP & IWRB1987). Therefore a three year pro-gram, designedto cover all of Europe,was started in 1987,and a comprehensivereview has already been published(Grimmett & Jones1989).

A large number of wetland reserveshave been established,many of them as Ramsarsites. Some of these have beencreatedwith internationalhelp. Forexamplethe World WideFund for Nature (WWF) hascontributed to the purchaseoflargewetland areasat LasMarismasin Spain.

4.2 Resident small game

Populationswhich staywithin the boundariesof one countrythroughoutthe year are here regardedas resident.However,some indMduals may crossbordersto neighbouringcoun-tries, or engage in short migrationswithin their own coun-try.

The following is a discussionof measurescarriedout by pri-vate individualsor organizationsto assistlocalwildlife popu-lations.Suchaction maytake placeon private,common andstate property. lt is not imposed by the government, butmay be regulatedby legislationor encouragedby statefund-ing.

Many handbooksdescribedifferent managernentpractices(e.g. Coles1971), but little is knoWnabout their application.Leopold (1933) mentionsthe following major subjects:es-

16

nina utredning018

tablishment of game reserves,control of disease,hunting,predators,food, water and cover, and introductions.Thesepracticesare alsorelevantin Europetoday:

The purposeof a game reserveis to produce a surpluspopulationin protectedareas,which may migrate into near-by areaswhere hunting is permitted.Thissystemis not com-mon in Europe,but 86 game reserveshave been establishedin Denmark for similar purposes(Jepsen1985). Nationalparksand nature reservesmay also partly servesimilarpur-poses,but hunting may be permitted within some nationalparks,e.g. in Norway.

Hudson(1986) suggestsmethodsfor reducingthe abun-danceof nematodesin Scottishred grouse(Lagopus lagopusscoticus), and for exterminatingticksresponsiblefor spread-ing the diseaselouping ill". Up till now thesemethodshavenot, however, been usedin any large-scaleway. In Swedenarcticfoxes (Alopex lagopus) have recentlybeen held in cap-tivityfor a period and treatedfor sarcopticmange.

Small, adjoining, private estatesare often organized intomanagement areas.This is an important management prac-tice in Fennoscandia(e.g. Hamilton 1980). In Great Britain,syndicatesorganizeseveralsmallerestatesin largeareas.Thesyndicateis responsiblefor hiring a gamekeeperand leasinghunting (e.g. Waddington 1958).

Landownerswho useor leasehunting rights may regu-late hunting pressure.The rate at which hunting yields arecompensated for by lower natural mortality or increasedproduction, determines the need for small game huntingcontrols(e.g. Kalchreuter1977, 1987). Among Scottishredgrouse, reductionsin winter mortality may compensateforhigh hunting pressure(Watson & Jenkins1968). Severalpopulation models have been devisedfor small game (e.g.Moss et al. 1979, Potts 1979, 1986), but little is knownabout sustainableharvestfor mostspecies(Myrberget 1985,Hudson& Rands1988). When hunting pheasants,it may bewise to shoot more cocks than hens (Hill & Robertson1988).

In severalareasincluding the Nordic countriesand partsofsouthernEurope,small game hunting pressureis only regu-lated by the length of the hunting seasons,the degree ofhunting enthusiasm, and the number of personsthat arepermittedto hunt.

In some southern countrieswhere hunting rights are free,the hunting pressureon smallgame hasincreasedrapidly inlater years, so that many stocksseem to be overexploited.This may also be a consequenceof an increasednumber ofgunsin someof thesecountries.

ln the early1900's, predatorcontrolwas one of the mostimportant methods for helping small game populations.Predatorcontrolwas encouragedby the bounty system.Thepopulationsizeof many predator speciesdeclineddrastically(Hagen 1952, Bijleveld1974, Newton 1979).

Modern attitudestoward predator control are influencedbythe followingconditions:1) Protectionof birdsof prey isgiv-en high priority.The most effectivemeansof control(poisonand traps) are most often illegal. All raptors and owls areprotected in most countries. 2) Researchhas shown thatpredators reduce populations of harvestable game (e.g.Strandgaard Asferg 1980, Korsch 1985, Potts 1986,Marcström et al. 1988, 1989). On the other hand, somestudieson the effectsof predator control are not conclusive(Göransson& Loman 1978, Parker1984). 3) Predatorcon-trol and in particularapplying to specieslike the red fox(Vulpes vulpes) and crows (Corvidae) which may eat eggsand young, remainsan important aspectof game manage-ment in many countries, e.g. in Great Britain (HudsonRands1988).

Severalguidelineson the care and managementof wet-landshave been published(e.g. GC 1981, Scott 1982, Lutz1986). Only major themes are mentioned here: Vegetationlike Carex, Phragmites and low bushes may be removedfrom inland waters by machinery or grazing animals.Newwetlands may be created, and spoiledwetlands may be re-stored.Water levelsmay be regulated. Fertilitymay be in-creasedthrough the useof fertilizeror lime. Potentialbreed-ing habitat may be improved with nest boxesand artificialbreeding islands.Food resourcesfor young may be in-creasedby controllingfish or lining nutrient poor poolswithstraw. Open water areasmay be maintained during winter.Eutrophicationlevels may be reduced by regulating hus-bandrymeans.

Hedge planting,sowingwild meadowsand reducedpes-ticide usemay improveterrestrialhabitat (Coles1971, Ueck-ermann & Scholz1981, Potts 1986). Heather (Calluna vul-garis) burningis beneficialto Scottishred grouse(WatsonMiller 1976, Miller 1980). In Norway burningof dwarf birch(Betula nana) may be beneficialfor better game food spe-des, suchasVaccinium spp. (e.g. Phillipset al. 1984).

Bluehares(Lepus timidus) are-often fed with grain and hay(Aarnio& Vikberg1980). Blackgrouse (Tetrao tetrix) in Fin-landare fed oatsand wheat at 11,000 automaticfeedingsta-tions situatedon their display grounds (Marjakangas1985,Valkesjärvi6.1ljås 1989). Resultsare unknown (Willebrand1988).

In many countries,large numbersof galliformesand mal-lardsand other animalsare introducedto provideshortterm

17


ninautredning018

Table2. Re-stockingofsomebirdspedesin somewesterncountries(datapartlyfromBertel-sen& Simonsen1986).

Pheasant

Greypartridge

Red-leggedpartridge Mallard

Belgium

500 000

25 000

1 000 20 000Denmark

450 000

50 000

0 350 000Finland

15 000

100

0

200France 8 000 000 1 200 000

800 000 800 000Great Britain 9 000 000

?

? 400 000Ireland

100 000

?

? 10 000Italy 3 000 000

500 000 1)

250 000Netherlands

50 000

?

0

?North Ireland

110 000

1 000 1)

? 1 000Norway

1 000

< 500

0 •

500Switzerland

0

0

0

0

1) Some of these red- legged partridges.

excesspopulationsfor hunting (Table 2). The pheasant isthe specieswhich is mostoften re-stocked.The birdsare fre-quently hybridizationof the subspeciescolchicus, torquatusand mongolicus(G. Göranssonin Andersson1988).

Releasedanimals are either raised in captivity or originatefrom wild livingpopulationsin other areasor countries.Thelatter type of re-stockingis common in Italy, where at least800,000 individualsare annually imported for introductim,including 300,000 brown haresat a cost of 35 million U.S.dollars.Stockingof ptarmigan, capercaillie,and blue hare inScandinaviahave not been of particularsignificancefor theexistingindigenouspopulations(e.g. Lindlöf 1979). On theother hand, introductionsof haresto Norwegian coastalis-landswith no previoushare population,havebeenquite suc-cessful(Huseby& Bø1985).

Large-scalere-stockingsof small game have been criticizedfor severalreasons.Many introducedanimalsdie prior to thestartof the huntingseason(Mikkelsen1986, Potts1986, Rob-ertson & Whelan 1987), and introductionsmay lead to in-creasedexploitationof natural populations.Introduced ani-mals may alsoinfluencethe genetic composition,behaviourand reproductivecapacityof the natural population(Hill &Robertson1986, 1987, 1988).

(i) In many casessmallgame productioniseconomicallysub-ordinate to most other activitiesinvoMng natural habitats,and game management should be seen as part of multipleuseschemesfor habitat. Firstly,game populationsshouldbemanagedto avoiddamage to forests,cropsand pasture(e.g.

Ueckermann1981). Among smallgame specieswhich locallymay causeconsiderabledamage are geese (Madsen 1987).Small passerinesmay also damage gardens and farmland(e.g. Bieber & Meylan 1984, Tahon 1985, O'Connor &Shrubb1986).

On the other hand, it is important to reduce lossesof birdsand mammals due to agriculturemachineryand practices.Small changes in agriculturaland forestry practicessome-times help to avoid uneccessarynegative consequencesforwildlife populations. Lessintensiveuse on the outskirtsofcrops, may reduce the negative effectsof pesticideson thefood of specieslike pheasantsand the grey partridge (e.g.Strandgaard1985, Potts1986, Rands1986). The capercaillieisadaptedto primaryforesthabitat,and slightchangesin fo-restrypracticescould be beneficial,without resultingin largereconomic lossesfor the landowner (Wegge 1984). Norwe-gian forestryauthoritiesnow adviseall forest owners to in-clude wildlife management plans in their general forestryplans(see alsoFalck& Mysterud 1988). It is alsopossibletotake better care of wildlife in cities and other urban areas(e.g. Gerell1982).

Experiencefrom many countrieshas demonstratedthe effi-ciency of information campaignsin influencing public atti-tudes to multiple use of habitats.The best resultsare ob-tained when information is spread by respectedorganizationsand individualsactivelyengaged in agricultureand forestry.

18

nina utredning018

4.3 Big game hunting outside Fen- Great Britainareestimatedby field sightingand habitatquali-

noscandia ty (Prior1987).

Only in Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain(e.g. Fog 1983,Prior 1987) may landowners themselvesfreely determinehow many deer they shallshoot(Figure 1). Harvestingof reddeer on privateestatesin Great Britainis regulatedaccordingto advice given by "The Red Deer Commissions"(Nahlik1974, Miller 1981). The sizesof the roe deer populationsin

Figure1- Managementsystemsfor cervidsin Europe.Thesymbolsdiffer-

entiatebetweenthe followingmainsystems:TheFennoscandianlicensesystem(Norway,Sweden,Rnland),landowner-controlledharvest(Denmark,Great Britain,Ireland), territory(revier)sys-tem of westernEurope(WestGermany,Austria,partsofSwitzer-land), territorysystemof eastemEurope(EastGermany,Poland,Czechoslovakia,Hungary,Romania,Bulgaria,Yugoslavia),var-ied systemswith a controlby centralauthoritiesor huntingor-ganizations(Iceland, the Netheriands,Belgium,Luxembourgh,France,Spain),thepatent-system(partsof Switzerlandand Ita-ly), almostcompleteprotection(Portugal,SouthernItaly, Greece,Europeanpart of Turkey).Unshadedareas:no informationavail-able.(PartlyafterGill 1988).

Poachingis a problem in some areas,e.g. in Ireland. In Ire-land most (78%) of the forestsare owned by the state(FACE1986). Most Irishfarmsare small, 10-20 ha, and the huntingrightsaregenerallyheld by huntingclubs.About 5-600 hunt-ing licensesfor deer with no restrictionon the numbersper-mitted to shoot, are issuedannually by the Wildlife Service(ForestSzWildlifeService1986 a, b).

Although the Danishowners themselvesdecide how manydeer they want to shoot, they have a duty to ascertainthatdeer do not damage agriculturein nearby areas,e.g. theycan be forced to put up deer fences.To preventdamage toforestryby red deer, the owners may demand that the deerpopulationmust be decimatecLNo compensationis paid bythe state for big game damage, but the state may subsidizeplantingsfor managementpurposes.

In Portugal,southernItaly and Greece,deer are almostcom-pletelyprotected(e.g. Bugalhoet al. 1986), and in the Euro-pean part of Turkey,the deer is totally protected(Anonymus1987, Serez 1990). In some cantons in Switzerlandand innorth-westItaly the harvestis controlledby licensesonly. InIceland, the Netherlands, Belgium (since 1989), Luxem-bourgh and Francethe harvestis controlled by licenseandhunting ground ownership,accordingto somewhatvaryingsystems(Haaften 1986, Gill 1988). For example, in Icelandcentral authoritiesdetermine the numbersof reindeerwhichmay be shot, and municipalityauthoritiesauthorizehuntersto do the culling.In Spain, ICONA (Instituto NacionalparalaConservacionde la Naturaleza)hasthe authorityto regulatethe frequencyof drivehuntson privateland (Gill 1988).

In Central Europemost harvestingof big game is regulatedby the "territory"system(see Figure 1), which is character-ized by establishedrules for the permanent subdivisionofhunting territories(reviers)and their management.The sys-tem is basedupon hunting traditionsfrom the 1800's (Raes-felt 1898, Bubenik1976), and was made obligatoryby law inGermanyin 1934 (Ueckermann1984).

A descriptionof (a) red deer management in West Germanyand (b) supplementaryinformation on other big game spe-ciesisusedto illustratethe methodsemployedin the "territo-ry"system.(Thesystemisalsoappliedto smallgame popula-tions). Huntingterritoriesin West Germanymustcompriseanarea of 75-1000 hectares(DJV 1987). Territoriesof 75-150hectaresare managed by landowners.Larger territoriesaremanaged by a hunting federation, under the leadershipof acommitteecomposedof locallandownersand municipaloffi-cials.There are approximatdy 50,000 hunting territoriesinWestGermany.

19


ninautredning018

Duringa visitto Germanyin the 1930's,Aldo Leopold(1936)was impressedby the fact that in contrastto what he had ob-served in North America, Europeandeer lived on habitatsstronglyinfluencedby humansand in the absenceof any ef-fective predators.The main goal for deer managementwasto improvethe qualityof trophies,i.e. stag antlers.The situa-tion today remainslargelythe same.

(a) Red deer.- According to Ueckermann (1960, 1986a,1987), Gottschalk(1972), Bubenik (1976, 1989), Wagen-knecht (1981) and Jelinek(1986), the purposesof red deermanagement are: 1) to establishpopulationsin all suitablehabitat, 2) to regulatepopulationsin accordancewith othereconomic interests,such as forestry,farming, and to avoidtrafficcollisions,and 3) to increasethe carryingcapacityandthe quality (trophies)of the game yield. The following mainmeasuresareusedto obtain thesegoals:

- Carryingcapacityof the terrainshouldbe classifiedby regis-tering borderzones,pasture,soilquality, and forestcomposi-tion according to a system developed by Ueckermann(1955). The desiredspring populationis set at 1.5-2.5 deerper km2 dependingon the carryingcapacityof the territory.Densitiesmay be increasedto 4 reddeer per km2by usingar-tificialfeeding,and decreasedif other speciesof deeroccurinthe territory.

- The spring population is estimated by counting deer atfeeding stationsand through tracking. Individualanimalsarealsoidentifiedin some areas.Harvestableproductionis esti-mated as 65-70% of all adult hinds in the populationas ofApril1.

- A harvestplan, which attemptsto maintainan equal num-ber of malesand females,isapprovedby a councilappointedfor larger areas. Harvestingis controlled accordingto pre-determined criteria on the sex and age distributionof thehunting yield (Figure 2). The optimum sizeof the trophy isthe main objectiveof regulatingthe age distribution(Drech-sler 1980), and hence is the main objectivedeterminingthelifespanof the oldest stagsto be about 12 years. Formerly,major emphasiswas placed on harvestingweak or sickani-mals(e.g. Newman 1979). Now apportionsare relatedto acertain extent to culling the weakestindividualsin each ageclass.Antlersand mandiblesaredisplayedat obligatoryannu-al exhibitionsto ensure that the harvesting program formalesisfollowed.

- Feedingconditionsare improved to increasethe carryingcapacityof a territory and the quality of individualanimals(Ueckerman & Scholtz 1971). During the winter, differentkinds of fodder are made accessible(Onderscheka1986,Ueckermann1986b), preferablyto cover 50-75% of nutri-tional requirements(Ueckermann1971). Placementof feed-ing stationsaidscontrolling areasinhabited by deer duringthe winter, thereby reducing damage to vulnerable forestareas.

- Practicalmeasuresare employedto preventforestdamageand include1) fencingof particularlyvulnerableforestsucces-sion stages,and 2) protection of certain trees through theuse of chemicalor mechanicalrepellents(e.g. Ueckermann1960, 1981, Reimoser1986). Reddeer inflictthe mostdam-age to treesin Europe(Ueckermann1987).

• 2•1

•• 6 • •

5 • •

• 4 • •

3

•

2

1

0

Figure2Above:Agecompositionof an ideal-isedred deerpopulationof 100 indi-vidualsApril 1 in West Germany.Dottedsquares:plannedculling.Pro-videdno natural summermortalitythiswil lead to a stablestate. (AfterUeckermann 1984). Below: Thesametype-ofdata fora roedeerpop-ulation.(AfterUeckermann1982).

o

••• •

• •• • • • • • •

••

• • •• • • • •

•9 •8 • ,7 •6543210

•

• • •• • • • • • •

20

ninautredning018

The West German territory systemis a prototype for deermanagement in Austria, some cantons in Switzerlandandmost of the countriesof easternEurope(e.g. Wagenknecht1965, Nagy & Bencze 1973), where red deer populationsand the quality of trophies are reported to have improved(Bencze1976, Jelinek1986). However,in many areas,e.g. inEastGermanythe huntersexperiencegreat difficultiesin fol-lowingthe'recommendedplan(Briedermannet al. 1986). Ex-perimentshave been conducted in the Alpsto protect deerfrom disturbanceby touristsand to reduceforestdamage, byfencing deer in prime habitat during the winter (GossowStadlmann1985). Diseasecontrol is one aspectof the "terri-tory" systemwhere in some areas medicine is mixed withfood at feeding stationsto combat lung and other parasites(e.g. Spenik1985).

Many countrieshave recentlystartedto realizethat red deerand other cervidsare not countable,althoughtheir huntinglawsand regulationsassumethat they are (Gill 1988). Count-ing deer isespeciallydifficultin forestterrain (Gossow1976).Thereforepopulationnumbersareoften underestimated,andunderexploited(Gill 1986). Somepopulationsmay alsobe in-tentionally underestimatedor overestimated.The sex of theanimalshotisnot alwayscorrectlyreported.

