This paper reveals that Swedish game management policy is often ignored by local landowners who instead use alternative, legitimate, but often illegal informal rules: proxy policy. In consequence, a number of game management policy goals still remain unattained since their introduction in 1981. This circumstance adds weight to the premise that implementing natural resource management policies that lack legitimacy trigger permanent and costly conflicts between stakeholders. Ironically, the corporative state, via its judicial process, can only enforce policy if conflicts of interest come to its attention. Therefore, it is argued that if natural resource management is to be effectiveas well as efficient a more collaborative and legitimate Swedish policy making process is imperative.