Joint Report  edited by Colin McClean

A group of Scottish wildlife and fishery managers recently visited Norway on a trip organised by the Cairngorms National Park Authority. The objectives of the trip were

1. to improve understanding and relations between representatives of Scottish wildlife management interests.

2. to examine and debate Norwegian wildlife management issues and consider lessons for Scotland where appropriate.

The trip was funded under the EU Nature Exchange programme which is managed in Scotland by Archnetwork.

Group members were Geva Blackett (CEO, Scottish Countryside Alliance), Neil Brown (Head Keeper, Allargue Estate), Bruce Cooper (Head Keeper, Glen Prosen Estate), Peter Duncan (SNH Reserves Manager- East Highland), Duncan Ferguson (Head Bailiff, Spey District Salmon Fishery Board), Bruce Hendry (Head Stalker, Glen Shero Estate), Robbie Kernahan (Director of Deer Management, Deer Commission for Scotland), Colin McClean (CNPA), Pete Mayhew (North Scotland Reserves Manager, RSPB), Donnie Ross (Stalker, Glenfeshie Estate).

Location

The trip was hosted by staff and students of Hedmark University’s Evenstad campus which teaches forestry and wildlife management. Evenstad is in Hedmark County lying about half way between Oslo and Trondheim and is about 80km from the Swedish border. Hedmark has low human population (7 per km2), is extensively afforested and has relatively little agriculture.

Hedmark County is the only part of Norway containing bear, wolf, lynx and wolverine. Moose and reindeer are the most significant deer species with red and roe also present.

Outputs

The group agreed to write a joint report emphasising areas of agreement between the interests represented on the trip. This report has been agreed by all participants but does not necessarily reflect the views of organisations represented. The report covers the following key issues:

1. Deer management.

2. Beavers.

3. Forestry management.

4. Willow grouse, capercaillie and black grouse.

5. Large carnivores.

6. Generic land and wildlife management issues.

1. Deer management.

Deer management systems differ greatly between Norway and Scotland. Norwegian deer management is tightly regulated by the public sector and is carried out almost exclusively by recreational hunters. The emphasis is on managing all deer species as a resource. Both statutory seasons and quotas are used to regulate exploitation. Seasons are also used to protect welfare, preventing the culling of animals during harsh winter weather when animals could be stressed by disturbance. Quotas for moose, red and roe deer are set at the level of a “Kommune” which is a division of a county. Evenstad sits in Stor Elvdal Kommune, which is 2200km², comparable to the larger Scottish deer count areas.

Quotas are based on data from hunters and landowners. Hunters record all deer shot and all deer seen by sex and age class during hunting. Trends in deer sightings are assumed to correspond to trends in population size. Landowners record levels of browsing on young trees. Browsing data is most commonly recorded informally and not systematically. Both sets of data are collected by local government at county level. Local government then sets kommune quotas directly or, where landowners are sufficiently organised, sets quotas in negotiation with landowners. The kommune quota is then divided up into quotas for individual landholdings. Landowners then sell their quota to groups of recreational hunters (syndicates) who will pay £1-2K per moose. In practice there is rarely a free market for recreational hunters with most syndicates operating for many years. The syndicates then sell the meat at high value (around £8 per kg) to recover the cost of the quota. Nearly all the value in Norwegian moose comes from meat and there is very little client stalking. If a quota is not achieved during a hunting year on any landholding, neighbouring syndicates may increase their cull to take the deficit or the quota maybe increased in the subsequent year.

Seasons for deer in Norway are primarily to protect welfare. The moose season runs from 25^th September to 23^rd December and both sexes are shot at the same time. Occasionally seasons may be extended to allow landowners an equitable share of the moose resource. For example moose may move considerable distances in response to snow fall. Landowners who winter moose may have little chance to shoot them in season so may get authorisation to shoot moose in the winter. Authorisation is granted by local government. Season extension is the exception rather than the rule.

