Moose population increases

 

Last year many of my columns involved moose in one way or another. This one will deal with moose population increases, but in Finland, Norway, and Sweden rather than in North America. Moose have inhabited all three countries for at least 7,000 years. Management actions have ranged from none to total protection numerous times as abundance levels varied from extreme scarcity to low abundance (when compared to current population levels in all three countries).

Records of moose presence and/or abundance were not kept for most of that time and the early references to moose were quite subjective rather than quantitative. A modern paper from Norway said they did not have records of abundance from the 13th and 14th centuries, but that enough were killed that there was some export of hides. Sweden’s first hunting regulations were set in 1347.

Moose population levels varied in all three countries during the 15th thru the 19th centuries but were never very abundant. Moose were extinct in many parts of Norway and Sweden for long periods of time. By the mid-19th century moose were nearly extinct in all of Finland, only a few hundred were left in Sweden, and they were almost extinct in Norway. When moose did reappear in part of Norway during that time, many people did not know what they were.

In the early 20th century, there was some Improvement in population levels. Moose hunts resumed in all of Finland in 1906 for eight days. Harvests from 1906 to 1913 were 200 to 800 per year. However, during WWI, the Finland moose population was decimated; in 1924 the population was about 50 moose which had descended from the six moose which had survived WWI. I found no mention of moose population levels declining in Norway or Sweden due to the war.

Also in the early 20th century, restrictions on hunting and an increase in available habitat (especially in Sweden) helped populations to increase. Considerable marginal agricultural land was abandoned and put into forest; also, many bogs were drained and converted to forest. A major importance to the population increases was the switching from selective cutting to clear cutting of forest land in 1935. This provided a very large increase in available browse. Yet more browse became available when Sweden banned herbicide use in the mid-1970s.

Moose populations and harvests gradually increased during the first 30 years of the 20th century. Finland’s moose population in 1933 was about 3,500 (calf harvest was 5 to 10 percent of the harvest) and hunts continued each year. During the 1930’s, Norway’s harvest was 1,200 to 1,500 per year and Sweden’s harvest was 4,000 to 8,000 per year. At this point it is worth pointing out that Sweden has about four times the amount of productive forest land than does Norway and population densities are similar in both countries; therefore, one should expect Sweden’s population and harvest to be considerably higher than that of Norway.

Finland’s moose population declined greatly again during WWII and again in 1964 to 1969 due to large harvests. Norway’s moose harvests increased to about 8,000 and Sweden’s harvests were about 32,000 in the early 1960’s.

All three countries set population and harvest goals in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s which focused on protecting many prime breeding cows, keeping a sufficient number of prime bulls, and increasing their calf harvests. By the 1980’s, Finland’s moose population was 80,000 to 100,000 with harvests of 54,000 to 56,000 annually with 40 percent of the kill being calves. Norway’s moose population estimate was 80,000 to 90,000 and harvests about 24,000 of which 28 percent were calves. Sweden’s moose population grew from about 100,000 in 1970 to over 300,000 in the early 1980’s. In 1982 the moose harvest was over 175,000 and about 40 percent of harvest was calves.

These high populations resulted in considerable forest product damage by moose. Also, Sweden was under pressure to reduce the moose population as there were 5,915 reported moose-vehicle accidents in 1980 and 15 to 20 people were killed each year.

More recent information has Finland’s moose population at about 113,000 to 125,000 with annual harvests of about 65,000 (2002). Norway’s moose population was about 120,000 to 150,000 with a harvest of 29,278 (2021-2022). Sweden’s moose population was 240,000 to 360,000 with a harvest of 80,000 to 90,000 (2021).

In some previous columns I have mentioned the importance of keeping a large number of prime breeding females and numerous prime males in moose (and some other species) populations. These three countries have shown that a large number of animals can be produced while maintaining a relatively small over-wintering population. They also keep sufficient numbers of young animals to replace current primes as they become past prime.

In order for good harvest quotas to be set, good estimates of population size and age/sex structure are required for each management/hunting unit of land. Also required are hunters capable of recognizing the sex and age class of animals so that the appropriate numbers of each are taken. In the countries mentioned, this often includes professionals, the landowners and their employees, forest workers, and knowledgeable local citizens who are very familiar with the area involved.

In Norway and Sweden 75 percent to 80 percent of the forest land is privately owned. A few companies hold much of the remainder. Since the landowners also own the game, they have incentive to manage for high harvests. The meat and/or antlers must be purchased from the appropriate landowner at the going market rate.

The above population age/sex structure management strategy is sound. North American management could strive to ensure sufficient numbers of prime breeding animals of both sexes are maintained. Delaying the hunting season opening until after the peak of the prime bull rut could make them less vulnerable. Licenses could specify cow or antler size class for bulls with suitable price differences for such options. However, specifics must be recognizable by the hunters. Increasing the harvest of calves may not be necessary in all situations as predation on calves may be sufficient.