There are alsoseveralfundamental argumentsagainstusingthis system.Bubenik(1970, 1986) statedthat the harvestingprogram does not account for population socialstructure.The systemmay also reduce genetic variation (Lang 1986).Bobeket al. (1990) claim that the influenceon trophyqualityobtained through genetic changes induced by selectiveshooting of stags is lesspronouncedthan effectson antlersizefrom varyingpopulationdensityand habitatquality.

Some opponents contend that the program gives greaterprecedenceto the detailed desiresof hunters,than to more_generallong-term goals (e.g. Wotschikowskiet al. 1986). Italso discriminatesbetween the common and the wealthyhunter (Bubenik 1989). There is an increasingpolarizationbetween hunting interestsand those of environrnentalpro-tection(Wolfe & Berg1988).

(b) Other species.-In centraland easternEuropethe "territo-ry"systemusedfor hunting roe deer is basicallythe sameasfor red deer (K8nig 1982, 1983, Ueckermann1982). Thenumberof animalsharvestedin prime areasmay be equal tothe springpopulationof adult females,while only 70-90% ofthe same figure is taken in poorer habitat. Harvestingplansinvolvea pre-determinedsexand age distribution(seeFigure2). At least110 000 roe deer are killed by automobiletrafficin West Germanyand 60 000 by agriculturalmachinery(DJV1,987). In contrastto the red deer, the roe deer populationisregulatedby socialmechanisms(Strandgaard1972), leadingto an influx of animalsfrom areaswith lesshunting pressure

into over-huntedareas.Populationdensityand habitatquali-ty may affectreproductionratesof roedeer (Loudon1987).

Fallowand sikadeer (Sika nippon) are managedin principallythe sameway as red and roe deer (seee.g. Ninov 1990, Ru-mohr-Rundhof 1990). Higher percentagesof these exoticbopulationsare, however,often raisedin captivityor undersemi-naturalconditions.

Wild boarsin CentralEuropeare alsomanaged accordingtothe territorysystem(Ueckermann1977, Briedermann1986).A numbercorrespondingto 100-200% of the springpopula-tion isculled,and the averageis 140-150%. Economiccarry-ing capacityis 0.5 -1.5 wild boarsper km2. Estimatingpopu-lationsizeisdifficult,and in somecasescullingis plannedonthe basisof the extent of crop damage, which isoften exten-sive (Ueckerman1981, Briedermann1986). In Turkey,wildboars may be hunted year round (Anonymus 1987, Serez1990).

Management principlesfor chamois (Rupicapra rUpicapra),mouflon (Ovis aries) and ibex (Capra ibex) are similartothose for other ungulates (Wotschikovsky1977, Schröder1985). However,thesespeciesoften occupy isolatedand re-mote habitat, and local management traditionsplay an im-portant role. One of the goalsof management is to preservethe characteristicsof different sub-species.As an example,there are eight sub-speciesof chamoisin Europe.However,mostre-introductionshaveonly involvedanimalswhichorigi-nated from the alpine sub-species(rupicapra), even withinthe distributionalrange of other sub-species(Lovari 1984).Muflon is alsooften kept under semi-wildconditions,e.g. inthe Netherlands(Litjenset al. 1989).

4.4 Big game in the Fennoscandia

The following.wild deer speciesare found in Fennoscandia:moose, red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, reindeerand white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (only in Finland).Harvestplanningoften tendsto keepstocksbelow the ecologicalcar-ryingcapacityof a givenarea.Significantfactorsin determin-ing the "economicalcarryingcapacity"of an areaaredamag-es causedby deer to agricultureand forestry,and accidentson roadsand railwaysinvolvingdeer (e.g. Stensaas1989).

Management of big game in Fennoscandiamay be saidtobelong to a "territory"system (Bubenik 1989), but manypracticalmeasuresare different from those used in CentralEurope.Althoughthere aregeographicand specificvariationswithin Fennoscandiain practicalmeasuresusedwhen hunt-ing quotas are set, the general procedureis as follows:Thenumberof hunting licensesissuedfor deer and often alsothequota compositionof the yield isdecidedby regionalauthori-

21


ninautredning018

ties.The number of licensesissuedis determined by the sizeof the population and the area. Landownersset the actualboundariesof hunting terrains,providedthey controlan areawhich is at least equal to the size required for one license.They may sell their licensesif they wish to do so. One prob-lem arisinghere is that the price in some casesisvery high,up to 300 US dollar for one roe deer in Norway (Hagen1989).

The following examples are described:(a) management ofthe mooseand (b) modificationsapplyingto other species.

(a) Moose.- The purposeof moosemanagementisto restrictthe numberof moosein order to reducedamage to forestry,cropsand traffic to an acceptablelevel, and to manipulatepopulation structure and size to obtain optimal huntingyields(Myrberget 1979, Rificker& Ståffelt1986, Haagenrudet al. 1988). The interestof trophy huntersassumesa low pri-ority. Hunting quotas are determined by county administra-torswho cooperatewith localrepresentatives.Fixedlimitsformoosedensityin Finlandvary between0.5 and 4 animalsperkm2 (Nygren 1984), but suchlimitsdo not exist in Swedenand Norway.

Only registered"moosehunting areas"are open for licensedhunting. One exception is the right to shoot an unlicensednumber of moosecalvesduring a short open seasonin un-registeredareasof Sweden.Hunting areaswithin a particularmunicipalityare in most casesdefined as belonging to thesame "moosemanagementdistrict".However,this definitiononly inadequatelyconsidersecologicalrealities.

In Sweden, county administrationis divided into 23 areas,and playsa significantrole in the distributionof quotas. Pro-vincial moose boards propose harvesting plans for eachmoosedistrict.The systemissimilarin Finland.

cerningthe number, age and sexof animalsobservedduringthe hunt, the "Moose seen" scheme (e.g. Pedersenet al.1988). Most of thiswork hasbeenvoluntary.

Until recently,the mooseyield in all threecountriesincreasedasa resultof controlledharvestingand habitat improvement(Figure 3). Hunting is the greatestcauseof mortalityamongNordic moose, and it is therefore possibleto calculatethepopulationstructurewhich is conduciveto optirnalcalf pro-duction (e.g. Stålfelt 1966). Harvestingis mainly aimed atcalves,yearlingsand bulls,whereasreproductivefemalesaresavedto a varyingextent.Thistactic resultsin highercalfpro-duction relativeto the total winter population.One problemwith thesecalculationsis that they assumea fixed numberofmooseafter hunting.Thismeansthat no considerationistak-en to the fact that different populationcategoriesdo not eatequalamountsof winter food.

150000

100000

50000

25000

SwedenFinland

Norway

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985

In Norway, quota permitsare issuedby the CountyGovernoraccordingto a "minimum area" for each animal permittedshot. The size of quotas is largely based on experiencesinearlieryears,yield statistics,and simulationmodelsinvolvingthe size of the yield in previousyears and the number ofmooseobservedduringthe previoushunting season(e.g. Jar-en 1988, Pedersenet al. 1988). Quotasare assignedto eachlandowner by a municipalgame board, in accordancewithminimum areas.

Management in Finlandincludessystematicinvestigationofavailablepasture land and forest damage. In Finland,com-pensation is paid for damage to forestry and agriculture,whereasin Norway and Swedenonly damage to agriculturemay be compensatedfor. In Sweden, many populationsarecounted from a helicopteror an airplane. Moose huntersinall three countriesare providedwith a questionnaire,con-

Figure3Harvestof moosein Fennoscandia1945-86. (Mainlyafter Haa-genrudet al. 1988).

The winter populationof moose has alsoincreasedin manyareas. In some Scandinaviandistrictsthe moose populationhasreachedan abundancewhich exceedscarryingcapacity,which has led to unacceptablyhigh levelsof damage in re-cent years.Reducedreproductionhasbeen reportedin somepopulations. Deliberate action has been taken to reducesome of these populations,but considerabledoubt remainsasto how thissituationshouldbe treated (e.g. Jaren1988).

(b) Other species.-Practicalmeasuresusedto setquotasarelargelythe same as for moose. However, non-licensedhunt-

22

ninautredning018

ing of roe and fallow deer is alsopermitted during an openseasonin Sweden(Nordell & Weinberg 1983). In fact, in lateryearsmost roe deer are felled by this system.In Finland,roedeer hunting isallowedonly on the ÅlandIslands.

Roedeer populationsare in this northernarea mainlylimitedby climaticfactorsand snow conditions(e.g. Hjeljord1980),and wild reindeerdo little damage. Therefore,ecologicalcar-rying capacity is the primary limiting factor for populationlevelsof thesespeciesin a given area(Stensaas1989).

Wild reindeerare only hunted in southernNorway. Manage-ment unitsare comprisedof about 25 more or lessnaturallyseparatedmountain ranges,each usuallymade up of severalmunicipalities (Krafft 1981). Reindeer management relieseven more heavily upon information about the relationshipbetween population production and density, and availablewinter food resources(see Figure 4, Skogland1986), thanother Europeanbig game managementschemes.The popu-lationiscounted and populationstructureand habitatqualityare monitoredat 1-5 year intervals.

In several reindeer areas there are continual difficultiesinmaintainingsuitablewinter populations.One reasonis thatherdsmaywander longdistancesin responseto weathercon-ditions,and it isthen difficultto organizeeffectivehunting inan entire area. Sometimesit is necessaryto deliberatelyre-

cl)16

14

-c 30 12

10

320 8

c 10 4

1 2 3 4

Populationdensity (n/km2)

Figure4Estimatedannual productivity curvesfor Norwegian reindeer interms of numerical abundance (dotted curve) and biomass (fullcurve).Thearrows indicate the densitiesat which maximum sus-tainable yield is obtained. (After Skogland1986).

duce reindeernumbersthrough intensivehunting,sothat thesizesof populatlonsandyieldsfluctuatefrom yearto year.

Roedeer and red deer are difficultto count, and huntingsta-tisticsfor roe deer in Norway yield figureswhich are far toolow (Myrberget 1988). Reddeer and reindeeronly give birthto one calf, and the effectof age-specificselectiveharvestingis not asgreat asfor the moose.It is, however, alsofor thesespeciesimportant to ascertainthat hunting leads to fewmotherlesscalves:

In Scandinaviasnow depths may increasemortality amongroe deer during particularlyhard winters(Hjeljord 1980), andsupplementaryfeeding is reccommendedunder suchcondi-tions. Roe deer feeding programsare common in Sweden,but little isknownabouttheir effectiveness(Sandberg1985).

The development of a small huntable population of wildboarshasonly been permitted in the Stockholmarea, whileboarsin all other partsof Swedenare treated as "pests".Thesame is the case in Finland. It has not been possible,how-ever, to count and controlthe Swedishpopulationaccordingto plans.

4.5 Large mammalian predators

There is no common systemfor the management of brownbear, wolf, wolverine(Gulo gulo) and lynx (Lynx lynx) in Eu-rope. However,the objectiveof management in many coun-tries is similar,namely to maintain "viable"populations(seeSoulé1987) responsiblefor acceptablelevelsof damage.Themost seriousdamage is to livestockand semi-domesticrein-deer, but locallykillingof big game and damage on honeybee hives are taken into consideration(e.g. Sørenseninpress).

Thesespecieswere formerlyheavilypersecuted,and bountieswere common. Today, most populationsare small, and arelargelyprotectedagainsthunting. However,for somespeciesand areas, licensehunting is permitted, e.g. in Sweden. Inother areasan open seasonschemecontrolshunting, e.g. onlynxin Norway.

Norway is one of severalcountrieswhich have worked out anational plan for management of large predatory species(Vaag 1987). Registrationsare a major part of this plan(Sørensenet al. 1984). The term "viable"refersto any popu-lationwhere the probabilityof declineover a 20 year periodis lessthan 15% (see population modelling by Stenseth&Steen 1987). For thesespecies,which occur in low densitiesand uselarge home ranges,cooperationbetween neighbour-ing countriesis imperativeto ensuretheir conservation(e.g.Mysterud& Falck1989).

23


ninautredning018

To illustrate management of populationstreated as game,the managementof bearsin Yugoslaviamay serveas an ex-ample (followingCicnjak& Ruff1990): In one of the repub-lics(Macedonia) the hunting is not regulatedand bearsmaybe hunted year-around.In the other five republicsbearsarecarefullymanagedand hunted. Management methodsusual-ly includeregulatedbaiting/feedingsites.Systernaticobserva-tions of bear visitsat feeding stationsare used to estimatepopulation size. In Slovenia,management includes habitatprotectionfor areasknown to be importantfor denning, andorchardsare planted to provideadditionalfoods.The lengthof the hunting seasonvariesbetween republics,but usuallybegins in early Septemberor October and ends in mid- orlate May.

Fearof the wolf isa commonfeatureof manyhuman cultures(e.g. Naess & Mysterud 1987). Although there are a fewknowncaseswhere escapedcaptivewolves,or wolvesinfect-ed with rabieshave attackedand killedhumans(e.g. Pimlott1975), there are no documentedcasesof attackson humansby healthywolvesin recent times. On the other hand, moreexamplesexistof humansbeing killedby brown bears(e.g.Cicnjak& Ruff1990).

In the past the polar bear was heavilyhunted on Svalbard(Larsen1972). The speciesis now protectedthrough the In-ternationalPolarBearAgreementof 1973 (seeStirling1986).One man hasbeen killedby polarbearson Svalbardin recentyears,and a few bearshavebeenshotin selfprotection.

Many of the managementprinciplesusedon large terrestrialpredatorsalsoapplyto seals(e.g. Bonner1975). A frequentlydiscussedissue is the transmissionof nematode parasitesfrom sealsto fish(e.g. Helgadottiret al. 1985). Suchparasitesmay be of economicimportancein commercialfisheries,andhence lead to sealculling programs,e.g. in Norway (Bjørge1987, Wiig 1988a).

5 Game population distri-bution, status and har-vest

Becauseof variationsin naturalconditionsand differencesinhunting regulations,the numberof game speciesin Europeishigh. In Sweden,approximately 150 speciesare consideredgame (SOU 1983). At least100 bird speciesare legallyhunt-ed in one or anotherwestern Europeancountry (e.g. Bertel-sen & Simonsen1986). Fewer speciesare hunted in GreatBritain,the Nordiccountriesand easternEurope.Asan exam-ple, in addition to ducks,29 bird speciesmay be hunted inHungary, but some speciesmay also be shot by specialli-cense.

• A relativelynew surveyof the statusof all Europeanbird spe-cieshasbeenworkedout & Sharrock1985). I am notaware of any correspondingsurveyon mammals,but hand-books such as those by Brink (1968) and Niethammer &Krapp(1982) givegeneraldata on distribution.-Onlythe stat-us and yield of the most important game speciesare de-scribedin thispaper.

5.1 Waterfowl

The mallard is the most important game speciesamongducks(seeTable 3). However, probablyabout one halfof allmallardsshot have been raisedin captivity.Other duck spe-ciesshot in any numbersare teal (Anas crecca), garganey(A.querquedula) and wigeon (A. penelope). Most of the geesehunted are the greylag (Anser anser), pink footed goose (A.brachyrhynchos) (mostly in Great Britain) and the white-fronted goose (A. albifrons). The populationstatisticsmust,however, be usedwith great caution, becausemany uncer-tain data and errorsmay be included. Someof the data arecertainlyalsoout-dated.

The majorityof swan,geeseand duckspecieshaveincreasedin numbersin recentyears(Mehlum & Ogilvie1984, Nilsson& Fog1984, Kalchreuter1987). However,there aresomeex-ceptionsto this rule, e.g. light-bellied brent geese (Brantabernicla hrota) (Madsen 1987). Introductions of Canadageese (B. canadensis) have resulted in large populationswhich are hu'ritedin Scandinaviaand Great Britain(Owen etal. 1984, Heggberget1987).

In addition, more than one million coots (Fulica atra), lap-wings (Vanellus vanellus), woodcocks (Scolopax rusticola)and common snipes(Gallinago gallinago) are killed.Signifi-cant numbersof jack snipe (Lymnocryptes minimus), moor-hen (Gallinula chloropus) and curlews (Numenius arquata)

24

ninautredning018

Table 3. Breeding and winter population size and shooting yield of geese and ducks in Eu-rope, U.S.S.R.included (after Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). No hunting statistics from Ire-land, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece.

Breeding

Winter

Yeld

Beangoose(Anserfabalis) -

200 000

5 8001)Pink-footedgoose(Anser brachyrhynchos)

150 000

6 500White-frontedgoose(Anser albifrons)

?

430 000

18 000Greylaggoose(Anser anser)

185 000

20 0001)Canadagoose2)(Branta canadensis)

6 000

7 000

1 500Brentgoose(Branta bernicla)

?

200 000

3 500Wigeon (Anas penelope)

? 1 350 000

425 000Gadwell(Anas strepera)

145 000

87 000

38 0001)Teal (Anas crecca)

850 000 1 400 000 1 900 000Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 4 000 000 9 000 000 6 000 000Pintail(Anas acuta)

135 000

375 000

235 000Garganey(Anas querquedula)

45 000

500 000

555 000Shoveler(Anas clypeta)

75 000

340 000

190 000Red-crestedpochard(Netta rufina)

1 500

50 000

8 0001)Pochard(Aythyaferina)

45 000 1 000 000

280 000Tufted duck (Aythyafuligula)

310 000 1 350 000

265 000Scaup(Aythya marila)

260 000

150 000

50 000Eider(Somateria mollissima)

500 000 2 000 000

220 000Long-tailedduck(Clangula hyemalis) 2 000 000 1 000 000

110 000Common scoter(Melanitta nigra)

12 500 1 500 000

30 000Velvetscoter(Melanitta fusca)

55 000

200 000

4 0001)Goldeneye(Bucephala clangula)

300 000

300 000

100 000Red-breastedmerganser(Mergus serrator)

45 000

75 000

5 0001)Goosander(Mergus merganser)

60 000

120 000

3 0001)

Only for EECcountries.

Out-dated data

are alsoshot (Hepburn 1984, Sheddon 1986). Statisticsonhunting of smallerwaders do not distinguishbetween spe-cies. Severalmillion gulls (Larus spp.) are shot. Auks andother diving seabirdsare or were populargame in northernareas.

Accordingto Nowak (1974), the numbersof waterfowl killedper unit area in France,Great Britain,Denmark and the Aa-land islands(Finland)are particularlyhigh. However,huntingstatisticsare lackingfor some countries(see heading Table3). and some statisticsmay underestimatethe numbersshot(e.g. Göransson& Larsson1987).

