Not yet determined
grouse shot in the hunting year 2018/2019
|2018-2019||2017-2018 - 2018-2019||2013-2014 - 2018-2019|
|Willow Ptarmigan||124 000||15.7||24.2|
|Black Grouse||19 930||1.4||36.3|
|Wood Pigeon||29 580||-15.0||-32.3|
|Mountain Hare||17 190||25.3||11.0|
|Red fox||25 050||17.5||26.4|
|Roe deer||29 520||-11.3||14.8|
See selected tables from this statistics
|Capercaillie||Black Grouse||Hazel Grouse||Wood Pigeon|
|1The figures were corrected 30 April 2015.|
|2009-2010||11 480||26 210||3 090||56 870|
|2010-2011||14 040||31 430||3 110||52 530|
|2011-2012||11 760||24 350||3 300||44 630|
|2012-2013||5 830||14 560||1 730||42 410|
|2013-2014||7 400||14 620||1 400||43 690|
|2014-2015||9 180||20 120||2 040||39 960|
|2015-2016||4 600||13 150||1 140||39 460|
|2016-2017||7 710||16 270||1 280||37 570|
|2017-2018||9 760||19 660||1 610||34 800|
|2018-2019||13 090||19 930||2 290||29 580|
|Hedmark||5 460||4 300||240||5 600|
|Oppland||760||1 300||100||2 830|
|Buskerud||1 070||2 040||200||2 620|
|Telemark||540||1 740||70||1 270|
|Sogn og Fjordane||40||130||:||70|
|Møre og Romsdal||70||450||:||60|
|Trøndelag||3 590||5 160||1 390||1 720|
|Troms - Romsa||70||470||:||:|
|Finnmark - Finnmárku||180||50||:||20|
|Unknown hunting county||20||30||:||:|
|2009-2010||110 200||54 050|
|2010-2011||127 850||66 850|
|2011-2012||150 350||78 650|
|2012-2013||77 500||42 400|
|2013-2014||99 850||51 700|
|2014-2015||140 000||82 450|
|2015-2016||111 450||63 500|
|2016-2017||118 100||63 800|
|2017-2018||107 200||59 600|
|2018-2019||124 000||57 900|
|Hedmark||14 300||1 600|
|Oppland||10 050||3 650|
|Buskerud||8 600||2 200|
|Telemark||3 350||1 600|
|Aust-Agder||2 250||1 000|
|Hordaland||2 850||4 350|
|Sogn og Fjordane||1 500||2 200|
|Møre og Romsdal||2 150||2 700|
|Trøndelag||37 000||8 650|
|Nordland||12 400||10 600|
|Troms - Romsa||12 500||10 350|
|Finnmark - Finnmárku||13 450||6 600|
|Unknown hunting county||100||50|
|2009-2010||16 890||12 800|
|2010-2011||14 750||14 630|
|2011-2012||12 990||13 320|
|2012-2013||12 830||13 710|
|2013-2014||13 600||15 690|
|2014-2015||15 200||16 140|
|2015-2016||13 470||19 020|
|2016-2017||11 510||14 720|
|2017-2018||12 790||15 460|
|2018-2019||10 700||15 630|
|Østfold||1 390||1 330|
|Sogn og Fjordane||140||230|
|Møre og Romsdal||310||1 440|
|Trøndelag||1 080||4 920|
|Troms - Romsa||220||1 150|
|Finnmark - Finnmárku||100||250|
|Unknown hunting county||:||20|
|Sogn og Fjordane||:|
|Møre og Romsdal||1 710|
|Troms - Romsa||30|
|Finnmark - Finnmárku||:|
|Unknown hunting county||-|
About the statistics
The purpose of the statistics is to provide information about harvested small game, wild boar and roe deer.
The species included in the statistics on small game hunting. Includes 35 species of smal game, Wild boar and roe deer.
The hunting year
One hunting year lasts as from 1 April as to 31 March the following year.
Hunting licence fee
Persons intending to hunt in Norway must pay a hunting license fee to the Wildlife found. The fee covers the full hunting year. Payment of the fee is a prerequisite for hunting, but does not confer the right to hunt in any specific area.
