Search

‘Adaptive management’, which has been defined as the repeated iteration between management action, scientific assessment and revised management action, leading to a strengthened foundation for management, is required by Swedish law to be incorporated into the management of large carnivores. We have evaluated whether the size and/or trend of the brown bear Ursus arctospopulation in Sweden corresponded to management-decided national objectives during five management regimes during the past 70 years (1943—2013). We found that the objective had been met in only one period, when it had been worded very vaguely. During the last period studied (2008—2013), when management was carried out on the county level and adaptive management was required by the Swedish Government, four of six counties met their trend objectives, but only one of six met the population objectives, although one was close to meeting them. Sociological studies have documented major problems in communication among the members of the county delegations responsible for the management of large carnivores. As adaptive management apparently never has been implemented successfully in brown bear management in Sweden, we recommend that the Delegations for Game Management be mandated to integrate up-to-date, scientifically documented biological information into their decisions. This is not done consistently today. Researchers should be involved in the process to inform about relevant, available information, design testable scientific ‘experiments’ based on the predicted results of management decisions, and evaluate the results in relation to the predictions, perhaps as members of a ‘boundary organization’ consisting of researchers, managers and stakeholders. This would require a new management paradigm, because many in Sweden seem to be skeptical to the idea of involving researchers in management.

AbstractWe analyzed harvest data to describe hunting patterns and harvest demography of brown bears (Ursus arctos) killed in 3 geographic regions in Sweden during 1981–2004. In addition, we investigated the effects of a ban on baiting, instituted in 2001, and 2 major changes in the quota system: a switch to sex-specific quotas in 1992 and a return to total quotas in 1999. Brown bears (n=887) were harvested specifically by bear hunters and incidentally by moose (Alces alces) hunters. Both hunter categories harvested bears 1) using dogs (37%), 2) by still hunting (30%), 3) with the use of bait (18%), and 4) by stalking (16%). The proportion of bears killed with different harvest methods varied among regions and between bear- and moose-oriented hunters. We found differences between male (52%) and female bears (48%) with respect to the variables that explained age. Moose-oriented hunters using still hunting harvested the youngest male bears. Bears harvested during the first management period (1981–1991) were older and had greater odds of being male than during the subsequent period. It appears that hunters harvesting bears in Sweden are less selective than their North American counterparts, possibly due to differences in the hunting system. When comparing the 4 years immediately prior to the ban on baiting with the 4 years following the ban, we found no differences in average age of harvested bears, sex ratio, or proportion of bears killed with stalking, still hunting, and hunting with dogs, suggesting that the ban on baiting in Sweden had no immediate effect on patterns of brown bear harvest demography and remaining hunting methods. As the demographic and evolutionary side effects of selective harvesting receive growing attention, wildlife managers should be aware that differences in harvest systems between jurisdictions may cause qualitative and quantitative differences in harvest biases. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(1):79–88; 2008)

Abstract:In North America, brown bears (Ursus arctos) can be a significant predator on moose (Alces alces) calves. Our study in Sweden is the first in which brown bears are the only predator on moose calves. Bears and moose occurred at densities of about 30/1,000 km2and 920/1,000 km2, respectively, and bears killed about 26% of the calves. Ninety‐two percent of the predation took place when calves were <1 month old. Bear predation was probably additive to other natural mortality, which was about 10% in areas both with and without bears. Females that lost their calves in spring produced more calves the following year (1.54 calves/F) than females that kept their calves (1.11 calves/F), which reduced the net loss of calves due to predation to about 22%.

Records of bountied brown bears Ursus arctosin Norway and Sweden were analysed to estimate population size in the mid-1800's, and changes in population size and distribution in relation to the bear management policies of both countries. In the mid-1800's about 65% of the bears in Scandinavia were in Norway (perhaps 3,100 in Norway and 1,650 in Sweden). Both countries tried to eliminate the bear in the 1800's; Sweden was more effective. By the turn of the century, the numbers of bears were low in both countries. The lowest population level in the population remnants that have subsequently survived occurred around 1930 and was estimated at 130 bears. Sweden's policy was changed at the turn of the century to save the bear from extinction. This policy was successful, and the population is now large and expanding. Norway did not change its policy and bears were virtually eliminated by 1920–30. Since 1975, bear observations increased in Norway. This coincided temporally with an abrupt increase in the Swedish bear population, and bears reappeared sooner in areas closer to the remnant Swedish populations. Both conditions support our conclusion that the bear was virtually exterminated in Norway and suggest that bears observed now are primarily immigrants from Sweden, except for far northern Norway, which was recolonised from Russia and Finland. Today, we estimate that the Scandinavian bear population numbers about 700, with about 2% in Norway (on average about 14 in Norway, 650–700 in Sweden). This is a drastic reduction in the estimate of bears in Norway, compared with earlier studies. The trends in bear numbers responded to the policies in effect. The most effective measures used in Scandinavia to conserve bears were those that reduced or eliminated the economic incentive for people to kill them. Our analysis also suggests that population estimates based on reports from observations made by the general public can be greatly inflated.

Regressions are presented to predict the total weight (TW) in kg of Scandinavian brown bears Ursus arctosfrom field-dressed weights (FW), where TW = 4.01 + 1.16 × FW, and slaughter weights (SW), where TW = 4.63 + 1.49 × SW. Both regressions had high predictive values (r2= 0.97) and were not significantly affected by sex or genetic lineage of the bears. Formulas to calculate confidence intervals are also presented.