Norway holds Europe’s only populations of wild reindeer. The wild reindeer populations are divided into 23 discrete management units which are separated by physical barriers which are only occasionally crossed by reindeer. Each discrete population is managed by a board which has legal powers to set quotas. Reindeer are counted by government using aircraft and digital photography. Counts are often inaccurate (as shown by exploitation rates) and are regularly disputed by hunters. In some areas hunters only shoot up to 35% of quotas and the system does not work well. The reindeer season is only 1 month long and is set to protect welfare and meat quality. The shooting of bulls in the rut is not allowed as meat is tainted by hormones. Nearly all reindeer shot are extracted by manual lifting or dragging with a few extracted by horse. This means carcases are often butchered on the skin where they have been shot. ATV use is not allowed in wild reindeer habitat.

Key themes relevant to Scottish deer management.

Moose, red and roe deer are all managed by similar systems. These systems are based on data collection and quota setting through negotiation. With the exception of reindeer these systems work well in Norway and there is far less conflict surrounding Norwegian deer management when compared to Scottish deer management. There are several elements which help the Norwegian system work effectively.

1. All parties including owners, foresters and hunters value deer as a resource and aim to balance this resource sustainably, balancing different objectives.

2. All parties trust the data on deer which is collected. There are few disputes about its usefulness or its honesty.

3. Hunters and landowners accept the authority of local government.

These elements are sometimes lacking in Scotland. The accuracy of counts are often subject to debate and hunter records of numbers seen are rarely valued. Count methods eg dung counting, are often not respected by practitioners. Annual larder records are rarely used to inform future management. Trust in data is clearly vital. For example when reindeer counts in Norway are disputed, the quota system begins to fail.

Secondly, Scotland and Norway arguably have different histories in respect of attitudes to authority. These differences may make any shift to a quota system in Scotland challenging to achieve. Historically in Scotland landowners have had freedom to make key deer management decisions on population size and cull numbers without government interference. Recently, government has begun to influence population size and cull numbers on some designated sites. This has met with some resistance and some success. For government to influence deer numbers throughout Scotland requires a substantial cultural shift and much more trust between the various interests. It is also likely to require substantially increased resource as quota systems require resourcing in terms of data collection, analysis and negotiation.

Finally, Scottish deer management is influenced more by client demand than habitat objectives. Sporting client demand is not an influence in Norway. In Scotland sporting client demand often leads to higher deer densities with more damage and greater conflict. In Norway landowners might wish to see moose harvested by paying clients rather than local hunters, but this would make hunting less inclusive. However client demand supports much greater deer related employment in Scotland than Norway. There are opportunities for Norwegian hunting to make money from clients. The group agreed there would be positives and negatives to increased client hunting but, on balance, felt the Norwegian system should not change as inclusivity is part of the Norwegian culture and appeal.

2. Beavers.

Beavers are widespread in Norway having recovered from overexploitation for fur. In the 1950s there were thought to be about 500 beavers in Norway but effective protection lead to population increase and there are now about 70000. Beavers are hunted and exploitation is regulated by quota set by local government. Beavers are viewed as a resource although it is acknowledged they cause some damage, mainly through flooding farmer’s fields. On the River Glomma near Evenstad the beaver population is managed over a 9km length of the main river. Over 3km no beaver hunting is allowed. Over the remaining 6km and on all tributaries beavers are hunted on quota. The idea is that the protected area constantly supplies beavers to the hunted area thus sustaining a shootable surplus. The hunting quota is then taken mostly from areas where beavers are causing conflict. Beaver dams, which can cause local flooding, can also be removed under authorisation from local government.

Key themes relevant to Scotland.

Beavers have capacity for big population increase over time and create impacts which have to be managed. Any re-introduction of beavers should be supported by a legal framework which enables future beaver population management. The group agreed that both the need for beaver management and its likely costs should be considered before full re-introduction. The issue of whether beaver dams will reduce access to salmon spawning redds was not clarified. Some research seems to indicate beaver dams in Norway do not reduce salmon spawning or future numbers of smolts. However the applicability of this research to Scottish fisheries like the Spey was not clear. Changes to trout spawning success should be monitored during the Knapdale beaver re-introduction trial.