The register of hunters
The Register of Hunters registers those who are licensed to hunt game in Norway. The register also provides an overview of the payment of the hunting licence fee, an annual fee for those who wish to engage in hunting. For more information, see the homepage of The Norwegian Register of Hunters .
Name: Small game and roe deer hunting
Topic: Agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing
Division for Housing, Property, Spatial and Agricultural Statistics
Data sets are stored in accordance with Statistics Norway's guidelines for storing computer files.
The purpose of the statistics is to obtain an overview of a number of small game species and roe deer felled during ordinary hunting. The statistics on small game hunting date back to the hunting year 1971/1972. For the period 1971/1972 - 1992/1993 the statistics refer to a random sample among persons who have paid game conservation tax, later hunting license fee, for the hunting year. As from the hunting year 1993/1994 all hunters who paid the hunting tax were requested to report yield of small game hunting. Due to low return of reports, comprehensive calculations have been necessary to give total estimates. An amendment of section 50 in The Wildlife Act from the 30th of June 2000 gave the Directorate for Nature Management legal authority to fine hunters not reporting. From 2000/2001 the hunter's duty to report has thus become more real and from the hunting year 2001/2002 the response rate has been higher than 90 per cent.
From 1927 to 1984 the roe deer statistics were initially based on reports from the police, and later on from the municipal wildlife boards. From 1984/1985 the roe deer statistics are based on data obtained in the survey for small game hunting. The estimated figures will always have an element of uncertainty.
The statistics are commissioned by The Norwegian Environment Agency, and are an important tool in national management of small game. Major users are central and local wildlife management, research and educational institutions, media and interest groups and interested hunters.
No external users have access to the statistics and analyses before they are published and accessible simultaneously for all users on ssb.no at 8 am. Prior to this, a minimum of three months' advance notice is given in the Statistics Release Calendar. This is one of Statistics Norway’s key principles for ensuring that all users are treated equally.
The Wildlife Act and the Statistics Act § 2-1.
The statistics cover 35 species of smal game, Wild boar and roe deer were are felled in the counties of Østfold to Finnmark.
The individual hunter.
Everyone who has paid the hunting tax for the relevant hunting year.
Every single hunter must submit a report to Statistics Norway by 1 May on the report form provided or by the Internet.
Regular control and revision steps are carried out on the incoming material. During optical scanning all forms are tested against the Register of hunters. The forms are checked for absolute and possible errors, and errors are correct during the revision of the forms. Examples of possible errors include abnormally high felling numbers and data on species outside their normal range.
Number of felled small game and roe deer are summarized and distributed by county and municipality.
In consequence of the changed calculation routine, there are breaks in the time series in 1993/1994, 1999/2000 and 2001/2002. It is assumed that the last two breaks have had marginal impact on the results.
From 1927 to 1984 the roe deer statistics were initially based on reports from the police, and later on from the municipal wildlife boards. For 1984-1986 roe deer statistics were suspended because the traditional way of collecting data severely underestimated the yield. From 1987 the roe deer statistics are based on data obtained in the survey for small game hunting. The figures for these years are not comparable with results from earlier years.
The data are checked for absolute and possible errors, but in some cases data on species outside their normal range are not detected. Some reports lack the county of hunting. In these cases the hunter's county of residense are chosen, provided that the species is normally widespread in this county.
In some cases will species be reported in wrong hunting county. Other sources of errors include missing or incorrectly filled out information from the respondent and errors occurring during the optical reading of the report form.
As from the hunting year 2001/2002 the response rate has been higher than 90 per cent, and corrections because of non-response have not been carried out. It is reason to believe that the numbers of hunters without yield, or with very limited yield, is considerably larger among that hunters not reporting than among these reporting. Consequently, the effect of non-response for the number of animals felled should be less than for non-reporting hunters.
As to the hunting year 2000/2001 the yield was estimated by different methods. For some species at the county or municipality level there will be variations that can in part be due the calculation routines employed. This applies particularly to species with limited ranges.
The municipality statistics are estimated by what is reported via the Internet and this reports are the sample survey. Therefore, only municipalities numbers for these municipalities are estimated. It can also be felled species in municipalities that are not included in the statistics as they are reported on paper forms. In such cases, the municipality numbers in that county will be over estimated.
In addition, the figures may be affected by errors because of incorrect and missing data.