5.2 Other small game species

The brown hare and the rabbit are the most abundant of allmammals hunted, and 10 million of each speciesare prob-ably killed annually, although few statisticsare available.Rabbit populationsthroughout Europedeclined rapidly afterthe deliberate introduction of myxomatosis in France in1952 (Moore 1987). In some partsof Great Britain,the pop-ulationwas reducedby 99% (Lever 1985). Numbers of rab-bits have increasedsomewhat since. In northern Europe,Scotland and the Alps, the brown hare is replaced by theblue hare. Earlierthe red squirrelwas commonly hunted.The alpine marmot (Marmota marmota) is locallyhunted inthe Alps.

25


ninautredning018

The beaverwas almostcompletelyexterminatedin Europeinthe'lastcentury. Protectionmeasuresand introductionshaveled to improvements.Today there are at least50,000 individ-uals in Scandinavia,where the speciesis shot and trapped(e.g. Myrberget1987). The Canadianbeaver(Castor canaden-sis) hasbeenintroducedto Finland(Lahti& Helminen1974).

Anotherintroducedspeciesisthe greysquirrel(Sciurus carol-inensis) on the BritishIsles(Lever1985). Escapingfrom cap-tivity, populationsof coypiu(Myocastor coypus) havebeen es-tablishedin Great Britain (now erradicated),central Europeand Italy (Lever 1985). Muscrats(Ondatra zibethicus) havealso escapedfrom fur farms since 1905, and are today re-garded as pests in large areas of Europe (Popelin 1969,Troostwijk1976, Danell 1977).

The woodpigeon (Columba palumbus) is among the mostof-ten killed small game speciesin Europe,and more than 12millionare shot in Great Britainalone(Bertelsen& Simonsen1986), and 6 millionin France(L'OfficeNationalde la Chasse1986). At least 20 million pheasantsare killed (possibly10millionin Great Britainand 6.5 millionin France).Statisticsin-dicate that more than one million individualsof each of thefollowingspeciesare killedannually:grey partridge(2 millionin Francealone), red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa) (morethan 1.1 million in France), and willow ptarmigan and redgrouse(Lagopus lagopus) on the BritishIslesand in Fennos-candia. In addition, millionsof thrushes(Turdus spp.) includ-ing 15-25 million in France,crows(Corvidae)and small pas-serinesare killed.In Francemore than half a millioncommonquails(Corturnix corturnix) areshot.

Grouseincludingthe capercaillie,blackgrouse(Tetrao tetrix),hazelgrouse(Tetrastes bonasia) and rockptarmigan(Lagopusmutus) are popular game in Fennoscandia.The rock ptarmi-gan isthe only-wild-livinggrousespecieson Icelandand Sval-bard. Populationsof woodland grousein centralEuropehavesharplydeclined (e.g. Haarstick1985); the same is the casefor blackgrouseon the BritishIsles(McKelvie1987).

5.3 Big game

The surveyof the abundanceof big game, givenin Table 4 issomewhat inadequate. Numbers have increased in somecountriesafter the estimateswere made. The estimatesarenot equallyaccurate,and the figuresare not alwayscompara-ble. In the majorityof casesstatisticsreferto the springpopu-lation,but someautumn populationsmay be included.

The mostabundantspeciesisthe roedeer of which there aremore than 6 million.Two millionare killedannually,mostofthem (700,000) in West Germany(DJV1987). At many loca-tions in southernmostEurope,populationsare still low as a

resultof previousover-exploitation(Strandgaard1979). Roedeer do not occur in Ireland and Iceland. To establishroedeer in more areasin Finland,some animalshave been re-leasedfrom captivityin recentyears(Vikberg1988).

There are more than one million red deer, and 300,000 areannually killed (in Great Britain 50,000 annually, most ofthem in Scotland).Some deer specieshave been introducedto Europe(see Lever 1985), and there are 200,000 fallowdeer, 40,000 white-tailed deer (see Pulliainen Sz Sulkava1986) and 20,000 sikadeer. A smallsemi-wildpopulationofaxisdeer (Cervus axis) is found in Yugoslavia,while Chinesewater deer (Hydropbtes inennis) and muntjac (Muntiacusmuntjac) occur in Great Britain. Sika deer and red deer hy-bridsarefound in many areason the BritishIsles(Harrington1982, Ratcliffe1987).

The moose is the most important big game speciesin Fen-noscandia,where the population approaches500,000. Har-vestingvariesconsiderably,and in recentyears150-225,000havebeenkilled(seeFigure 3). Norway, Svalbardincluded,isthe only country supportinglarger populationsof wild rein-deer (Reimerset al. 1980, Krafft 1981), but some smallerpopulationsare alsofound on Iceland(Thorrisson1980), andin Finland(Sulkava1980, Heikuraet al. 1985) where they areprotectedagainsthunting. Yieldsvary considerablyon main-land Norway, 7-15,000 annually.

Followingre-introductions,chamoisare now found in mostcentral and southern Europeancountries.The total popula-tion is about 350,000, and 75,000 are harvested,most ofthem (25,000) in Austria. Previously,mouflon were onlyfound on Corsicaand Sardinia(Spagnesi& Appolonio1985).Today there are more than 70,000 individuals spreadthroughoutseveralcountries(Briedermannet al. 1989). Har-vestinghasincreased,and 10,000 mouflon are annuallyshot.In the Alps,ibex originatefrom a smallpopulationwhich sur-rived there about 100 years ago. At the presenttime thereare morethan 25,000 animals(Schröder1985).

Wild livingforestwisents(Europeanbison) were exterminat-ed in the 1920's. Re-introductionsof individualssurvivingincaptivity(Glover1947, Krysiak1967), have resultedin a pop-ulation of about two thousand animals in areas along theborderbetween Polandand the SovietUnion, of which near-ly half livewithin Poland.

The wild boar is found in most countrieson the continent.Numbersarevery low in Finlandand Denmark.A smallpopu-lation hasbeen establishedin Swedenafter escapesfrom ca-pivity(Kristiansson1985). The wild boar is not found in Nor-way, on Iceland,or on the BritishIsles.The springpopulationapproaches500,000 individualsand 400,000 animalsare an-nuallykilled(Bäumleret al. 1986).

26

ninautredning018

Table 4. Popuicitionsize of big game species(1984) in different countries (data mainly after Gill 1986). ?: no information, popula-tion probably small. ??:large population.

Reddeer

Roedeer

Fallowdeer

Sikadeer

White-taileddeer Moose

Rein-deer Chamois lbex Mufflon Boar

Austria 95200 460000 370 750

112200 1900 5060 5200Belgium 4000 21500 150

500 9000

Bulgaria 18500 142400 2800

1600

2000 32000Czechoslovakia 48900 289300 12700 2010 430 20 1780

7700 39700Denmark 5500 150000 10000 1000

Finland

5000 300

35000 91800 600 -

France 35000 318000 600 50

53500 ? 4900 7000GDR 45000 350000 30000

7000 65000

GFR 85000 1700000 30000 1500

10000

7000 40000Great Britain 270000 ?? 50000? 4000

Greece 300

200

Hungary 47500 219600 9760 300?

-7100 31300Iceland

- 3500

Ireland

10000? 5000?

Italy 8900 103000 6150

62560 3500 ? ??Liechtenstein 400 600

700

Luxembourg 500? 13000?

••

1150 1180Netherlands 1000 25000 500

300

Norway 55000 50000 40

- 85000 40000

PolandPortugal

73000400

482000 4000200

150 - 4600 -_

? .55900

Romania 45000 287000 10000

20 ??

? 40000Spain 100000?

?? ?? ? 28150Sweden 2000 40000 4500

- 311000

Switzerland 22200 110800

70

67100 11600

640Yugoslavia 25900 310400 2941

250 - 24000 360 5300 56140

Total 990000 5500000 190000 17000 36000 500000 44000 334000 17500 48000_ 475000

5.4 Carnivorous mammals

Populationsof larger carnivoresare heavily reduced in Eu-rope. The largest brown bear population of a maximum8,000 animalslivesin the Carpathian-Balkanarea (Sørensenin press).Some1,500 bearslive in Fennoscandia,while isolat-ed populationsarefound in Italy, Franceand Spain.

A wolf populationwhich may compriseasmany as4000 indi-viduals,inhabitsthe Carpathian-Balkanregion (Mech 1982),and isolatedwolf populationsare found in Italy, Spain,Portu-gal and Norway/Sweden.Wolvesoccupyterritoryon the bor-ders between Soviet Union and Poland (900) and Finland(lessthan 100), respectively.

The entire population of lynx is unlikelyto be greater than1,500 individuals,most of which are found in Fennoscandia,

along the borders to the Soviet Union and in Yugoslavia.SoMe attempts have been made to re-introducethe lynx toCentral Europe(Festeticset al. 1982). Small numbersof par-del lynx (Lynx pardina) occurin Spainand Portugal(e.g. De-libes1984). Some hundredwolverineslive in Fennoscandia.The largestotter populationsare found in northern Norwayand on the BritishIsles(Reutherand Festetics1980). The po-larbearonly occurson Svalbard.

The common seal (Phoca vitulina) and the grey seal (Halich-oerus grypus) are the most common sealspecies.In 1988 agreat proportionof common sealswas killed by a virus(e.g.Anonymus1989a). Arcticsealsarecommon on Svalbard,andthey are observedin other northernareasduring migrations.A residualpopulationof ringed seal (Phoca hispida) alsooc-cursin the BalticSea(JärvinenST.Varrio1986).

27


nina utredning 018

The red fox is the most commonly hunted carnivore,and isfound in mostof Europeexcept Svalbard,Icelandand Crete.No combined statisticsare available,but the total numberkilledcertainlyexceedsone million.Numbersin Fennoscandiaand Denmarkhavedrasticallydeclinedin recentyearsbecauseof sarcopticmange(Lindström& Mörner 1985, Eis1989). Thearcticfox occurson Svalbard,Iceland,and in Fennoscandia.The speciesis regardedasthreatenedin Fennoscandia,whilebeingcovetedgame on Svalbard.The arcticfox ishunted onIcelandto curbactualor imagineddamagesto livestock.

Other small and medium-sized Europeancarnivoreswhichare harvestedare primarilythe pine marten (Martes martes),beech martin (Martes foina), polecat (Putoris putoris), stoatand badger (Meles meles). The raccoon(Procyon lotor) wasintroducedin West Germanyaround 1930-40. Largepopula-tions are found there today, and the specieshas spread toFranceand the Netherlands(Lever1985). The Americanmink(Mustela vison), which escaped from mink farms is nowfound in mostof Europe.The poputationis probablygreatestin Scandinavia,the BritishIsles,and Iceland(e.g. Lever1985,Bevanger& Ålbu 1987). Populationsof raccoondog-(Nycte-reutes procynoides) originatingfrom introductionsin the So-viet Union, havespreadto mostof Europe.The speciesispar-ticularly abundant in Finland where 60,000 animals areannuallykilled(Helle 6.1Kauhala1987).

5.5 Economic value of hunting

In every country, venison and shot small game are legallysaleable,but different regulationsmay restrictthe sale,e.g. intime (e.g. RSPB1989). A game meat draft directivehasbeenproposedwithin the EEC-countries,but this has been metwith strong criticism,e.g. from UK (BASC1989). In Turkey,only meat of wild boarsmay be sold(Anonymus1987).

Regulationsconcerningthe saleof meat and skinsof wildlifealso apply to animalsfound dead, e.g. killed in traffic acci-dents. In Sweden, the possessorof a hunting right owns allwildlife found killed as long as he properlydisposesof thecarcass.However,somespeciesaredesignatedasthe proper-ty of "thecrown"(Nordell 6.1Weinberg 1983). 1nNorway, alldead game which is not killed through legal hunting, is inprinciplethe property of the wildlife authorities.Hence, au-thorizationof comrnercialwildlifetaxidermistsisalsodone bywildlifeauthorities.

The first-handvalue of game killed in Europeoutside USSRaround1970, was calculatedto be about 100 millionUSdol-lars(Nlisslein1974). About 1985 the value had increasedto700 million US dollars(Myrberget 1990). When the value ofhunting is estimatedon the basisof annualhunting expens-es,the figure may be about 3,500 milliondollars.

The potential estirnatedvalue of hunting of approximately300 U.S.dollarsper hectaréforestfor landownersin England,is higher than the income from forestry. In EECcountries,hunting directly or indirectly creates 100,000 jobs (CE1987a), and thesefiguresmay be doubled when accountingfor allof Europe(Myrberget 1990).

Hunting isthereloreof great socio-economicsignificance.1nmanywayshuntingisalsoan important sourceof incomeforrural districts(CE 1987a). In eastern Europe, hunting yieldsmust partlybe soldto the government, and are exportedtOthe international market. Hunting tourism is common inmany of thesecountries(Bubenik1989). In suchcaseshunt-ing alsoprocureswesterncurrency.

28

nina utredning018

6 Challenges and specialproblems

In common with the restof the world, naturalhabitatsin Eu-rope are exposedto global threatsincludingpollution,reduc-tion of the ozone layer, the greenhouseeffect and humanoverpopulation(e.g. Myers 1985, Brown1990). Most of theland area of Europe has been altered by human activities,through agriculture,forestry,industry,housingdevelopmentand transport (e.g. Goudie 1981). Here, we will examinesomeof the greatestthreatsto game in Europe,but alsodis-cussa few lesssignificantproblems.

6.1 Pollution

Severalchemicalagentsand bondsare conveyedinto the en-vironment to an extent which hasdirect or indirect negativeconsequencesfor game populations (e.g. Murton 1971).Some of these are metals, pesticidek PCB,ozone, and sul-phur and nitrogenoxides.

Acid rain representsthe most seriousimmediate threat. Asearlyasaround 1960, it was clear that sulfateionsin precipi-tation killed invertebratesand fish in severalwatercourses.InNorway thousandsof lakesare now devoid of fish. Althoughsulfateemissionshavebeen reducedin recentyears,water re-mains acid becauseof increasingdischargesof nitrate ions(Fjeldstad1987). Accessto nourishmentis reducedfor gamespecieslivingon fishand invertebratesin many watercourses,but the total effect is poorlyunderstood.On the other hand,increasedemissionof nitrogen may improve habitat qualityfor browsingspecieslike roe deer (Ellenberg1985) in someareas.

Although the causesare very complicated,acid rain and ex-haustfrom autômobilesappear to contribute greatly to theincreasingextent of forest damage (Hutchinson & Meema1985, Schneider1986, Innes 1987). Damage is most severein Czechoslovakiaand southernPoland.Extensiveand wide-spread forest dieback has been observed in seNieralothercountriesin central Europe,and to a lesserdegree in Scandi-navia(CE 1987b, Krauseet al. 1987). Acidrainaffectsdecidu-oustreesaswell asconiferousforest.Browsingby deer makesplantingof acid-resistanttree speciesdifficult(Szukiel1987).

Different types of pollution are carried by riversto the sea.The Baltic is renowned as the most polluted sea in Europe(e.g Lassig1987, Rapport1989). Wa-terfrom the Balticemp-ties into Skagerrakand the North Sea, and along with pollu-tion agentsfrom countriessurroundingthe North Seahasal-tered the ecologicalbalanceof the sea(e.g. Carlson1986). In

1988, natural poisonousalgaes(Chrysochromulina polylepis)killedmost life in the littoralzone of Skagerrak;the causeforthe algaefloweringis not fully known(Dahl et al. 1989). An-other threatenedseais the Mediterranean(e.g. Pastor1988),and severaldifferentorganizationsin the United Nationsrati-fied an Action Planagainstpollutionin 1975 (e.g. CE 1987c,Saliba1988). To reducemarine pollutionin Europeanwatersmany agreementsand conventionshave been signed, mostrecentlyat the SecondNorth SeaConferencein 1987, and inthe Haaguein 1990.

In the 1960's, attention was drawn to heavymetals,suchasthe useof alkylmercurycompoundsfor seeddressing(Borget al. 1969). Thisproblemwas solvedby changingmethods.Many wetland birdsdie as the resultof poisoningfrom leadin shot (e.g. Danell 1980, Bløtekjær1988). Only Denmarkhasuntil 1989 introducedlimitationson the useof lead shotfor hunting or marksmanshiptraining (Anonymus 19864.Deerare locallypoisonedby fluoridedischargesfrom industry(Borg1978, Kierdorf& Kierdorf1990). Metalslikealuminiumare releasedinto the ecosystembecauseof increasingacidity(Nyholm 1981). Long-term population effectsdue to non-lethal levelsof metal pollution are, however, poorly under-stood(e.g. Pedersen& Nybø 1989).

Most environmentalpoisonsaffectgame populationsin theform of reduced reproduction (Moore 1987). Reductioninthe thicknessof egg shellsof many birdsof preyisone exam-ple (e.g. Cooke et al. 1982). PCBpollutionof the Balticandthe North Seais responsiblefor uteralfusionand reducedre-productionin seals(Helle & Stenman 1987). PCBmay alsobe the causeof populationdeclinesin Europeanotter popula-tions(Olsson& Sandegren1989).

Pollutionmay render game meat unsuitablefor human con-sumption. It is a well known fact that large amountsof cad-mium are absorbedin the liver and kidneysof some gamespecies(e.g. Eisler1985, Frøslieet al. 1986). After the acci-dent at Chernobylin 1986, concentrationsof radioactivityingame in Scandinaviawere high (e.g. Danellet al. 1987). Par-ticularlyhigh concentrationsof up to 100,000 becquerellpr.kg wet weight, were demonstratedin wild reindeerin Nor-way (e.g. Skogland1987, pers comm.). One may not ruleout the possibilitythat theseconcentrationsare so high thatthey damage genetic materialin reindeer(Skogland& Espeli-en 1990).

Oil spillagefrom shipsor land basedindustryhaskilledthou-sandsof seabirds,includingabout 100,000 birdsin Skagerrakdurihg the winter of 1980/81 (Anker-Nilssenet al. 1981).Chemical treatment of oil-spill at sea may negativelyaffectthe marine ecosystems(Zachariassen1989), but the effectson sea bird populationsare poorly known. In countrieslikeNorway, environmentalimpact analysesare mandatory pre-

29


nina taredning018

requisitesto exploratory oil drilling at sea (Griffiths et al.1987, Anker-Nilssen1988).

Internationalcooperation is vital in fighting pollution, andseveralagreementsconcerninga variety of substancesfrommany regionshave been ratified. For example governmentshave agreed upon halving the pollution of the North Seafrom 1985 to 1995. Statisticson dischargesof toxicwasteareregularlycollected (e.g. ECE 1987, OECD 1987). Prognosisconcerning developments in pollution levels are beingworkedout (e.g. Alfsen& Glomsrød1986).

