Elgvandringer i grenseland med følger for skogbruk, jakt og rovdyr

The management of moose in areas with partially migratory moose populations is challenging because costs from browsing damage on forest production and benefits from moose harvest are unevenlydistributed among landowners. More complications arise if animals migrate across management units and even more across national borders. GRENSEVILT has studied interactions between moose, wolves, forestry and moose harvest in northern Finnskogen, a vast boreal forest area divided by the national border between Norway and Sweden. To estimate the size of the moose population and map the spatial distribution of moose during two winters and summers 2019-2021, we conducted fecal pellet counts in a study area of >3500 km2. We also analysed the area use of four wolf packs. In spring 2021, we conducted a large browsing survey that combined the Norwegian Solbraa and the Swedish Äbin method. Finally, we compiled harvest data from Norwegian and Swedish moose management units for the hunting years 2019/20 and 2020/21.We estimated moose densities in winter 2019/20, summer 2020, winter 2020/21 and summer 2021 to 1.18, 1.37, 1.01, and 1.70 moose/km2, respectively. Moose were more evenly distributed throughout the study area during summer. During winter, moose concentrated in areas with little snow, while snow-rich areas in the north had very little moose. Although moose distribution changed between summer and winter, the wolf packs kept stable territory borders throughout the year. However, they adjusted their activity inside the territories to the seasonal changes in moose distribution. The winter concentration areas of moose were characterized by an increased browsing pressure on pine shoots. Damage on production trees was most common in the valley bottoms and on stands with a lot of deciduous trees, but was not related to moose winter density. The effect of moose on forestry measured with the Norwegian Solbraa method showed that the browsing pressure on pine was mainly insignificant. In contrast, the Swedish Äbin method indicated a very serious state for the forest on the same sampling areas, based on the proportion of damaged pine stems. Hunter harvest in moose management units mirrored the summer distribution of moose in Norway, but not in Sweden, where harvest rates were highest in areas with lowest summer densities of moose. Areas with high harvest rates had lower moose densities during the following winter. We did not find any correlation between browsingpressureor damage and harvest among moose management units.In the eastern part of the study area where a large proportion of moose spent the summer and most of the hunting season in Norway, but migrated to Sweden when snow accumulated, there was a clear mismatch in the management of moose between the two countries. In Sweden, the management responded with high harvest rates to the high rate of browsing damage during previous winters and in addition prolonged the moose hunting period to the end of January in order to harvest migratory moose. In Norway, harvest rates were reduced because browsing pressure was of no concern and moose were in addition exposed to predation by wolves.We propose improved coordination of moose management across the border. This requires a dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders. A joint moose management unit that extends across the border and covers the annual range of migratory moose would enhance such collaboration. In addition, we propose calibration of browsing surveys and a joint traffic light model that is based on the density of undamaged pine stems rather than browsing pressure or degree of damage.