During the 1970s and 1980s the number of collisions between moose and vehicles rapidly increased in Sweden. This in part was due to the major growth in moose numbers, but also to the fact that the traffic increased considerably in the same period. The only method to reduce moose accidents – besides increased harvesting – that has been useful in the entire country is wildlife-fences. Fences reduce the risk of moose-vehicle accidents with approximately 80 %. However, the growing web of fenced highways and main arterial roads may be of importance for the long-term survival of wildlife. For instance, highways in Central- and Western Europe had clear barrier effects on larger mammals. The European road 6 (E6) from Göteborg to Uddevalla has in the past 30 years been subject to extensive development into a highway, which includes fencing. The E6 between these two cities follows the coastline on the west side of Sweden, thereby isolating a rather narrow stretch of habitat in the west. The object of this study is to answer the question if the isolation of sub-populations of moose on the west side of the E6 has negatively affected the moose population and thereby reduced the harvest compared to the population on the east side of the E6. The hypothesis is that the annual harvest in the populations on the west side of the road was lower compared to the east. Four areas were selected, one on each side of the E6 in the south (SE, SW) and one on each side of the E6 in the north (NE, NW). Harvest data for the years 1976-2002 were collected from the County Administrative Boards of Göteborg and Vänersborg, as well as the size of the areas licensed for hunting. The harvest, i.e. the number of shot moose, is presented in relation to license area as well as forested area. Fencing of the E6 in the south area took place in the beginning of this study, and the difference between the harvest in the east and west side was analysed. Fencing in the north area took place in 1991 and four analyses were made: 1) the difference in harvest before fencing between the east and west side, 2) the difference in harvest after fencing between the east and west side, 3) the difference in harvest before and after fencing in the NW area, and 4) the difference in harvest before and after fencing in the NE area. It was not possible to make a clear inference from the statistical analysis in this study. There was a significantly lower harvest in the SW per unit license area but significantly higher harvest in the SW per unit forest area. In the north there was a significantly lower harvest in the west per unit license area, but the harvest had not decreased compared to NE after fencing, and per unit forest area the harvest had increased in the NW after fencing. Consequently, there did not emerge any support that the isolation of sub-populations of moose on the west side of the E6 has harmed the moose hunting. The harvest on the west side of the road had in no case decreased since fencing or been reduced compared to the harvest on the east side. However, this study indicates that the levels of harvest might show a notable difference depending on whether license areas or forest areas are used as background. When deciding allotments the County Administration Boards look at total areas and not the amount of forest in the area. This seems to result in perhaps relatively large allotments for areas with a low proportion of forest.