Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
1 September 2001 Moose Alces alces hunting in Finland - an ecological risk analysis
Anne Luoma, Esa Ranta, Veijo Kaitala
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The moose Alces alces population in Finland has been managed for sustained harvest since 1970 by regulating annual hunting quotas. However, against all expectations the population size declined in the 1990s. An ecological risk analysis approach was used to build a growth model with annual harvest for the moose population. In the model there is stochasticity in the parameters representing population dynamics. We shall address: 1) whether the population decline could be due to a mismatch between harvest and anticipated population growth rate, and 2) to what extent hunting the moose population down to a much lower target size succeeds. A central element in this is the assumption that the estimate of the pre-hunting population size errs. First, the probability of a population decline due to hunting increases from values close to 0% up to 100% in a very narrow range (15–25%) of harvest rates. Even with high birth rates the risk of a population decline was substantial when the hunting rate exceeded 25% for cows and 37.5% for calves and bulls. The 1974–1994 moose harvest rate was, on average, ca 45% of the population size in autumn. The high rate suggests that the harvest might have been too intense in that period to keep the population stable. Second, we set the target to reduce the moose population drastically (to say 50% of the existing population size). Assuming that the estimates of the population size may err, our analysis shows that the achieved population size after the severe harvest is far below the size we aimed at.

© WILDLIFE BIOLOGY
Anne Luoma, Esa Ranta, and Veijo Kaitala "Moose Alces alces hunting in Finland - an ecological risk analysis," Wildlife Biology 7(3), 181-187, (1 September 2001). https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.2001.022
Published: 1 September 2001
KEYWORDS
Alces alces
Finland
harvesting
management
moose
risk analysis
Back to Top