National monitoring programs similar to those imposed inSweden (Bernes1985) are imperative.Although game maybe used as indicatorsof environmentalpollution (e.g. Dia-mond & Filion1987, Stokesand Piekarz1987), no major Eu-ropean program on this kind of study has been initiated. Apotential project is now being evaluated by the StatisticalCommissionof the ECE(United Nations EconomicCommis-sion for 'Europe). In many countries,pollutersare forced topayfor cleaningu-p.

6.2 Human use of land and resour-ces

Much of the natural environment in Europeis today eithercreatedor heavilyinfluencedby human activity(e.g. Gossow1985, Strandgaard1985). Some previouslyproductivegamehabitats have become wildlife desertsbecauseof urbaniza-tion, industry, power development and road building, tomentiononly a few.

In West Germany, one million hectaresof wildlife habitatwere lostbetween 1953 and 1983, and today there are only370 regionswith a 100 km2 areawhich have not been frag-mented by development and road building. These figurescorrespondto about 15% of the entire area of West Germa-ny. Through these areasthere are numerousfoot pathsandski,tracks. Recreationalactivity in forested regions has in-creasedby 500% between 1950 and 1980, in someareasby1000%, e.g. seeVolk (1986) and CE(1987b).

Changes in methods employed by agricultureand forestryhave had enormousconsequencesfor wildlife.About 50% ofthe entire area of Europeis exploitedfor agriculturalpurpos-es. Modern agricultureis characterizedby monoculture.Thesizeof fieldshasincreased.Chemicalsare usedto killweeds,fungi and insects. Bushy vegetation around fields and inhedgesare removedand open ditchesand damsarefilled in.Fertilizerdrains into watercourseswhich become eutrophic.Theseagriculturalpracticesaffectseveralgame species(Mur-ton 1971, O'Connor & Shrubb 1986, Andersson1988), in-

cluding brown hare,grey partridgeand pheasant(e.g. Fryle-stam et al. 1981, Potts 1986). Habitat lossand detoriationmay interact with increasedpredation in driving the gamepopulationsdownwards(Potts1984). Severalwildlife speciesare killedby agriculturalmachinery,and this is probablythemain reason for the declines in populations of corncrake(Crex crex) (Cadbury& O'Meara 1985).

To reduce the threat to traditional farming systems,andhenceto manywildlifespecies,the EECin 1985 (EECRegula-tion 797/85) introduced the concept of "EnvironmentallySensitiveAreas"(ESA).This enables member Statesto payfarmers in "ESA"an annual premium per ha if they manageland in prescribedways to sustainwildlife. From 1987 "ESA"could be supportedalsoby EECbudgets. However, it isdiffi-cult to securemanagementto safeguardwildlife populationsin "ESA"(Woods1989).

Central European moorland is particularlyvulnerable, andonly vestigealpopulationsof black grouse remain in theseareas(Niewold & Nijland 1988). In Great Britainsheepgraz-ing has led to lossof rfioorland,and henceof lossof habitatsuitableto many wildlife species,suchas red grouse(Ander-son & Yalden1981).

Modern forestrytechniqueseliminateimportant environmen-tal nichesprovided by primary forest, and increasehabitatcoarse-patchfragmentation (BurgessEzSharpe 1981, Harris1984, Ahlen et al. 1986, Ellenberg1987). Herbicidesremovelow bushyvegetationwhich previouslyprovided nutrient re-sourcesfor game species(e.g. Lund-HøyeEtzGrønvold1988).The capercailliehassufferedmostfrom modern forestryfrag-mentation and lossof suitablehabitat, i.e. old forestswith anabundantground layerof bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) (e.g.RolstadEzWegge 1987, in press,Klauset al. 1989, Gossowinpress).On the other hand, browsing for moose and othercervidshasincreasedconsiderably(e.g. Ahlen 1975, Adamic1986b).

Tourismand outdoor recreationalsportshave increased,re-sulting in greater disturbance of wildlife habitat (e.g.G6tmark 1989). Examplesare camping which affectsshore-line habitat for birds, and skiing in Central-Europe (Volk1986). The pressurefrom tourismis particularlyheavyin thecoastalzone of the Mediterranean(Saliba1988).

Fisherieshave reducedthe availablefood'for severalseabirdspecies(Croxall et ai. 1984). Over-exploitation of herring(Clupeus harengus) is responsiblefor the decimationof puffin(Fratercula arctica) populationsalong parts of the Norwe-gian coast,where young puffin$have starvedto death since1970 (Barrettet al. 1987). In 1987, the collapseof the cape-lin population(Mallotus villosus) in the BarentsSeahasled toneartotal exterminationof severalcoloniesof guillemot(Uria

30

nina utredning018

aalge) on the Norwegiancoast(Vaderet al. 1990). Drowningin fishingnetsisa significantcauseof death for many seabirdspecies,but accuratedata is lacking. Harp seal (Pagophilusgroenlandicus) populationshavealsobeen affectedby lackoffood, as demonstrated by the massinvasionof sealsalongthe coastof northern Norway during the winter of 1986/87.At least60,000 sealsdrowned in fishingnets(Wiig 1988b).

Many birdsare killedby power lines(e.g. Bevanger1988, Be-vanger & Thingstad 1988). Big game and small game maybe killed in large numbersby traffic (e.g. Ueckermann1964,Almkvistet aL 1980). Orienteeringcompetitionsmay affectwildlife, particularly pregnant deer and calves (Sennstam1974, Jeppesen1987). Game farming may transportdiseasesand competewith wild livinggame speciesfor habitat. In UKthere are at least10,000 red deer in farms, or parks,in WestGermany (FRG) 25,000 fallow deer (Hansen 1988). Hydro-electricdevelopmenthasoften a negativeimpact on the hab-itats of many wildlife species(e.g. Bevanger & Thingstad1986).

Officialgame management planning may reduce the effectsof permanent encroachmenton game habitat. In Norway,maps indicating particularlyvulnerable wildlife areas havebeen worked out for the entire country. In 1985 a masterplan was ratified for the useof Norwegian water resourcesand productionof electricpower.

6.3 Wildlife damage

Wildlife may alsocauseproblems.Darnagesto forestry,agri-cultureand animalhusbandryhavealreadybeen mentioned.

A "pest"is commonly defined as "any speciesor populationwhich by its activitiesconflictswith man'sintereststo a levelwhere the damage caused becomes of economic signifi-cance"(Putnam 1989). However,the matter of when this lev-el of significanceis reachedis largelyevaluatedon a subjec-tive basis(e.g. Troostwijk1976). The activitycausingconflictmay be part of the normal behaviouralrepertoireof the spe-cies,or resultfrom abnormalor unusualbehaviour,e.g. "gar-bage bears".

The most serious damage to forestry and agriculture iscausedby big game species,suchas red deer, roe deer andwild boar (e.g. König 1976, Ueckermann 1981). Not onlymammalianpredatorscan kill livestockand reindeer,but alsogolden eagles(Aquila chrysanos) may kill calvesand lambs(e.g. Karlsen1978).

Big game animalsmay causetraffic accidents,which some-

timeseven lead to human mortality. In West Germany,trafficaccidentscausedby wildlife have resultedin damagescalcu-

lated at 100 million dollarsannually (DJV 1987). Big garriecollisionswith trains result in delaysand inconvenienceforrailwaypersonnel.

A largenumberof wildlifespeciesmay causeconsiderablelo-cal damage, suchas is the casewith damagesto aquacultureby eiders,grey herons(Ardea cinerea), otters and seals(e.g.FAO 1989). Oystercatchers(Haematopus ostralegus) mayharm Britishmusseland cocklefishing(Murton 1971). Bea-vers may by dam-building over-flow forest planting areas.Birdsmay be hazardousfor aircraft (e.g. Busnel& Giban1968). Locallyeven honey buzzards(Pernis apivorus) may bepersecutedfor harmingbee hives(Dontshev1990).

One frequentlyemployed measureusedto reducedamage isreduction of population size for the species in questionthrough increasedordinary hunting or special pest killingschemes(Putnam 1989). These measuresmay be effectiveprovidedthat they increasetotal mortalityrates(e.g. Murtonet al. 1974, Potts1981). However,control measuresmustbespecificif they are not to damage more vulnerablespecies(Wright 1980).

A problem arisingmay be that the speciesdoing damage isnot alwaysclassifiedas game with an open hunting season.This means that they can only be killed after considerabledamage hasalreadybeen observed,or in somecasesonly byspeciallyauthorized personell(e.g. RSPB1989). Threatenedspeciesdoing damage may only be killedon speciallicenseis-sued by local or central wildlife authorities.In certain suchcases,the killing may be done regardlessof landownerorhunting rights. For example, in Norway, individual brownbearsand wolverineswhich are supposedto be responsiblefor considerabledamage to livestockmay be killedby special-ly appointed teams of hunterswithin the bordersof a givenmunicipality.

Wildlife may transmit diseasesto domestic animalsor hu-mans.Someexamplesare salmonella,tularemi, anthrax,andhoof and mouth disease(Borg 1978). The most dangerousdiseaseis rabieswhich is very widespreadin CentralEurope.It is absentfrom the BritishIsles,Iceland, Portugal,Greeceand Scandinavia(but occurson Svalbard).In West Germany,1000-5000 casesof rabiesare annuallyobservedamong redfox, and 150-500 in roe deer (DJV1987). In 1987, 5 millionsamplescontainingvaccineswere laid out throughout 1/3 ofthe entire area of West Germany, to irnmunizeanimalssuc-ceptibleto infection.Similartacticsare alsousedin Belgium,France,Italy and Austria(CE 1988), and in Finland(Wester-ling 1989). To stop the northerly spread of rabiesin Den-mark, comprehensiveexterminationsof red fox and badgerwere carried out in southern Denmark (e.g. Strandgaard&Asferg1980).

31


ninautredning018

7 Fauna protection

Earlierin this report, many examplesof protectionof certainspeciesagainsthunting have been mentioned.In somecasesalsohabitatconservationmeasureswere used,aswas alreadythe casewith the last living aurochsin Polandaround 1600(Szafer1968).

However,more modernconservationmeasuresbecamemorepopulararound 1900, and than to a large extent inspiredbyNorthAmericanpolicies.Nationalassociationsfor naturecon-servationwere founded in Great Britainin 1895, in Francein1902, in Germany and in the Netherlandsin 1905 (Madsen1979).

Most conservationwork during the firstyearswas, however,relatedto sitesof particularbeauty. But protectionof charac-teristicecosystemsand vulnerablespecieswere alsooften tak-en into consideration.A famous contribution is a book byHornaday(1913) on our vanishingwildlife.

There are many legal methodsfor protectingwildlifespeciesand their habitats(e.g. Ranerås1985) includingthe follow-ing:1) protect habitat as reservesand national parks,2) protectparticularspeciesagainsthunting, 3) minimizethe detrimen-tal effectsof human use of habitat and resources,4) ascer-tain that the total benefits of certain human activitiesaregreater than the costs,and 5) control that the levelof out-put of certain chemicalsare lessthan given limits.Measures(1) and (2) are most commonly used. However, protectedareascoveronly smallpartsof anycountry,e.g. about 4% inFennoscandiancountries(Norderhaug & Norderhaug1986).Thereforethe management of unprotected areasis also ofgreat importance.Other species-orientedmeasuresthan pro-tection may be of significance(see Temple 1977). Here,measuresdirected at conservationof particularspecieswillbe emphasized.

International protection of threatened specieshas in lateryearsbeen the responsibilityof IUCN's SurvivalServiceCom-mission(SSC)which was founded in 1950 and becamea fullcommisionin 1956 (Fitter & Fitter 1987). A milestonewasthe publicationof the two first Red Data books,on threat-ened mammals and birds, in 1966. A Red Data book is de-fined as a registerof threatenedwildlife that includesdefini-tionsof the degreeof the threat (Fitter& Fitter1987).

Lateron, most Europeancountrieshave made their own na-tional Red Data books. Main measuresin fauna protectionnow involve habitat protection, including wildlife reservesand nationalparks.

However, measuresundertakento help certain speciesmaybe harmful to other species.Hence, certain measureswhichintend to increaseexploitedgame populations,may be detri-mentalto other wildlifespecies,or to the generalproductivityof the habitat.

7.1 Threatened species

Smit & Wijngaarden(1976, 1981) list36 speciesof mammalsasthreatenedin Europe.Fordefinitionsof differentcategoriesof threat, seeFitter& Fitter(1987). Excludingthe SovietUn-ion, the followingmammalianspeciesare regardedasendan-gered: Europeanmink (Lutreola lutreola), otter, monk seal(Monachus monachus) (in the Mediterranean) and mouflon(the purebred populationon Corsica). In addition to somespeciesof whale, the following are characterizedas vulnera-ble: wolf, wolverine,lynx, pardel lynx, walrus(Odobemus ros-martis) (on Svalbard),common seal, ringed seal, grey seal,SpanW-libex(Capra pyrenaica) and red deer (sub-specieskur-sicanus on Sardinia).The following are categorized as rarespecies:brown bear, polarbear,genet (Genetta genetta), wild-cat (Felis catus) and muskox (after introductionsin Scandi-naviaand Svalbard,seeMyrberget1987).

Within the partsof Europedescribedin this paper, only onebird speciesisclassifiedasendangeredin the IUCN BirdRedData book (seeParslow& Everet1981, ICPB& IWRP1987),i.e. the Spanishimperialeagle (Aquila adalberta). Three spe-ciesare internationallyregardedasvulnerable:the Dalmatianpelican (Pelicanus crispus), the white-tailed eagle (Haliaëtusalbicilla) and the peregrine(Falco peregrinus). Audouin'sgull(Larus audouinii) and roseatetern (Sterna dougallii) are rare.Severalspecieshave been registeredas candidatesfor theRed Data book. Among thern are the lesserwhite-frontedgoose(Anser erythropus), four speciesof birdsof prey,the lit-tle and great bustard(Otis tetrax and 0. tarda) and the corn-crake. The list also includesthe probably most threatenedbird speciesin Europe,the slender-billedcurlew (Numenius te-nuirostris) which breedsin Siberiaand is hunted during mi-grationsoverthe Mediterranean.

Most countriescompile national listsof threatened species.In Francethe listcontains59 threatened speciesof mammaland 36 birds. Seven mammals and 61 birds are listed inNorway (Christensen& Eldöy 1988). In Finland, 17 mam-mals and 38 birdsare listed,although many of these in thecategory of unsufficientlyknown (Miljöministeriet 1986).Figuresfrom differentcountriesare unfortunatelynot direct-ly comparable, because different criteria are used (e.g.järvinen & Miettinen 1988). The ECEhas now starteda pro-ject for coordinating national listsof threatened speciesinEurope.

32

nina utredning018

The mostsignificantthreatsto wildlifespeciestoday are alter-ation of habitat, biocidesand measuresfor predator control.Ordinary hunting alone hardly representa seriousthreat toany Europeanspeciesof wildlife. Illegal collectionsof eggsand young of rare bird speciesis a problem in many areas(e.g. Cramp 1977).

Globally speaking, Europehas a low number of threatenedspecies(Diamond et al. 1987). One explanationfor this isthat civilizationin Europeis ancient, and many specieswereprobablyalreadyexterminatedin the past. In addition, thereare few isolatedoceanicislands,and no rainforestswhich onother continentssupportmany threatenedspecies(e.g. Soul1987).

The international conventionspreviouslyitentioned are ofmajor importancefor conservationwork (Grimmett & Jones1989), while the World Heritage Convention of 1972, andCITESor the WashingtonConventionof 1973 on Internation-al Trade in EndangeredSpeciesof Wild Animals (see Lyster1985) has hardly resultedin significantadvantagesfor Euro-peanwildlife,althoughthey areof great importanceon othercontinents,e.g. in Third Worldcountries.

7.2 IntroductIons

Successfulintroductionsof exotic speciesmay conspicuouslyalter a country'sfauna (e.g. Ebenhard1988, Whelan 1990).Re-introductionsmay build up populationswhere a specieshas previouslydied out. Introductionsmay be deliberate,orresultfrom animalsescapingfrom captivity.The IUCN (1987)has passeda resolutionconcerningacceptablepremisesforintroductions.Regulationsand lawsin many countriessevere-ly restrictintroductions.The Councilof Europehasfound itnecessaryto passa specialrecommendationon introductionof cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) and other non-nativeLeoporidae(CE 1985b).

Severalexamplesof successfulintroductionsof exoticspecieshavealreadybeen mentioned. Introductionswere particularlycommon in Great Britain(Linn 1979), and include 3 speciesof pheasant, red-legged partridge, bobwhite quail (Colinusvirginianus), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), mandarinduck (Aix galericulata), Egyptiangoose (Alopochus aegyptia-cus) and the red-neckedwallaby (Macropus rufogrisens) (Lev-er 1985, 1987). Speciesintroducedin other countriesare theCaliforniaquail (Lophonyx californicus) and the mongoose(Herpestes ichneumon).

European game specieslike the mute swan (Cygnus olor)have also been transferredto other Europeancountries.An-other example is the introductionof brown haresto Ireland,Swedenand Finland(Niethammer-1963). However,many in-

troductionshavebeen unsuccessful,suchasthat of wild boarto Ireland(Lever1985), and of penguinsto northernNorway(Niethammer 1963).

Severalsuccessfulre-introductionshave already been men-tioned, including the beaver in Scandinavia.Birdsof preysuchas the white-tailed eagle in Scotland(Love 1988), thegoshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Great Britain (Marquiss &Newkin 1982) and the griffonvulture(Gyps fulvus) in France,håve also been successfullyre-introduced.Even the raven(Corvus corax) has been re-introduced to Belgium (Lever1987). Re-introductionof ibex to Czechoslovakiaby usingtwo exotic subspecieswas, however, unsuccessful(Read &Harvey1986).

Re-stockingis sometimesessentialfor maintaining popula-tions,as is the casewith the pheasantin the northerlyareasof its distribution.Introductionsmay alsobe usedto streng-then threatenedpopulationslikethe peregrineand the eagle

• owl (Bubo bubo) in Scandinavia(Myrberget 1987). In CentralEurope,introductionsare usedin attemptsto savethreatenedpopulationsof woodland grouse (Aschenbrenner1985). Re-introductionshave been necessaryto conservethe famouspopulation of barbary apes (Macaca sylvanus) at Gibralter(Niethammer 1963).

In the past, most exotic specieswhich were introducedacci-dentally,had escapedfrom fur farms.More recently,interestfor farming deer specieshasincreased.Evenin a smallcoun-try like Denmark, there are more than 400 deer farmswithmore than 2000 animals,mainlyfallow deer (Hansen1988).In many countriesestablishmentof suchfarmsisstrictlycon-trolled to protect wild living populations (see also IUCN1988, Hudsonet al. 1989).

