Balancing income and cost in red deer management.

This paper presents a bioeconomic analysis of a red deer population within a Norwegian institutional context. This population is managed by a well-defined manager, typically consisting of many landowners operating in a cooperative manner, with the goal of maximizing the present-value hunting related income while taking browsing and grazing damages into account. The red deer population is structured in five categories of animals (calves, female and male yearlings, adult females and adult males). It is shown that differences in the per-animal meat values and survival rates ('biological discounted' values) are instrumental in determining the optimal harvest composition. Fertility plays no direct role. It is argued that this is a general result working in stage-structured models with harvest values. In the numerical illustration it is shown that the optimal harvest pattern stays quite stable under various parameter changes. It is revealed which parameters and harvest restrictions that is most important. We also show that the current harvest pattern involves too much yearling harvest compared with the economically efficient level.

[1]  N. Hobbs.  Modification of Ecosystems by Ungulates , 1996 .

[2]  A. Loison,et al.  Short- and long-term effects of winter and spring weather on growth and survival of red deer in Norway , 1998, Oecologia.

[3]  Anne Loison,et al.  Consequences of harvesting on age structure, sex ratio and population dynamics of red deer Cervus elaphus in central Norway , 1999, Wildlife Biology.

[4]  R. Andersen,et al.  Ungulate Management in Europe: Problems and Practices: List of contributors , 2011 .

[5]  Martin F. Quaas,et al.  Optimal Harvest in an Age Structured Model with Different Fishing Selectivity , 2012 .

[6]  Olli Tahvonen,et al.  Economics of harvesting age-structured fish populations. , 2009 .

[7]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Temporal and spatial development of red deer harvesting in Europe: biological and cultural factors , 2006 .

[8]  R. Putman,et al.  Impacts of wild ungulates on vegetation: costs and benefits , 2010 .

[9]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  Temporal variation in the number of car-killed red deer Cervus elaphus in Norway , 2004, Wildlife Biology.

[10]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  Timing and Synchrony of Ovulation in Red Deer Constrained by Short Northern Summers , 2004, The American Naturalist.

[11]  William J. Reed,et al.  Optimum Age-Specific Harvesting in a Nonlinear Population Model , 1980 .

[12]  Lawrence J. Cook,et al.  Assessment of costs associated with deer–vehicle collisions: human death and injury, vehicle damage, and deer loss , 2008 .

[13]  A. Mysterud.  The concept of overgrazing and its role in management of large herbivores , 2006 .

[14]  A. Mysterud,et al.  Hunting Bambi—evaluating the basis for selective harvesting of juveniles , 2011, European Journal of Wildlife Research.

[15]  Atle Mysterud,et al.  The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations , 2002 .

[16]  C. Dussault,et al.  Ecological Impacts of Deer Overabundance , 2004 .

[17]  Erlend B. Nilsen,et al.  Framtidig forvaltning av norske hjortebestandar – utfordringar knytt il bestandstettleik og demografi , 2010 .

[18]  A. Spence,et al.  Most Rapid Approach Paths in Accumulation Problems , 1975 .

[19]  Alison J. Hester,et al.  REVIEW: The management of wild large herbivores to meet economic, conservation and environmental objectives , 2004 .

[20]  The Cyclical Exploitation of Renewable Resource Stocks May Be Optimal , 1995 .

[21]  Erlend B. Nilsen,et al.  Moose harvesting strategies in the presence of wolves , 2005 .

[22]  A. Skonhoft,et al.  A cost-benefit analysis of moose harvesting in Scandinavia. A stage structured modelling approach , 2011 .

[23]  B. Pokorny,et al.  Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. , 2010 .

[24]  M. Boman,et al.  Moose Hunting Values in Sweden Now and Two Decades Ago: The Swedish Hunters Revisited , 2011 .

[25]  A. Skonhoft,et al.  Managing a Migratory Species That Is Both a Value and a Pest , 2004, Land Economics.