Other research needs were thought to be the likely effects of beavers on Scottish riparian woodland and the risk of the spread of Giardia.

3. Forest management.

Forests are a huge resource in Norway and cover much of the country. Spruce and pine dominate and forests are nearly all exploited for timber. Forestry requires much less inputs in Norway than Scotland. Land is rarely ploughed or fertilised, trees regenerate naturally more than they are planted and fencing is not used to protect trees. There is a huge seed source and prolific seed usually falls on mineral soil rather than deep peat. Seedlings often regenerate at 8000 per ha and experience less browsing due to lower browser densities and prolonged snow cover.

Typically pine and spruce will be thinned 3 times over a 100 year rotation. This produces benefits for both timber and nature conservation. Ground vegetation is rarely shaded out completely and the field layer is short, botanically varied and often blaeberry rich. The field layer provides good capercaillie brood habitat over extensive areas. Deadwood is lacking and this reduces the conservation value of forests. Norwegian forests are often more pleasing on the eye than Scottish forests. Felling coupes are smaller and there is little wind throw. Birch is often intermixed with conifers.

Norwegian forestry has many advantages over Scottish forestry. Scottish forestry is partly building on a historically poor legacy eg. huge deforestation over centuries and use of lodgepole pine planted in the 1970s. Norwegian forestry requires lower inputs, utilises better soils and has a less windy climate. Consequently Norway produces much higher value timber. The high value and low inputs mean profit margins on timber are higher than Scotland and foresters can tolerate more damage. Toleration of damage and the inclusive approach to hunting reduce potential conflict between moose and forestry.

Key themes relevant to Scotland.

• Thinning produces nature conservation benefits.

• Browsers and forestry are better balanced.

• Scarifying increases regeneration and Norwegian scarifying techniques are much more sensitive than techniques currently used in Scotland. However Norwegian forestry does not have to scarify deep peat.

5. Grouse.

Capercaillie, black grouse and hazel hen all live in Norwegian forests with willow grouse and ptarmigan on open ground. All seem plentiful and all are shot for sport. Hunting for all types of grouse is very popular and inclusive. Around 450000 willow grouse were shot in Norway in 2007 with an average day’s hunting consisting of 5-20 birds. All grouse are walked up with dogs. Exploitation is regulated through hunting effort, with hunters paying for licences to hunt. Grouse hunting is low value. Four days willow grouse hunting in Norway can be purchased for £180. One brace of Scottish driven red grouse can cost more than £120. The high value of Scottish grouse supports a level of employment which is not found in Norway.

No habitat management is carried out for any grouse species. Forestry thinning produces a good field layer for woodland grouse but this is a by product of timber management. All mammalian predators are controlled including species protected in the UK like badgers and pine marten. All mammalian predators have a close season including introduced predators like American mink. The group did not agree as to whether there was a need to cull pine martens in Scotland in order to conserve capercaillie. Raptors are protected and there is no debate in Norway about a need to kill raptors to protect hunting.

5. Large carnivores.

Hedmark is the only Norwegian county with bears, wolves, lynx and wolverine. Bears and wolves are colonising Norway from Sweden. It is thought the Norwegian bear population is all male, as male bears travel extensively while female bears tend to take up residence close to their natal area. Emigration of female bears from Sweden is therefore slow. Wolves first re-colonised Norway in 1997 after a period of about 50 years when Norway had no wolves. The government has a zoning policy which tolerates wolves in some areas but not in others. Wolves are by far the most controversial animal in Norway generating exceptionally strong emotional responses from rural inhabitants. 80% of Norwegians welcome the presence of wolves in Norway but farmers and hunters are often very hostile.

Large carnivores create costs through loss of livestock, the compensation paid for this loss and through reducing hunting. Wolves affect hunting by reducing the number of moose available to hunt. They also kill hunter’s dogs which reduces the willingness of hunters to hunt moose and other game. This can lead to substantial reductions in income for individual landowners eg of £30-40000 per annum.