7.3 Game management versusconservation

Today hunting isgenerallyacceptedasa part of conservationprovidedit exploitsrenewableresources.Biggame huntingisregarded as necessaryin the absenceof effectivepredators.As previouslymentioned, huntersare often engagedin prac-ticalwildlife management, much of which hasdirect positiveconsequencesfor generalcbnservation efforts.

On the other hand, one must admit that game managementoften only considersshort-term benefitsdesignedto increasea huntingyield. Exoticgame specieswere introducedregard-lessof environmentalconsequences.The numberof gunshasbeen increasingrapidly in later years.Hunting may increasepressureon speciesalreadythreatenedby pesticidesor habi-tat destruction.On the other hand, nationalparks,naturere-servesand speciesprotectionmay reduceexploitationof cer-

33


ninautredning018

tain viable populations.Thereforethere is alwaysa degreeofconflictof interestsbetween game managementand wildlifeconservation.

In Europethere is an increasingoppositionto hunting. Atti-tudesagainsthunting are relatedto scientificaswell asemo-tional arguments.Oppositionappearsto be particularlycon-spicuous in Italy, among both landowners andconservationists(Spina 1987). This may be due to prevailinglackof respectfor hunting laws,high densitiesof hunters,nolandowners'hunting rights, little active game management,large numbersof smallbirds in the hunting yields,and lack-ing hunting statistics.Two-thirds of the population of Italyareopposedto hunting,and 3/4 of the youngergeneration.

Antipathy concerning hunting is also increasingin parts ofScandinavia,but hunting isfar more accepted.In 1980, 18%of the populationof Sweden had a positiveattitude towardhunting, while 54% accepted hunting practices(Ekström1981). Only 10% were directlyopposed.Aversionto huntingwasgreatestin cities,where it was regardedasan obstacletothe pursuitof other outdoor recreationalactivities.Womenfrequentlycited ethicalreasonsfor opposinghunting.

The Committee of Ministersof the Council of Europepro-poseda hunter'scode of conduct (CE 1985) as a meansforreducingoppositionto hunting.Thiscontainedguidelinesforhunter behaviour,and responsibilityfor natural heritage af-fecting humanity in general. The Council of Europe (CE1987a) has more recently found it necessaryto emphasizethe value of hunting and its role in preservationof wildlifehabitat

8 Wildlife research

Wildlife managementshouldbe basedon resultsof research.In many countries,centralinstitutionsare responsiblefor ap-plied research,while in othersresponsibilityrestswith univer-sities.One seriousproblem is that resultsof researchoftennever reachthoseengaged in practicalwildlife management(Pettersson1987). Wildlife management is in many casesbasedon preconceivedideasabout usefulmeasures.

On the other handwildlife researchis not alwaysdesignedtosolvepracticalproblems.A scientistisgenerallyevaluatedac-cordingto purelyscientificcriteria,and respectfor appliedre-searchshouldbe increased.

Large-scaleresearchschemeson centralgame speciesstartedalready around 1900, such as researchon deer in Germany(see Raesfeldt1898) and on red grouse in Scotland (Com-mittee of Inquiry on Grouse Disease 1911). Around theWorld War II, the influencefrom North American scientificpublicationswas marked, e.g. the work done by Errington(1946). In the 1950's important researchprojectswere madeor startedup in many Europeancountries,suchasstudiesonroe deer in Denmark(Andersen1953) and on tetraonid birdsin Fennoscandiaand Great Britain (Hagen 1952, Siivonen1957, Jenkinset al. 1963). Studieson general ecology andethology (e.g. Tinbergen 1951, Lack 1954) inspiredappliedresearch.

There is no formalizedgeneral cooperationbetween wildliferesearchbodiesin the differentEuropeancountries.The mainpurposeof the IUGB(The InternationalUnion of Game Biolo-gists)is to arrangebiennialinternationalgame researchcon-gresses,which mostoften are held in Europe.Formalizedre-gional researchcooperation schemes such as the NordicCouncilfor WildlifeResearchdo exist.The IWRBhasits head-quartersat Slimbridge,Englandand coordinatesregistrationand monitoring schemeson waterfowl and wetlands. Otherinternational organizationslike the ICBP involve scientistsfrom many Europeancountriesin their work. Many of thecongressesand symposiaarrangedwithin Europesuchasthegrouse symposiaarranged by the World PheasantAssocia-tion, are of great significance.International ornithologicaland theriologicalcongressesare alsoof great value for Euro-peanscientists.

In the rapidlychangingworld of today, wildlife managementrequires more than ever information obtained through re-search.Due to more sophisticatedresearchmethodsbeing inuse, many more questionsmay be asked now than before.Computersand softwareenabletestingof complex modelsofpopulationtheory by handlinglargedata sets.

34

nina utredning018

Experience, including that gained through research onmooseand wild reindeerin Norway, hasshown that wildlifeinvestigationsare particularlyeffectivewhen done in coope-rationwith practicalwildlifemanagement.However,more re-cently there isa tendencytoward financialsupportfor moni-toring and for short term research projects. Progressinwildlife ecology must primarilybe made through long termprogramscombining theoretical,experimentaland practicalresearch.

9 Concluding remarks

The managementschemesfor wildlife vary from countrytocountry.This is alsothe casefor managementof game spe-ciesand their habitats,and for game harvestingsystems.Themosteffectiveand productivesystemsare found in countrieswhere the landownerscontrol hunting rights,or where offi-cialsor hunting clubsstrongly regulatethe harvest(seealsoBubenik1989). Overexploitationof game stocksis often thecasein other partsof Europe.

This short review indicatesthat cooperationbetween differ-ent countriesin wildlife management shouldbe improved.Ido not thereby imply that all countriesshould have similarhuntingseasonsetc., but common managementaimsof ani-mal populationswhich crossnational boundariesare essen-tial.

Wildlifemanagementschemesseemto be built more on tra-dition than politicalsystems;e.g. the revier systemusedinEastand West Germany have many aspectsin common. Onthe other hand, the revolutionin Portugalin 1974 hasobvi-ouslycontributedto deteriorationin controlsof hunting ac-tivities.

Many of the mesauresused in wildlife managementshouldbe scientificallyevaluated. However, constructivecriticismislargelybeyondthe scopeof this report.

In recent years, global and national challengesconcerningthe future of wildlife populationshasfortunatelyled to grow-ing awarenessof the need for good basic knowledge, in-creased international cooperation and generally acceptedshort-and long-termconservationstrategies.Huntersare in-creasinglyconsciousof the fact that game populationscan-not be managedfor the sakeof hunting alone. Thesetrendscombined give hope for the future. However, many of thetasksareformidable,needinggreat effortsto be solvedon lo-cal, nationaland internationallevels.

35


ninautredning018

10 Summary

Thisreportpresentsa briefreviewof somepracticesand prin-ciplesof Europeanwildlife management.The SovietUnion isnot discussed.Emphasisis placedon managementof huntedspecies(game), but conservationmeasuresinvolvingotherfauna are alsomentioned. The review includesall speciesofbirdsand mammalswith the exceptionof insectivores,bats,smallrodentsandwhales.

Applied methodsfor game management and hunting in Eu-rope are clearly influenced by practicescommon in otherpartsof the world. Game managementin Europetoday, hashistoricalrootsin.classicalGreekand Romancivilization.

The time between 800 and 1800 A.D. may be characterizedas a periodwhere the exclusivehunting rightsof the aristo-cracyexpanded,and littlewasdone to protectgame species.Around 1800, the aristocracywas deprived of hunting privi-ledges,and hunting pressurewas regulatedby game authori-ties.At the sametime, activemethodsfor conservingand in-creasing the production of game specieswere graduallyintroduced.

Game management is practicedat many different levelsby:central and local authorities,landowners,huntersand otherpersonsinterestedin nature. To a varying extent, huntingrights are associatedwith landownershiprights. Excludingthe SovietUnion,there are about 8 millionhuntersin Europe,or approximately1.6 huntersper km2. Membershipin hunt-ers associationsis either voluntary or obligatory. 1n mostcountries,an obligatoryhunter'sexaminationhasbeenintro-duced. The examination involvestheoretical knowledge aswell asthe practicaluseof firearms.

Evaluationof which game speciesis most important variesthroughout Europe.Economicallyspeaking,differentspeciesof big game (larger herbivorousmammals) are of greatbstsignificance.The initialvalueof game felled in Europeisesti-matedat 700 millionU.S.dollars.

In certain countries (Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland),each landowner may independentlycontrol the number ofindividualsof each big game speciesto be killedon theirowngrounds.In other countries,quotasare establishedby author-itiesor huntersorganizations.1n most countries,hunting li-censesare issuedwithin defined hunting territories,whichmay be establishedby the government or voluntaryagree-mentswith landowners.

In contrastwith common practicein North America,there isno systemin Europe to control the hunting pressureandyield of migratory birds along flyways.The managementof

migratorybirdsin Europeishighlydependenton internation-al agreements,in particularthe Berne conventionof 1979,the EECBirdDirectiveof 1979 and the RamsarConventionof1971.

Game management practicesused for non-migratorysmallgame speciesare largelyleft up to landowners.In somecoun-tries in central and eastern Europe, certain managementmeasuresare obligatory. Among practicesoften employedare predator control, introduction of game, and feeding.Measuresfor conservingor increasingthe productioncapaci-ty of naturalhabitator diminishingthe negativeeffectsof hu-man activities,are increasinglyimportant.

The most productivehuntablepopulationsare usuallyfoundin countrieswhere hunting rightsare exercisedby landown-ers,or where authoritiesor hunterorganizationsstrictlyregu-late hunting yields. In countrieswhere hunting priviledgesare open for everyone, many game speciesare obviouslyover-exploited. In such countries,opposition to hunting isconsiderableand increasing.

Human activitiesincreasinglylead to problemsfor the pro-ductionof manygame species,and threaten the existenceofsome. These activitiesinclude agriculture,forestry, tourismand industry. Pollution, such as acid precipitation and ex-haust from •automobiles,have negative consequencesforgame populationsand their natural habitats. 1nsome casesconflictsarise between game management intended to in-.creasehuntingyieldsand the interestsof conservation.

Wildlife management increasinglyemphasizesthe impor-tanceof research.However,at the presenttime there isno in-ternationalorganizationto coordinatewildlife researchin lu-rope. Much modern game managementis a continuationofageold traditionsand biasedattitudes.

Althoughthe threat to many game speciesand their naturalhabitatsincreases,the desireto solveproblemshasalso be-corne stronger. Solutionsare dependent upon considerablelocaland nationaleffortand internationalcooperation.

36

ninautredning018

11 Sammendrag

Utredningengir en kort oversiktover prinsipperog praksisieuropeiskviltstell. Sovjet-Unionener untatt. Hovedvektenerlagt på forvaltningenav jaktbarearter, men det er inkludertnoen tiltak for å bevareden høyerefauna. Oversiktenomfat-ter alle arter av fugler og alle pattedyr unntatt insektetere,flaggermus,smågnagereog hvaler.

De metoder som benyttesi og de prinsippielleholdningertilviltstellog jaktutøvelsei Europaer sterkt påvirketfra andreverdensdeler.Den nåværendepraksishar røtter langt tilbake,bl.a. til det klassiskeHellasog Romerriket.

Tidenfra 800 til 1800 e.Kr.kankarakteriseressomen periodemed framvekstav stormenneneseksklusivejaktretter,og medliten sansfor aktivtvern om viltartene.Omkring 1800 mistetadelendisserettigheter,og dette førte til at jakttrykketmåttereguleressentralt i mange land. Samtidigble mer aktiveme-toder til å bevareog økeviltproduksjoneni økendegrad tatt ibruk.

Viltstelletdrivespå mange plan:av sentraleog lokalemyndig-heter, grunneiere,jegere og andre naturinteresserte.I varie-rende grad er jaktretten knyttet til grunneier-retten.UtenomSovjet-Unionener det omkring 8 millioner jegere i Europa,dvs. 1,6 jegere pr. km2 landareal.Medlemskapi jegerforenin-ger er i varierendegrad frivillig eller obligatorisk.I de flesteland er det nå innført en obligatoriskjeger-eksamen,sombådeomfatter teoretiskefag og skyteferdighet.

Hvilkeav de jaktbareartersom regnessomde viktigste,varie-rergjennom Europa.Økonomiskviktigster ulikearterav stor-vilt, dvs,størreplanteetendepattedyr.Førstehåndsverdienavdet felte vilt er estimerttil 700 millionerUSdollar.

I noen få land (Danmark, Storbritanniaog Irland) kangrunn-eierenefritt bestemme hvor mange av de ulikestorviltartenede vil felle på egen grunn. I andre land er jaktuttaketav stor-vilt i størreeller mindre grad regulertav myndigheteneellerav jeger-organisasjoner.I de fleste land er fellingslisenseneknyttet til definerte jaktområder,som kan være fastlagt avmyndigheteneellerfrivilligav grunneierene.

I motsetningtil hva somer tilfellei Nord-Amerika,finnesdet iEuropaikke noe systemhvor jaktuttaketav trekkendefuglerfastleggeslangstrekkruter(flyways).I forvaltningenav disseartene betyr internasjonaleavtaler mye. Dette gjelder særligBern-konvensjonenav 1979, EEC'sfugledirektivav 1979 ogRamsar-konvensjonenav 1971.

• For stasjonærtsmåvilt er det i stor grad opp til grunneierenellerden som inneharjaktretten, hvilkeviltstell-tiltaksom blir

satt i verk. 1 en del land i Sentral-Europaog Øst-Europaerdog enkeltetiltakobligatoriske.Blanttiltaksomofte benyttes,er bekjempelseav rovvilt,utsettingerav vilt og utleggingavfôr. Stadigviktigereblir tiltak som tar siktepå å bevareellerøke terrengenesnaturligeproduksjonsevneav vilt, eller på åmotvirkenegativefølgerav menneskeligbrukav arealene.

De mestproduktivejaktbarebestanderfinner man som regeli de land hvor grunneiernedisponererjaktretten, eller hvormyndigheterellerjeger-organsisasjonerstrengtregulererjakt-uttaket.I en del land hvorjaktrettener fri, er åpenbartmangeviltarteroverbeskattet.I disselandene er gjerne motstandenmot jaktstorog økende.

Mennesketsulikevirksomheterfører til stadigøkendeproble-mer for produksjonenav mange viltarter og kan også truenoen arterseksistens.Blantslikeaktiviteterer jordbruk,skog-bruk, ferdsel og industri. Herunder kommer effektene påviltet og dets miljø av forurensninger,som sur nedbør ogeksosfra biler. I en del tilfelleoppstår konfliktermellomvilt-stellmed siktepå å økejaktutbyttetog genereltnaturvern.

I økendegrad blirdet i viltstelletlagt vekt på forskningensre-sultater.Noen overnasjonalstyring eller planleggingav vilt-forskningenfinnesimidlertid ikke i Europa.Mye av viltstelletdrivesennå med basisi tradisjonerog forutintatteoppfatnin-ger.

Selvom truslenemot mangeviltarterog deresmiljø harværtstadigøkende,synesogsåviljentil å løsemangeproblemeråværeøkende.Men dette vil kreveen stor innsats,både lokalt,nasjonaltog internasjonalt.

Denne utredningener bekostetav NINA og Direktoratetfornaturforvaltning.Den er også å betraktesom et forarbeidtilet prosjektved FagligForfatterforeningom viltstellog viltfor-valtning. Enforkortet norskversjoner gitt i en artikkelseriei"Naturen"i 1989-90.

37


ninautredning018

12 References

Aarnio,M. & Vikberg,P. 1980. Jänistenheinå - ja viljaruokin-nasta.- SuomenRiista28: 108-113.

Adamfi,T. 1984. Az approvades a kartekonyvad teritekeEu-ropaban.- Nimrod 104: 524-525.

Adamic, M. 1986a. Wild und Jagd in Jugoslawien.- Allg.Forst.Z. 97: 771-774.

Adamic, M. 1986b. The land use changes in Sloveniaandtheir influenceon rangeand densityof some(game) wild-life species.- pp. 588-600 in Proc.World Congr. IUFRO18 (Ljubljana).

Ahlen, I. 1975. Winter habitatsof mooseand deer in relationto land usein Scandinavia.- Viltrevy9: 45-192.

Ahlen, 1., Boström,U., Elmström,B. & Petterson,B. 1986.Faunavård i skogbruket - allmen del. - Skogstyrelsen,Jönköping.

Alfsen,K.H. & Glomsrød,S. 1986. Futureemissionsto air inNorway: forecastsbased on the macroeconomicmodelMSG-4E.- Statist.J.UN ECE4: 219-236.

Alison,R.M. 1978. The earliestrecordsof waterfowl hunting.- Wildl. Soc.Bull.6: 196-199.

Almkvist,B.,Andre,T., Ekblom,S. & Rempler,S.-A.1980. Vil-tolycksprojektet(VIOL). - Statens vågsverk, Stockholm,1980-05 TU 146, 117 pp. + App.

Andersen,J. 1953. Analysisof a Danishroe deer population.-DanishRev.Game Biol.2: 127-155.

Anderson,P. & Yalden,D.W. 1981. Increasedsheepnumbersand the lossof the heather moorlandin the PeakDistrict,England.- Biol.Conserv.20: 195-213.

Andersson,S., ed. 1988. Fåglar i jordbrukslandskapet.- VårFågelvårld,Suppl.12: 1-382.

Anker-Nilssen,T. 1988. Metoder til konsekvensanalyserolje/sjøfugl.- Viltrapp.44: 1-113.

Anker-Nilssen,T., Jones,P.H. & Røstad,O.W. 1981. Age, sexand originsof auks(Alcidae)killedin the Skagerrakoilingincidentof January1981. - Seabird11: 28-46.

Anonymus1986a. Orienteringtil jægerneom: jaktog brug afblyhagl.- Miljøstyrelsen,Köbenhavn.

Anonymus1986b. Hunting and wildlife in Turkey. - TurkishRepublic,GeneralDirectorateof Forestry.

Anonymus1987. Resolutionof the centralhunting commiteefor the 1987-1988 hunting season.- Republicof Turkey,GeneralDirectorateof Forestry.

Anonymus1989a. Das Seehundsterben1988 - Verlauf undUrsachen.- Seevdgel10,3: 41-42.

Anonymus 1989b. Jågarenslagbok. - JågarnasCentralorg.,Östersundom.

Aschenbrenner,H. 1985. Rauhfusshühner.- Schaper,Hanno-ver.

Auguet, R. 1972. Crueltyand civilzation:the Romangames.-Allen& Unvin Ltd., London.

Bäumler,W., Postner,M. & Ueckermann,E.1986. Wirbeltiere.5. - 1nSchwenke,W., ed. Die ForstschädlingeEuropas.Par-ey, Hamburg-Berlin.

Baillie-GrohmanW.H. & Baillie-Groman,A., eds. 1907. TheMasterof game by Edward,SecondDukeof York:the old-estEnglishbookon hunting.- Chatto& Windus,London.

Barrett,R.T.,Anker-Nilssen,T., Rikardsen,F.,Valde,K., Røv,N.& Vader,W. 1987. The food, growth and fledgingsuccessof Norwegian puffin chicksFratercula arctica in 1980-1983. - OrnisScand.18: 73-83.

BASC1989. 1988 annual report and accounts.- Shooting&Conserv.(Summer):i-xvi.

Batten,LA. 1987. The effectivenessof Europeanagreementsfor wader conservation.- Wader Study Group Bull. 49.Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 118-121.

Bencze,L 1976. 6kologiskheGrundlagender RotwildhegeinUngarn.- Wild & Hund 79,10: 225-229.

Berger,A. & Grönberg,G. 1931. Jaktenhosskildafolk nu ochfordom. - Natur & Kultur,Stockholm.

Bernes.,C., ed. 1985. Monitor 1985. - NationalSwedishEnvi-ronmentalProtectionBoard,Stockholm.

Bertelsen,J. & Simonsen,N.H. 1986. Documentationon birdhuntingandthe conservationstatusof the speciesinvolvedsituationin 1986. - Gameand WildlifeAdministrationDen-mark,Kalø.323 pp.

Bevanger,K. 1988. Skogsfuglog kollisjonermed kraftledning-er i midt-norskskogsterreng.- Økoforsk.Rapp.1988,9: 1-53.

Bevanger,K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1986. Vassdragsreguleringerog ornitologi.- ØkoforskUtredning 1986,4: 1-82.

Bevanger, K. & Thingstad, P.G. 1988. Forholdet fugl -konstruksjonerfor overføringavelektriskenergi.- ØkoforskUtredning1988,1: 1-138.

Bevanger,K.& Ålbu,Ø. 1987. Distributionalhistoryand popu-lationdevelopmentof the feral minkMustela vision Schre-ber, 1977 in Norway.- Medd. norskViltforsk.3,18: 1-22.

Bibikow,6.1.1988. Der Wolf. - Neue Brehm-Bacherei587.Wittenburg Lutherstadt.

Bieber,J.B.& Meylan,A. 1984. RebnetzeundVogelschutz.- Z.Obst-undWeinbau120,93: 516-522.

Bijleveld,M.G. 1974. Birdsof preyin Europe.- Macmillan,Lon-don.

Bjørge,A. 1987. Parasiticnematodesin stomachsof greyseals,Halichoerus grypus, and common seals,Phoca vitulina, inNorwegian waters. - pp. 184-196 in CIC Coastal SealSymp.(Oslo).

Bløtekjær,K.1988. Blyellerstål.- DN-Rapp.1988,1: 1-75.Bobek,B., Kosobucka,M., Krazakiewies,H., Perzanowski,K. &

Wolf, R. 1990. Food,coverand human disturbanceasfac-tors influencingantler weight in red deer. - Trans. IUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim).In press.

Bonner,W.N. 1975. Internationallegislationand the protec-tion of seals.- pp. 12-29 in Proc.Symp.SealsBaltic,1974(Lidingd).

38

nina utredning 018 -

Borg. K. 1978. Viltsykdommer.(Norw. edition by G. Holt). -Landbruksforlaget,Oslo.

Borg,K.,Wanntorp, H., Erne,K. & Hanko,E.1969. Alkylmer-cury poisoningin terrestrialSwedishwildlife. - Viltrevy6:301-379.

Boyd,H. & Pirot,J.-Y.1989. Flywaysand reservenetworksforwater birds.- IWRBSpec.Publ.9.

Brander,M, 1971. Hunting & shooting.- Weidenfeld& Nicol-son,London.

Briedermann,L., ed. 1981. DieJagdin der DeutschenDemok-ratischenRepublik.- Jagdinform.10: 1-75.

Briedermann,L. 1986. Schwarzwild.- Neumann, Neudamm-Melsungen.

Briedermann,L., Dittrich, G. & StUbbe,C. 1986. Entwicklungder Schalenwildbeständein der DDR und Möglichkeitender Bestandsregulierung.- Beit.jagdund Wildforsch.14:16-32.

Briedermann,L., Dobias,K., Liess,C. & Sparing,H. 1989. ZurHerkunft und gegenwärtigen Verbreitung des Muffel-wildes.- Beit.Jagd-undWildforsch.16: 11-19,

Brown,L.R.ed. 1990. Stateof the world. - Norton & Co., NewYork- London.

Brink,F.H. van den 1968. Zoogdierengids.- Elsevier,Amster-- dam.Bubenik,A.B. 1970. KlassischeHege- KlassischerIrrtum?- Die

Pirsch22,3: 90-98.Bubenik,A.B. 1976. Evolutionof wildlifeharvestingsystemsin

Europe.- Compte RenduEnvironm.Canada,Wildl. Serv.,Ottawa, CW 69-3140F: 110-119.

Bubenik,A.B. 1986. Grundlagender soziobiologischenHirsch-wildbewirtschaftung.- pp. 97159 in PrinzReuss,ed. Rot-wild Graz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Bubenik,A.B.1989. Sporthuntingin continentalEurope.- pp.115-133 in Hudson, R.J.,Drew, K.R. & Baskin,L.M. eds.Wildlifeproductionsystems.CambridgeUniv. Press,Cam-bridge- New York- PortCuster- Melbourne- Sydney.

Bugalho,J.F.F.,Cabral,M.J.M. & Guerreiro,A.F.B.1986. Situa-tion of red deer in Portugal.- pp. 195-201 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Burgess,R.L.& Sharpe,P.M. 1981. Forestislanddynamicsinman-dominatedlandscapes.- Springer-Verlag,Berlin.

Busnel,R.-G. & Giban,J. 1968. Colloquele problèmedesoi-seauxsur les aerodromes,Nice 25-27 novembre 1963. -Inst.Nat. Res.Agronom.

Cadbury,C.J.& O'Meara, M. 1985. The declineof the corn-crake(Crex crex) in Europe.- pp. 754-756 -inActa Congr.Int. Om. 18 (Moscow).

Carlson,H. 1986. Quality statusof the North Sea. - Dt. hy-drogr.Z. Erg.B16: 1-424.

CE 1985a. On the training of hunters.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Rec.R(85) 17, 5 pp.

CE1985b. On the introductionof the Americancottontailrab-bit (Sylvilagus sp.) into Europe.- Councilof Europe,Stras-bourg, Rec.R(85) 14, 2 pp.

CE 1986. Illegal hunting and catching of protected birds.-Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,T-PVS(86) 3, 10 pp.

CE 1987a. Reporton the importanceof shootingfor Europe'sruralregions.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc. 5745,9 1)1D.

CE 1987b. Parlamentaryassemblyreport on protectingfo-rests.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg,Doc. 5748, 55 pp.

CE 1987c. Middelhavet og miljøet. - Naturopa Nyhetsbrev87,1: 1-4.

CE 1988. Vest-Tyskland:kampen mot hundegalskap.- Natu-ropaNyhetsbrev88,4: 2-3.

Chalmers,P. 1936. The historyof hunting. - Seeley,Service&Co. Ltd., London.

Christensen,H. & Eldøy,S. 1988. Truedevirveldyri Norge. -DN-Rapp.1988,2: 1-99.

Cicnjak,L. & Ruff,R.L. 1990. Human-bearconflictsin Yugo-slavia.- Trans.OUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim). In press.

Clutton-Brock,J. 1981. Domesticated animals from earlytimes.- Univ.TexasPress,Austin.

Coles,C., ed. 1971. The complete book of game conserva-tion. - Barrie& Jenkins,London.

Committeeof Inquiryon GrouseDisease1911. The grouseinhealth and disease;being the final report. - London.2vols.

Cooke, A.S., Bell,A.A. & Haas, M.B. 1982. Predatorybirds,pesticidesand pollution. - Inst. TerrestrialEcol.,Hunting-don.

Cornwall, I.W. 1968. Prehistoricanimalsand their hunters.-Faberand Faber,London.

Cramp, S. 1977. Birdconservationin Europe.- Nature Con-serv.Counsil,London.

Croxall,P., Evans,P.G.H.& Schreiber,R.W., eds.1984. Statusand conservationof the World's seabirds.- ICBPTech.Publ.2, Cambridge.

Dagg, A.I. S.a.Wildlife management in Europe.- Otter Press,Waterloo,Ontario.

Dahl, E., Lindahl,0., Paasche,E. & Throndsen,J. 1989. TheChrysochromulina polylepsis bloom in Scandinavianwa-tersduringspring1988. - In E.M. Cospered. A novelphy-toplanktonbloom. Springer,Hamburg.

Dakyns,N.C. 1897. The works of Xenophon. (Transl.fromGreek).- MacMillianPubl.Co., London.3 Vols.

Danell, K. 1977. Dispersaland distributionof the muskratinSweden.- Viltrevy10: 1-26.

Danell, K. 1980. Konsekvenserav blyhagelanvändingför vat-tenfåglaroch deras miljö. - SverigesLantbruksuniv.,Inst.Viltekologi,Rapp.4: 1-51.

Danell, K., Nelin, P. Wickman, G. & Bergman,R. 1987. Ce-

cium i älg efterTjernobyl-olyckan.- Viltnytt 24: 36-40.Dannevig, L.C., Elman,R. & Stålbrand,K.M. 1983. Teknolo-

giskForlagsstorebokom jakt. - TeknologiskForlag,Oslo.Delibes,M. 1984. Distributionand ecologyof the lberiancar-

nivores:a short review. - pp. 359-378 in Trans. Congr.IUGB15 (Trujillo).

39

ninautredning018

Diamond,A.W. & Filion,F.L.1987. The valueof birds.- ICBP,Cambridge.

Diamond, A.W., Schreiber,R.L.,Attenborough,D. & Prest,I.1987. Savethe birds.- CambridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge- London- New York.

DJV1987. HandbuchJagd1987. - D. Hoffrnann,Mainz.Dontschev,S. 1990. Massnahmenzum Vogelschutzin Bul-

garien. - Trans.IUGBCongr. 19 (Trondheim). In press.Dreschler,H. 1980. Ober die Beweihbildungbei Rothirschen

im "RotwildringHorz"in der Jahren1959-1978. - Z. Jagd-wiss.26: 207-209.

Ebenhard,T. 1988. Introducedbirdsand mammalsand theirecologicaleffects.- SwedishWildl. Res.13: 1-107.

ECE1987. Environmentstatisticsin Europeand North Ameri-ca. - Statist.Standardsand Studies39.

Eis,S., ed. 1989. Jægernekanvære med til at bremseudbre-delsenaf skabhosdanskeræve.- Vildtinformation89: 1-3.

Eisler,R. 1985. Cadmium hazardsto fish,wildlife, and inver-tebrates:a synopticreview. - US Fish.Wildl, Serv., Biol.Rep.85(1.2): 1-46.

Ekström,S., ed. 1981. Vilt och jakt: socialaoch ekonomiskevården. - Jordbruksdep.,Stockholm,Ds Jo 1981: 5, 159pp.

Ellenberg,H. 1985. Immissions- herb layerproductivity- roedeer population dynamics: an ecological perspective.-pp. 1055-1061 in Trans.Congr. IUGB(Brussels)18.

Ellenberg,H. 1987. Fülle - Schwund - Schutz:Was will derNaturschutzeigentlich?- Heimat 94: 289-300.

Errington,P.L.1946. Predationand vertebratepopulations.-Quart. Rev.Biol.21: 144-177.

FACE1986. Federationof huntersassociafionsof the EEC.-FACE,Brussels.

Falck, M.M. & Mysterud, I. 1988. Viltbruk i skogbruket.-Landbruksforlaget,Oslo.

FAO 1989. Reportof the EIFACworking'partyon preventionand controlof bird predationin aquacultureand fisheriesoperations.- EIFACTech. Pap.51: 1-79.

Festetics,A., Berg,F.C.von & Sommerlatte,M. 1982. The re-introductionof the lynx in the easternAlps - a model ofwildlife protectionand research.- pp. 353-357 in Trans.Congr. IUGB14 (Dublin).

Fitter, R. & Fitter, M. 1987. The road to extinction. - IUCN/UNEP,Gland.

Fjeldstad,H., ed. 1987. Overvåkingsresultater1986. - SFT,Oslo.

Fog, J., ed. 1983. Politikensjagtbok. - PolitikensForlag,København.

Forest& WildlifeService1986a. Wildlife & the law. - Station-ery Office,Dublin.

Forest& Wildlife Service1986b. Reportfor 1986. - Ministerfor Energy,Dublin.

Frank,H. 1984. DasFallenbuch.Ninth ed. - Parey,Hamburg-Berlin.

Frylestam,B., Gerell, R. & Göransson,G. 1981. Fältviltetochmiljön. - Naturvårdsverket,Rapp.1447: 1-35.

Frøslie,A., Haugen,A., Holt, G. & Norheim, G. 1986. Levelsof cadmium in liver and kidneysfrom Norwegian cer-vides.- Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.37: 453-460.

GC 1981. Wildfowl management of inland waters. - GameConserv.Publ.3: 1-108.

GC 1986. Game in winter: feeding & management. - GameConserv.,Fordingbridge.

Gerell, R. 1982. Faunavårdi stadsmiljö.- Naturvårdsverket,Rapp.1622: 1-56.

Gilbert, F.F. & Dodds, D.G. 1987. The philosophyand prac-ticeof wildlifemanagement.- KriegerPubl.Co., Malabar.

Gilbert, J.M. 1979. Hunting and hunting reservesin Mediae-val Scotland.- J.Donald, Edinburgh.

Giles,R.H.1978. Wildlifemanagement.- Freeman& Co., SanFransisco.

Gill, R.M.A. 1986. Der gegenwårtigeStand und die Bewirt-schaftung des europäischenRotwildes. pp. 9-24 inPrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC,Paris.

Gill, R.M.A. 1988. Monitoring the status of EuropeanandNorth Americancervids.- FinalRep.UNEP/GemsProsjectST/4101-84-02 (PP/2551), 195 pp.

Glover, R. 1947. The wisent or Europeanbison. - J. Mamm.28: 233-242.

Gossow,H. 1976. Wildökologie:Begriffe,Methoden, Ergeb-nisse,Konsequenzen.- BLV,München.

Gossow,H. 1985. Wildtier-Schutzund Jagdtier-Hegein derProduktionslandschaftMitteleuropas.- pp. 73-86 in Trans.Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels).

Gossow,H. in press.Human land useactivitiesand grouse:positiveand negativeactivities.- Proc. Int. GrouseSymp.4 (Lam).

Gossow,H. & Stadlmann, G. 1985. Red deer managementand the useof overwinteringenclosures.- pp. 1069-1072in Trans.Congr. IUGB18 (Brussels).

Gottschalk,J.S.1972. The German huntingsystem,WestGer-many, 1968. - J.Wildl. Manage. 36: 110-118.

Goudie,A. 1981. The human impact.- Blackwell,Oxford.Greenway,J.C. Jr. 1967. Extinctand vanishingbirds of the

world. - Dover, New York.Griffiths,D.J., Øritsland, N.A. & Øritsland,T. 1987. Marine

mammalsand petroleumactivitiesin Norwegianwaters.-Fisken& HavetB1987,1: 1-179.

Grimmett, R.F.& Jones,T. 1989. Important bird areasin Eu-rope. - ICBPTech. Publ.9.

Göransson,G. & Larsson,T.-B. 1987. Hunting bags in Swe-den - officialgame statisticsversusan enquiry. - p. 69 inAbstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow).

Göransson,G. & Loman,J. 1978. Bojaktpå kråka- ett experi-ment. - Viltnytt 9: 35-40.

Götmark, F. 1989. Effekterav friluftslivpå fågelfaunan.- Na-turvårdsverketRapp.3682: 1-62.

40

nina utredning018

Haaften, J.L.van 1986. Rotwild und seineHege in den Nie-derlanden.- pp. 202-206 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Haagenrud,H., Morow, K., Nygren, K. & Stålfeldt,F. 1988.Managementof moosein Nordiccountries.- Swed.Wildl.Res.,Suppl.1: 635-642.

Haarstick,K.-H. 1985. The re-introductionof the capercaillie,Tetrao urgallus L., in the Harzfrom 1975-1983, an experi-ment and a contributionfor protectingspeciesof the LowSaxon forestry administration,Western Germany. - pp.385-400 in Proc.WPA Int. GrouseSymp.3 (York).

Hagen, H. 1989. Rå-dyr rådyrjakt?- Jakt& Fiske118,8: 54-55.

Hagen,Y. 1952. Rovfugleneog viltpleien.- Gyidendal,Oslo.Hamilton, H. 1980. Jaktvårdsområdenasutveckling åfter

1938. - pp. 111-118 in Haglund, B. ed. Jågarenoch vild-naden.Sv.Jågareförbundet,Stockholm.

Hansen, H.B. 1988. Dyrehaverog hjortefarmei Danmark. -DanskeViltunders.44: 1-62.

Hansen,P. 1928. Kongevildtog ædelvildt.- Schæffers,Kold-ing.

Harberg, J. 1988. Jakten interesserarmånga ålånningar. -Jågaren37(6): 27-28.

Harradine,J. 1985. Duck shootingin the United Kingdom.-Wildfowl 36: 81-94.

Harrington, R. 1982. The hybridisationof red deer (Cervuselaphus L. 1758) and japanesesikadeer (C. nippon Tem-minck 1838). - pp. 559-571 in Trans. Congr. IUGB 14(Dublin).

Harris, LD. 1984. The fragmented forest. - Univ. ChicagoPress,Chicago- London.

Heberlein,T.A. 1990. Economicvaluesof wildlife: their rele-vance to wildlife managers. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19(Trondheim). in press.

Heggberget;T.M. 1987. Utviklingenav den norskebestan-den av kanadagjessinntil 1984. - Fauna40: 1-9.

Helgadottir,S., Peterson,A. & Bergmann,S. 1985. Seliroghringormar.- Landvern,Reykjavik.

Helle, E. & Kauhala, K. 1987. SupikoiranleviämishistoriejakantojennykytilaSuomessa.- SoumenRiista34: 7-21.