The Norwegian government spends £5 million per annum compensating farmers for loss of sheep to all 4 species of large carnivores. It does not pay any compensation to hunters. More incentives are required in order to make wolves in particular more acceptable to many Norwegians. Without incentives illegal culling of wolves seems to be increasing from an insignificant problem in 2003 to a significant problem in 2008.

Lynx were not seen as a significant issue in Norway although they do predate sheep grazing within the forest and reduce roe deer populations for hunters. Lynx are seen as a resource and are hunted under a quota system. About 70 are shot in Norway each year.

Key themes relevant to Scotland

Scotland has no large carnivores but the Norwegian debate over wolves has some similarities to current Scottish raptor/ game shooting conflicts. Both large carnivores and raptors engender strong public support within their countries but both are viewed with hostility by sections of rural communities and particularly hunters. Both are subject to some illegal culling. The Norwegian debate differs in that there is recognition that the costs of hosting carnivores are real, generous compensation is paid to some interests that bear those costs although not others, there is quota hunting for all species where conflict occurs and zoning is actively carried out. The group agreed there may be some merit in exploring these techniques in relation to Scottish hunting/ conservation conflicts.

5. Generic issues for Norwegian land/ wildlife management.

Norway has many more landowners than Scotland and a smaller average landholding. Although a few people in Norway own over 30000ha, the average landholding is only 40ha. Land management objectives seem more integrated in Norway with less stark conflicts between objectives. For example forests and the moose living within them are both seen as assets. Moose are mainly culled for high value meat while being maintained at sufficiently low density to allow natural regeneration.

Norwegian land management seems more in harmony with its underlying ecology than Scotland and there is less intensive management. Forestry uses a broadly natural system to produce high value timber. Grouse are harvested without management to increase densities. However there are fewer rural jobs than in Scotland and continuing rural depopulation.

Norwegian culture and legislation favours a dispersed human population scattered evenly across rural areas and not clumped in villages. To help achieve this scatter, land sales are controlled by government and there is no free market in land. A landowner cannot sell to his neighbour as this may increase landholding size and reduce human population size. Land values are not allowed to exceed a function of the income which the land can generate. There are no capital values attached to hunting bags. This system has some similarities to Scottish crofting legislation and seems to prevent market abuses. It also prevents land based businesses based on economies of scale and may reduce rural employment.

Norwegians are much better informed about wildlife management issues than people in Scotland. It is likely people are better informed because hunting is more inclusive, with a much larger proportion of the population participating in hunting. The lesson seems to be if you can take part in something you will bother to learn about it.

The group felt Norwegian attitudes to wildlife management were more proactive and pragmatic than in Scotland. Problems were dealt with when they occurred. Research was used to test if pragmatic management was working rather than to find a solution from first principles. This pragmatic attitude seems to arise because there is a better understanding between different interests in Norway and therefore more trust between interests than in Scotland as a result of less clearly defined boundaries between interest groups. For instance landowners, foresters and hunters are often the same people. A pragmatic attitude may also be aided by Norwegian society putting less emphasis on animal rights, or because Norwegians consider they currently have a good balance between animal and human rights and there is no strong drive to strengthen animal rights. A more pragmatic attitude is also influenced by having good levels of resources to tackle issues eg the Norwegian government pays generous compensation to farmers who have stock killed by carnivores.

The trip.

The group agreed the trip was a high quality experience which facilitated good discussion in a neutral location. All agreed it did improve relations and understanding.

This joint report has been agreed by: Geva Blackett (Scottish Countryside Alliance), Neil Brown (Head Keeper, Allargue Estate), Bruce Cooper (Head Keeper, Glen Prosen Estate), Peter Duncan (SNH Reserves Manager- East Highland), Duncan Ferguson (Head Bailiff, Spey District Salmon Fishery Board), Bruce Hendry (Head Stalker, Glen Shero Estate), Robbie Kernahan (Director of Deer Management, Deer Commission for Scotland), Colin McClean (CNPA), Pete Mayhew (North Scotland Reserves Manager, RSPB), Donnie Ross (Stalker, Glenfeshie Estate).