Helle, E. & Stenman,0. 1987. Reproductionand populationsize in the Baltic ringed seal. - Int. Council Explor.Sea,C.M. 1987,4: 1-8.

Helminen, M. 1977. Hunter qualificationand educationpro-grams in Finland.- Trans. NA Wildl. Nat. Res.Conf. 42:100-103.

Heikura,K., Pulliainen,E., Danilov, P.J.,Erkinaro,E., Markov-sky, V.A., Bljudnik,L., Sulkava,S. & Lindgren, E. 1985.Wild forestreindeer,Rangifer tarandus fennicus Lønnb.,itshistoricaland recent occurranceand distributionin Fin-land and the KarelianASSR(USSR)with specialreferenceto the development and movementsof the Kuhmol(Fin-land) - Kamennojozero(USSR)subpopulation. - AquiloSer,Zool. 23: 22-45.

Hepburn, I.R. 1984. Migratory bird hunting in EuropeanCommunitycountries.- FACE,Brussels.

Hilden, 0. & Sharrock,J.T.R.1985. A summaryof recentavi-an changesin Europe.- pp. 716-736 in Acta Congr. Int.Orn. 18 (Moscow).

Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1986. Hand reared pheasants:howdo they comparewith wild birds. - Game Conserv.Ann.Rep.17: 76-84.

Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1987. Hand reared pheasants:howthey affect productivity.- Game Conserv.Ann. Rep. 18:65-69.

Hill, D. & Robertson,P. 1988. The pheasant:ecology,man-agement and conservation.- BSPProff. Books,OxfordLondon- Edinbourgh.

Hjeljord,0. 1980. Viltbiologi.- Landbruksforlaget,Oslo.Hornaday, W.T. 1913. Our vanishing wildlife. New York

Zool. Soc.,New York.Howell,F.C.1972. Earlyman. - Time-LifeInc.,Amsterdam.Hudson, P. 1986. Red grouse. - The Game Conserv.Trust,

Fordingbridge.Hudson, P.J.& Rands,M.R.W. 1988. Ecologyand manage-

ment of gamebirds.- BSPProff.Books,Oxford - London-Edinbourgh.

Hudson,R., Drew, K.R.& Baskin,L.M. 1989. Wildlifeproduc-tion systems.- CambridgeUniv. Press,Cambridge- NewYork- PortCluster- Melbourne- Sidney.

Huseby,K. & Bø, T. 1985. Vellykkautsetting av hare. - pp.132-137 in Praktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF- DN - MVA, Oslo.

Hutchinson,T.C. & Meema, K.M., eds. 1985. Effectson at-mosphericpollutantson forests,wetlandsand agriculturalecosystems.- Springer-Verlag,Berlin.

ICBP& IWRB1987. Important bird areasin Europe.- MagyarMadartaniEgyesulet,Visegrad.

Innes,J.L.1987. Air pollutionand forestry.- For.Comm. Bull.70: 1-28.

Isakovic,I. 1970. Game managementin Yugoslavia.- J.Wildl.Manage. 34: 800-812.

IUCN 1987. The IUCN positionstatementon translocationoflivingorganisms.- IUCN, Gland, 20 pp.

IUCN 1988. Captivebreeding- the IUCN policystatement.-Species10: 27-28.

Jaren,V. 1988. Elgforskningog elgforvaltning.- Direktoratetfor naturforvaltning,Trondheim.

Jelinek, R. 1986. Rotwildbewirtschaftungin Hegegemeins-chaften. - pp. 38-69 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz (A)19-22. Jun1986. CIC, Paris.

Jenkins,D., Watson,A. & Miller, G.R. 1963. Populationstud-ies on red grouse, Lagopus lagopus scoticus (Lath.) innortheastScotland.- J.Anim. Ecol.32: 317-376.

Jeppesen,J.L. 1987. The disturbing effects of orienteeringand hunting of roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). - DanishRev.Game Biol.13,3: 1-24.

41

ninautredning018

jepsen, P.U., ed. 1985. Vildtreservaterneog vandfuglene. -Landbrugsmin. Vildtforvaltning, Vildtreservatkontoret,Kalø.

Johnsen,S.1947. Ulven.- pp. 268-228 in Føyn,B.and Huus,J.eds.NorgesdyrelivI. Cappelen,Oslo.

Järvinen,0. & Varvio, S.-L 1986. Pronenessto extinctionofsmall populationsof seals:demographicand genetic sto-chastieityvs.environmentalstress.- FinnishGame Res.44:6-18.

fårvinen, 0. & Miettinen, K. 1988. Sistaparet ut? Om na-turvårdensbiologi-.- Miljdforlaget,Helsingfors.

Kalchreuter,H. 1977. Die Sachemit der Jagd.- BLV,Miinchen- Bern- Wien.

Kalchreuter,H. 1987. Wasserwildim Visier.- BLV,München -Wien - Zürich.

Karlsen,S.1978. Tap av bufeog reinog våre,ørnersforholdtildissedyra.- Viltrapp.6: 1-59.

Kierdorf,U. & Kierdorf,H. 1990. Chronicfluoridetoxicosisingame animals.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19 (Trondheim). Inpress.

Klaus,S.,Andreev,A.V., Bergmann,H.-H., MüIler, F.,Porkert,J.& Wieser,J.1989. DieAuerhühner.Seconded. - Die NeueBrehm-Blicherei86, Ziemsen,WittenbergLutherstadt.

Klemm,C. de 1979. legal aspectsof habitat preservationforwesternPalearcticwaterfowl. - pp. 192-201 in Proc.Tech.MeetingWesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage.2 (Paris).

Korsch, J. von 1985. Ober den Einfluss einerPrådatorenbejagungauf Auerwildpopulationenin zweiSchwarzwaldrevieren.- Allg. Forst-u. Jagd-Ztg.156: 106-111.

Kowalski,K. 1986. Die Tierweldt des Eiszeitalters.- Wissers-chaft.Buchverlag,Darmstadt.

Krafft,A. 1981. Utbredelseog bestandsstørrelseav villrein. -Viltrapp.18: 1-92.

Krause,G.H.M., Arndt, U., Brandt,C.J.,Bucher,J.,Kenk,G. &Matzner, E. 1987. Forestdeclinein Europe:developmentand possiblecauses.- pp. 647-668 in Martin, H.C. ed. Acidprecipitation.ReidelPubl.Co., Dordrecht- Boston.

Kristiansson,H. 1985. Vildsvinetsbiologi och skadegörelse.-Zool. Inst.Univ.Lund,unpubl.slutrapp.37 pp.

Krysiak,K. 1967. The historyof the Europeanbisonin the Bia-lowiezaforestand the resultsof itsprotection.- ActaTheri-ol. 12: 323-332.

Krzemien,M.P. 1987. XVIII Congressof InternationalUnionofGameBiologistsKrakow- PolandAugust1987. - Mysliwiec,Krakow.

Kurt&I, B. 1968. Pleistocenemammalsof Europe.- Weiden-feldt & Nicolson,London.

König, E. 1976. Wildschadenproblemebei der Waldverjun-gung. - Schweiz.Z. Forstwesen127: 40-57.

König, R. 1982. Zur Planung des weiblichen Rehwildbes-tandes.- pp. 113-126 in Hofmann, R.R.ed. Wildbiologis-che Informationenfür denJäger.Jagd+ HegeAusbildungs-buch I. Seconded. EnkeVerlag,Stuttgart.

König, R. 1983. Abschussplanung und Bejagung desrnånnlichenRehwildesnach Altersklassen.- pp. 137-150in Hofmann, R.R. ed. WildbiologischeInformationenfQr

den Jäger.Jagd + Hege AusbildungsbuchIl. Seconded.EnkeVerlag,Stuttgart.

Lack,D. 1954. The natural regulationof animal numbers.-OxfordUniv. Press,Oxford.

Lahti.S. & Helminen, M. 1974. Castor fiber and C. canaden-sis in Finland.- ActaTheriol.19: 177-189.

Lampio,T. 1982. Hunting rationalization- a tool for manage-•ment of waterfowl populations.- pp. 107-112 in Proc.Tech. Meet. WesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage.2 (Par-is).

Lampio,T. 1983. Waterfowl hunting in Europe,North Ameri-ca and some African and Asiancountriesin 1980-81. -IWRBSpec.Publ.3: 1-35

Lang,G. 1986. Genetikund Cerviden.- pp. 405-422 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwillCraz (A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Larsen,T. 1972. Norwegian polar bear hunt, managementand research.- pp. 159-164 in Herrero, S. ed. BearPro-ceedings.IUCN, Morges.

Lassig,J., ed. 1987. Firstperiodicassessmentof the state ofthe marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1980-1985; backgrounddocument. - BalticSea Environ.Proc.17B.

Leopold,A. 1933. Game management. - Schribner'sSons,New York.

Leopold,A. 1936a. Deer and Dauerwaldin Germany. J. For.34: 366-375, 460-466.

Leopold,A. 1936b. Notes on game administrationin Germa-ny. - Arn.Wildl. 25,6: 85, 92-93.

Lever,C. 1985. Naturalized mammalsof the world. - Long-man, BurntMill.

Lever,C. 1987. Naturalized birdsof the world. - Longman,BurntMill.

Lindlöf, B. 1979. Bortkastadepengar at plantera ut bu-roppfdddaskogsharar.- SvenskJakt17: 886-888.

Lindner,K. 1937. Die Jagdder Vorzeit.- Gruyter& Co., Berlin- Leipzig.

Lindner,K. 1940. Die Jagdin frühen Mittelalter. - Gruyter &Co., Berlin.

Lindner,K. 1973. Beitrågezu Vogelfangund Falknereiim Al-tertum. - Gruyter,Berlin- New York.

Lindner, K. 1985. Zum Selbstverståndnisder Jåger.- Repr.Jagdund Hund (15-18), 15 pp.

Lindström,E. & Mörner, T. 1985. The spreadingof sarcopticmange among Swedishred foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) in re-lationto fox populationdynamics.- Rev.Ecol.(TerreVie)40: 211-216.

Linn, I.J., ed. 1979. Wildlife introductionsto Great Britain.-Nature Conserv.Council,London. •

Litjens,B.E.J.,Pelzers,E. & Haaften, J.L.van 1989. Die Ent-wicklung_vonMuffelwildpopulationenin Gatterreviereninden Niederlanden.- Z. Jagdwiss.35: 213-220.

42

ninautredning018

Loudon,A.S.I. 1987. The influenceof foresthabitatstructureon growth, body size and reproductionin roe deer (Ca-preolus capreolus L.). - pp. 559-567 in Wemmer, C.M. ed.Biologyand management of the Cervidae.SmithsonianInst.Press,Washington-London.

Lovari,S. 1984. The biology and managementof mountainungulates.- Helm Ltd., London.

Love,J.A.1988. The reintroductionof white-tailedsea eagleto Scotland:1975-1987. - Res.& Surveyin nat. Conserv.,NCC 12: 1-48.

Lund-Høje,K. & Grønvold, S. 1987. Glyphosateapplicationin forest- ecologkal aspects.- Scand.J. For. Res.2: 455-468.

Luther,H. & Rzoska,J.1971. ProsjectAQUA:a sourcebookofinlandwaters proposedfor conservation.- IBPHandbook21. BlackweHSci.Publ.,Oxford - Edinburgh.

Lutz, W. 1986. Wasserflächenund Wasserflugwild.- Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.

Lyster,S. 1985. Internationalwildlife law. - GrotiusPubl.Ltd.,Cambridge.

Madsen,F.K.1979. Naturfredningssagenshistoriei Danmark.- OdenseUniversitetsforlag.

Madsen,J. 1987. Statusand management of goosepopula-tionsin Europe,with specialreferenceto populationsrest-ing and breeding in Denmark. - Dan. Rev. Game Biol.12,4: 1-76.

Marcström,V., Keith, L.B., Engren,E. & Cary,J.R.1989. De-mographicresponsesof artic hares(Lepus timidus) to ex-perimental reductionsof red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) andmartens(Martes martes). - Can. J.Zool. 67: 658-668.

Marcström,V., Kenward,R.E.& Engren,E. 1988. The impactof predation on boreal tetraonidsduring vole cycles:anexperimentalstudy.- J.Anim. Ecol.57: 858-872.

Marjakangas,A. 1985. The effect of artificalfeeding on themineral nutrition of the black grouse (Lyrurus tetrix) inwinter. - pp. 514-523 in Int. GrouseSymp.WPA. 3 (York1984).

Marquiss,M. & Newton, I. 1982. The goshawkin Britain.-Br.Birds75: 243-260.

Martin, P.S. 1971. Prehistoricoverkill.- pp. 612-624 in Det-wyler, T.R. ed. Man's impact on environment. McGraw-Hill BookCo., New York.

McKelvie,C.L. 1987. A future for game? - Allen & Unwin,London.

Mech, L.D. 1982. The IUCN-SSCWolf SpecialistGroup. - pp.327-333 in Harrington,F.H. and Paquet,P.C. eds.Wolvesof the World. NoyesPubl.,ParkRidge.

Mehlum, F. & Ogilvie, M., eds. 1984. Current researchonarcticgeese.- NorskPolarinst.Skrifter181: 1-168.

Mikkelsen,J.D. 1986. Rovfugl og fasanudsætningeri Dan-mark. - DanskeVildtunders.,40:1-32.

Miljöministeriet1986. Betånkandeavgivet av kommisjonenför skydd av hotade djur och växter. - Kommit&betånkande1985,43. Helsingfors.

Miller, I., ed. 1981. Red deer management. - Red DeerComm., Inverness.

Miller, G.R. 1980. The burning of heather moorlandfor redgrouse.- Bull.Ecol.11: 725-733.

Moore, N.W. 1987. The bird of time. - Cambridge Univ.Press,Cambridge.

Moss, R., Weir, D. & jones, A. 1979. Capercailliemanage-ment in Scotland.- WPAWoodland GrouseSymp.1: 140-155.

Murton, R.K.1971. Man and birds.- Collins,London.Murton, R.K.,Westwood,N.J. & Isaacson,A.J.1974. A study

of wood-pigeon shooting: the exploitation of a naturalanimalpopulation.- J.Appl. Ecol.11: 61-82.

Myers, N., ed. 1985. The GAIAAtlasof planet managementfor to day'scaretakersof tomorrow'sworld. 7 GAIABooksLtd., London.

Myrberget, S., ed. 1979. Moose management in Fennoscan-dia. - Medd. norskViltforsk.3,8: 1-68.

Myrberget, S. 1985. Is hunting mortalitycompensatedfor ingrouse populations, with special reference to willowgrouse?- pp. 329-336 in Trans. IUGB Congr. 17 (Brus-sels).

Myrberget, S. 1987. Introductionof mammals and birdsinNorway includingSvalbard.- Medd. NorskViltforsk.3,17:1-25.

Myrberget, S. 1988. Hunting statisticsas indicatorsof gamepopulation sizeand composition.- Statist.J. UN ECE5:289-301.

Myrberget, S. 1990. Game management in EuropeoutsideSovjetUnion.- Trans.IUGBCongr. 18 (Krakow).In press.

Mysterud,I. & Falck,M.M. 1989. The brown bearin Norway,II: management and planning. - Biol. Conserv.48: 151-162.

Naess,A. & Mysterud, I. 1987. Philosophyof wolf policiesI:Generalprinciplesand preliminaryexploraticinof selectednorrns.- Conserv.Biol.1: 22-34.

N4y, J.G. & Bencze,L. 1973. Game management,adminis-tration and harvestin Hungary. - Wildl. Soc.Bull.1: 121-127.

Nahlik,A.J.de. 1974. Deer management. - David & Charles,London.

Newman, J.R. 1970. Hunting and hunter education inCzechoslovakia.- Wild. Soc.Bull.3: 155-161.

Newton, I. 1979. Population ecology,of raptors. - Poyser,Berkhamsted.

Nielsen,M., Vyff, K. & Johansen,A. 1967. De gamle levendehegn. - K.Jörgensen,Kolding.

Niethammer, G. 1963. Die Einbürgerungvon Såugetierenund Vögeln in Europe.- Parey,Hamburg - Berlin.

Niethammer, J. & Krapp, F., eds. 1982. Handbuch derSåugetiereEuropas:-Akad.Verlag.,Wiesbaden.

Niewold, F.J.J.& Nijland, H. 1988. Die Chancendeswesteu-ropäischenMoor- und Heidebirkhuns.- Z. Jagdwiss.33:221-241.

43

nina utredning 018

Nilsson,L. & Fog, M., eds. 1984. Studieson Fennoscandianpopulationsof bean goose (Anser fabalis), greylaggoose(Anser anser) andlesserwhite-frontedgoose(Anser erythro-pus). - Swed.Wildl.Res.13: 1-221.

Ninov, N. 1990. Bestandsentwicklungund Trophåenqualitåtdes Damhirschesin der VolksrepublicBulgarian.- Trans.IUGBCongr.19 (Trondheim).In press.

Nordell, S. & Weinberg, U. 1983. Jakten,jågarenoch lagen.Thirded. - Proprius,Stockholm.

Norderhaug, M. & Norderhaug, A. 1986. Naturen og vi:Håndboki naturvern.- Universitetsforlaget,Oslo.

Nowak,E.1974. On the "huntingpressure"onwaterfowlin Eu-rope.- pp. 406-422 in Proc.Int. Conf.Conserv.Wetlands&Waterfowl(Heiligenhafen).

Nygren, T. 1984. Hirvikannaninventointija verotuksensuun-nitteluSuomessa.- SuomenRiista31: 74-82.

Nyholm, N.E.I. 1981. Evidenceof involvementof aluminiumincausationof defectiveformation of eggshellsand of im-pairedbreedingin wild passerinebirds.- Environ.Res.26:363-371.

F.von 1974. Der ökonomiskeWert der Wildproduk-tion in Europa(ohneSowjetunion).- Z. Jagdwiss.20: 85-95.

O'Connor,R.J.& Shrubb,M. 1986. Farmingand birds.- Cam-bridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge.

OECD1987. OECDenvironmentaldata:compendium1987. -OECD,Paris.

L'OfficeNationalde la Chasse1986. Enquetenationalesur lestableauxde la chasseå tir. Saison19831984. - Bull.Men-suelSommaire108: 1-88.

Olsson,M. & Sandegren,F.1989. ÄrmiljögiftetPCBfråmstaor-

sakentil utternsnedgangi Europa?-Viltnytt27: 63-71.Onderscheka,K. 1986. lst die Fiitterungdes Rotwildesin der

KulturlandschaftdesalpinenRäumeseinebiologiskeAbsur-ditåt oder ein Beitrag zur Erhaltung der Funktion desÖkosystems?- pp. 386-395 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Owen, M., Atkinson-Willes,G.L. & Salmon,D.G. 1984. Wild-fowl in GreatBritain.- CambridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge-London- New York.

Parker,H. 1984. Effectofcorvidremovalonreproductionofwil-low ptarmigan and blackgrouse.- J. Wildl. Manage 48:1197- 1205.

Parslow,J.L.& Everett,M.J.1981. Birdsin needof specialpro-tectionin Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg.

Pastor,X. 1988. The Mediterraneandeservesbetterthan this.-Naturopa60: 18-20.

Pedersen,H.C. & Nybø, S. 1989. Effekterav langtransportertforurensingpå terrestriskedyr i Norge: en statusrapportmed vektpå S02, NOx og tungmetaller.- NINA Utredning5: 1-54.

Pedersen,P.H., Nordhuus,I., Jaren,V., Andersen,J.A.,Sæther,B.-E. & Lanestedt,G. 1988. CERSIM:Bestandsmodellforelgforvaltningen. I. - Direktoratet for naturforvaltning,Trondheim.

Petterson,J.-0., ed. 1987. Viltforskningenspraktiskanytta. -NaturvårdsverketRapp.3361: 1-70 + Appendix.Solna.

Phillips,J.,Råen,S.G. & Aalerud,F. 1984. Responseof willowgrouseto serialburning of mountain vegetation in Nu-medal, S. Norway. - pp. 55-68 in Proc.Int. GrouseSymp.3 (York).

Phoebus,G. 1978. DasBuchder Jagd.Transl.by G. Biss.- R.Mohn, Freiburg.

Piersma,T., Beintema,A.J., Davidsos,N.C., Munster, 0. &Pienkowski,M.W. 1987. Wader migrationsystemsin theeastAtlantic.- Wader Study Group Bull.49, Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 35-56.

Pimlott, D.H. 1975. The wolf in Europein 1973. - Wolves,IUCN Publ.New Ser.,Supl.Pap.43: 17-27.

Popelin,E. 1969. Reportof the InternationalConferenceonthe Muscrat.- EPPOPubl.A 47: 16-17,

Potts,G.R.1979. Mathematicalmodelsasan aid to studiesofgame bird populations.- WPA Woodland GrouseSymp.1: 115-119.

Potts,G.R. 1981. Fewerwoodpigeons?- Game Conserv.Ann.Rep.12: 83-87.

Potts, G.R. 1984. Grey partridges:how a computer modelcan help to solvepracticalgame managementquestions.- GameConserv.Ann. Rep.15: 56-59.

Potts,G.R.1986. The partridge.- Collins,London.PremierMinistre.1986. Chasse:organisationdesassociations

communalesagreees.-J. Off. Rep. Francaise66,142: 1-26.

Pulliainen, E. & Sulkava, S. 1986. Odocoileus virginianus(Zimmermann, 1771) Weisswedelhirsch.- pp. 217-232 inHandbuchder SåugetiereEuropas2/II. AULA,Wiesbaden.

Prior,R.1987. Roestalking.- Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge.Putman, R.J.,ed. 1989. Mammals as pests. - Chapman &

Hall, london - New York.Raesfeldt,F.von 1898. DasRotwild.- Parey,Berlin.Ranerås,U. 1985. Mål och principeri svenskmiljöskyddslag-

stiftning.- NaturvårdsverketRapp.1988: 1-156.Rands,W.R.W. 1986. The survivalof gamebird (Galliformes)

chicksin relation to pesticideuse on cereals.- Ibis 128:57-64.

Rapport, D.J. 1989. Symptoms of pathology in the Gulf ofBothnia (Baltic Sea): ecosystemresponseto stressfromhumanactivity.-Biol.J.LinneanSoc.37: 33-49.

Ratcliffe,P.R. 1987. Distribution and current statusof sikadeer, Cervus nippon, in Great Britain.- Mammal Rev.17:39-58.

Read, A.F. & Harvey, P.H. 1986. Genetic management inzoos.- Nature 322: 408-410.

Reimers,E., Villmo, L., Gaare, E., Holthe, V. & Skogland,T.1980. Statusof Rangifer in Norway includingSvalbard.-pp: 774-785 in Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).

Reimoser,F. 1986. Zur Wildschadenproblematikbeim Rot-wild im Mitteleuropa. - pp. 330-351 in Prinz Reuss,ed.RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

44

nina utredning 018

Reuther, C. & Festetics,A. 1980. Der Fischotterin Europa:Verbreitung, Bedrohung, Erhaltung. - Aktion Fishotters-chutz, Oderhaus- Göttingen.

Robertson,P.A. & Whelan, J. 1987. The ecologyof wild andhand-rearedpheasantsin Ireland.- IrishBirds3: 427-440.

Roistad,J. & Wegge, P. 1987. Distributionand sizeof caper-caillieleksin relationto old forestfragmentation.- Oeco-logia 72: 389-394.

Rolstad,J.& Wegge, P. in press.Capercailliehabitat:a criticalassessemntof the role of old forest. - Proc. Int. GrouseSymp.4 (Lam).

RSPB1989. Wild birdsand the law. - The RoyalSocietyforthe Protectionof Birds,Lodge.

Rificker,J.& Stålfelt,F. 1986. Das Elchwild:Naturgeschichte-6kologie - Hege und Jagddes europäischenElches.- Par-ey, Hamburg- Berlin.

Rumohr-Rufidhof,W.-H. von 1990. Die Entwicklungdes Si-kawildesin Schleswig-Holstein.- Trans. IUGB Congr. 19(Trondheim). In press.

•Saliba,L.J.1988. The Mediterranean- a hundredmilliontour-ists.- Naturopa59E: 13-15.

Salo, L.J.1976. Historyof wildlife management in Finland.-Wildl. Soc.Bull.4: 167-174.

Sandberg,N. 1985. Vinterffiringav rådjur. - pp. 138-141 inPraktiskviltstell- en statusrapport.LUK- NJFF- DN - MVA,Oslo.

Scheel, H. ed. 1947. Den danske jagt i fortid og nutid. -Hirschsprung,Köbenhavn.

Schneider,T., ed. 1986. Acidificationand its policy implica-tions.- ElsevierSci.Publ.,Amsterdam.

Scott, D.A. 1979. Problemsin the managementof waterfowlpopulations.- pp. 89-106 in Proc.Tech. Meeting WesternPalearcticMigr. BirdManage. 2 (Paris).

Scott, D.A. 1980. A preliminaryinventoryof wetlandsof in-ternationalimportancefor waterfowl in West EuropeandNorthwestAfrika.- IWRB.Spec.Publ.2: 1-128.

Scott, D.A , ed. 1982. Managing wetlands and their birds.-IWRB,Slimbridge.

Schröder,W. 1985. Management of mountain ungulates.-pp. 179-196 in Lovari,S. ed. The biology and manage-ment of mountainungulates.Helm Ltd., London.

Sennstam, B. 1974. Effects of orienteering on wildlife. -Skogshögskolan,Inst.Skogzool.,Res.Notes17: 1-60.

Serez, M. 1990. Das Grosswildin der Türkei. Entwicklungs-zustandund Jagdgesetz.- Trans. IUGBCongr. 19 (Trond-heim). 1npress.

Sheddon, C.B. 1986. Statusof Europeanquarry species.-Brit.Ass.Shootingand Conserv.,Wrexham.

Siivonen,L. 1957. The problemof the short-termfluctuationsin numbersof tetraonidsin Europe.- Pap. Game Res.19:1-44.

Skogland,T. 1986. Density dependent food limitation andmaximal production in wild reindeer herds. - J. Wildl.Manage. 50: 314- 319.

Skogland,T. 1987. Radiocesiumconcentrationsin wild rein-deer at Dovrefjell,Norway. - Rangifer7: 42-45.

Skogland,T. & Espelien,1.S.1990. The biologicaleffectsofradiocesiumcontamination of wild reindeer in Norwayfollowing the Chernobylaccident. - Trans. IUGB Congr.19 (Trondheim).1npress.

Smart, M. 1987. Internationalconventions.- Wader StudyGroup Bull.49, Suppl./IWRBSpec.Publ.7: 114-117.

Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1976. Threatenedmammalsin Europe.- Councilof Europe,Strasbourg.

Smit, C.J.& Wijngaarden,A. van 1981. Threatenedmammalsin Europe. Akad.,Verlag,Wiesbaden.

SOU 1983. Vilt och jakt. - StatensOff. Utredningar,Stock-holm, 1983: 1-21.

Soule,M.E., ed. 1987. Viable populationsfor conservation.-CambridgeUniv.Press,Cambridge.

Spagnesi,M. & Apollonio,M. 1985. le vocazionifaunistichecon particolarereferimentoallespeciedi mammiferioget-to di caccia:situazioneattuale e potenziale. - Atti Conv.ProgettoFaunisticodel'Appennino(Pescara):5-19.

Spenik,M. 1985. The controlof healthstatusof game and itsorganization in Czchoslovakia.- pp. 743-749 in Trans.Congr. 1UGB17 (Brussels).

Spiess,A.E. 1979. Reindeer and caribou hunters. - Acad.Press,New York.

Spina, F. 1987. Baltic birds through the Mediterrianean.Some aspectsof birdsconservationin Italy. - BalticBirdsIV.Vår Fågelvårld,Suppl.11: 207-210.

Spitzer, G. 1982. Der Jagdprüfungsbehelf.Tenth ed. -Österreich.Jagd-und Fischerlei-Verlag,Wien.

Stenseth,N.C. & Steen, H. 1987. Små bestandersdynamikkmed spesiellreferansetil bjørn, jerv og ulv i Norge: et te-oretiskstudium.- Viltrapp.45: 1-53.

Stensaas,I., ed. 1989. Wildlife managementin Norway. - Di-rektoratetfor naturforvaltning,Trondheim.

Stirling, I. 1986. Researchand management of polar bearsUrsus maritimus. - PolarRecord.23: 167-176.

Stokes,P. & Piekarz,D. 1987. Ecologicalindicatorsof thestate of the environment.- EnvironmentalInterpretationDiv. EnvironmentCanada,Toronto.

Strandgaard,H. 1972. The roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)population at Kalø and the factors regulating its size. -DanishRev.Game Biol.7: 1-205.

Strandgaard,H. 1979. Roedeer:a casestudy.- Naturopa 32:19-21.

Strandgaard,H. 1985. Agricultureand wildlife. - pp. 511-526in Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels).

Strandgaard,H. & Asferg,T. 1980. The Danishbag record,II.-DanishRev.Game Biol.11,5: 1-112.

Stålfelt,F. 1966. Älgstammensbeskattning.- Svenskjakt 104:484-486.

Sulkava,S. 1980. Populationof the wild forestreindeer,Ran-gifer tarandus fennicus Lönnb.1909, in Finland.- pp. 681-684 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).

45

ninautredning018

Swartenbroekx,J.M.L 1985. Wildsoorten en wildbeheer in- pp. 51-64 in Trans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels).

Szafer,W. 1968. The ure-ox, extinct in Europesincethe sev-enteenth century: an early attempt at conservationthatfailed. - Biol.Conserv.1: 45-47.

Szukiel,E. 1987. Ecologicalsituationon Cervidaein West Su-detes.- pp. 197-198 in Abstr.Congr. IUGB18 (Krakow).

Sørensen,0.1., ed. in press.The brown bear (Ursus arctos L.)in Europein the mid 1980s. - Aquilå.

Sørensen,0.J., Mysterud, I. & Kvam, T. 1984. Sentralregi-

streringav storerovdyri Norge. - Viltrapp. 30: 1-158.Tahon, J. 1985. Le succesde l'etourneausansonnet(Sturnus

vulgaris) danslesecosytemesamenages.- pp. 535-543 inTrans.Congr. IUGB17 (Brussels).

Tamisier,A. 1985. Hunting asa keyenvironmentalparameterfor the western Palearcticduck populations.- Wildfowl36: 95-103.

Temple, S.A.ed. 1977. Endangeredbirds.- Univ.Wise. Press,Madison.

Thorisson,S. 1980. Statusof Rangifer in Iceland. - pp. 766-770 in Proc.Int. Reindeer/CaribouSymp.2 (Røros).

Tillisch,C.J. 1949. Falkejagtenog dens historie. - Haase &Sønsforlag, Köbenhavn.

Tinbergen, N. 1951. The studyof instinct.- ClarendonPress,Oxford.

Troostwijk,W.J.D. van 1976. The musk-rat(Ondatra zibethi-cus L.) in the Netherlands,itsecologicalaspectsand theirconsequencesfor man. - R.I.N.Verhandlung7: 1-136.

Ueckermann,E. 1955. Ein Erklärungsversüchder bei Rotwildim Westdeutschland anzutreffenden Unterschiede imKörpergewicht.- Z. Jagdwissenschaft1: 92-94.

Ueckermann,E. 1960. Wildstandsbewirtschaftungund Wild-schadensverhütungbeim Rotwild.- Parey,Hamburg- Ber-lin.

Ueckermann,E. 1964. Erhebungüber die Wildverlustedurchdem Strassenverkehrund die Verkehrsunfälledurch Wild.- Z. Jagdwissenchaft10: 142-168.

Ueckermann,E. 1971. Die Fütterungdes Schalenwildes.Se-cond ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.

Ueckermann, E. 1977. Der Schwarzwildabschuss.- Parey,Hamburg-Berlin.

Ueckermann, E. 1981. Die Wildschadenverhlitungin Waldund Feld.Fourthed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.

Ueckermann,E. 1982. Der Rehwildabschuss.- Parey, Ham-burg - Berlin.

Ueckermann,E. 1984. Jagd und JagdgeschichteNordrhein-Westfalen.- Rheinland-Verl.GmbH, Köln.

Ueckermann,E. 1986a. JagdlicheRaumordnung- dargestelltam Beispeildes Rotwildes.- pp. 160-172 in Prinz Reuss,ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Ueckermann, E. 1986b. Die Fütterung des Schalenwildes.Third ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.

Ueckermann,E. 1987. Managing German red deer (Cervuselaphus L.) populations.- pp. 505-516 in Wemmer, C.M.

ed. Biologyand managementof the Cervidae.Smithsoni-an Inst.Press,Washington-London.

Ueckermann,E. & Scholz,H. 1981. WIdåsungsflächen.Se-cond ed. - Parey,Hamburg- Berlin.

Vaag, A.B. 1987. Landsplanfor forvaltningav bjørn, jerv ogulv. - DN-Rapp.1987,6: 1-37.

Vader,W., Anker-Nilssen,T., Bakken,V., Barret,R. & Strann,K.-B.1990. Regionaland temporaldifferencesin breedingsuccessof fish-eatingseabirdsin Norway aftercollapsesofherring and capelin stocks. - Trans. IUGB Congr. 19(TrondheiM). In press.

Valkesjärvi,P. & ijås,L. 1989. Ruokitunteeriparvenelintavois-ta ja talviruokinnarivaikutukisista.- SuomenRiista35: 43-60.

Vandervell,A. & Coles,C. 1980. Game & the Englishland-scape.- Debrette'sPeerageLtd., London.

Vikberg,P. 1988. Inplanteringav rådyr- läget idag. - Jågaren37,1: 26-28.

Volk, H. 1986. Zur Belastungvon Natur und Landschaftdurchder Wintersport.- Allg. Forst-und Jagdz.157: 238-243.

Waddington, R. 1958. Grouse:shootingand grousemanage-ment. - Faberand FaberLtd., London.

Wagenknecht,E 1965. BewirtschaftungunsererSchalenwild-bestånde.- VEB,Berlin.

Wagenknecht,E.1981. Rotwild.- VEB,Berlin.Watson, A. & Jenkins,D. 1968. Experimentson population

control by territorial behaviour in red grouse. - J. Anim.Ecol.37: 595-614. ,

Watson, A. & Miller, G.R. 1976. Grouse management. Se-cond ed. - Game Conserv.,Fordingbridge.

Wegge, P. 1984. Skogbruketog storfuglbiotopene.- Viltrapp.36: 84-90.

Weismann,C. 1931. Vildtetsog JagtensHistoriei Danmark.-ReizelsForlag.

Westerling,B. 1989. Läget på rabies-fronten.- Jågaren38,3:8-9.

Whelan,J.1990. Introducedspeciesin Ireland:impacton na-tive'fauna and productionsystems.- Trans. IUGBCongr.19 (Trondheim).In press.

Whisker,J.B.1981. The right to hunt. - N. RiverPress.Wiig, Ø. 1988a. Change in the degree of infestationof para-

sitic nematodesin grey seals(Halichoerus grypus) fromFroan,Norway. - Faunanorv., Ser.A 9: 47-49.

Wiig, Ø. 1988b. Grønlandsselog selinvasjon:Hvavet vi - hvatror vi. - Naturen 1988,2: 35-41.

Wildlife Service1989. Report for 1988. - StationaryOffice,Dublin.

Willebrand, T. 1988. Demography and ecology of a blackgrouse(Tetrao tetrix L) population. - Unpubl. dr. thesis.Univ.Uppsala.

Wolfe, M.L. & Berg,F.-C.von 1988. Deer and forestryin Ger-many:halfa centuryafterAldo Leopold.- J.For.86,5: 25-31.

46

nina utredning018

Woods,A. 1989. An orginalconcept. - Naturopa63: 22-24.Wotschikowsky,U., ed. 1977. Der Steinbock:Ansprüche,

Einbürgerung,Bejagung.- Kofler,Pernegg.Wotschikowsky,U., Schröder,W. & Georgii, B. 1986. Neue

Wege im Rothirch-Management.- pp. 173-182 in PrinzReuss,ed. RotwildGraz(A) 19-22. Juni1986. CIC, Paris.

Wright, E.N. ed. 1980. Bird problemsin agriculture.- BCPBPubl.,Croydon.

Zachariassen,K.E. ed. 1989. Biologicaleffects of chemicaltreatment of oilspillsat sea. - Univ. of Trondheim, AVH;Trondheim.

Østlie, S. S.a. Jaktlovgivningeni Norge fra de eldstetider ogfram til 1899. - Arb. JFF.,Oslo.

47

018

ISSN0802-3107ISBN82-426-0085-6

Norsk institutt fornaturforskningTungasletta 27004 TrondheimTel. (07) 913020

Documents

Europe - nina.no · the Soviet Union. - NINA Utredning 018: 1-47. A review is given on principles and practices used in wildlife management in Europe outside the Soviet Union. Emphasis