Predator policy: – Witch hunting of the wolf
DEBATE
Shooting wolves because a minority of Norway’s population does not like wolves or has an irrational fear of wolves is not a public interest of predominant importance.
External comments: This is a debate article. Analysis and position are the writer’s own.
State Secretary Smedshaug in the Ministry of Climate and the Environment recently responded to our article in Dagbladet on March 3, where we claim that the government’s wolf administration violates several articles in the Berne Convention. The convention is intended to protect wild animals and their habitats.
The Ministry of Climate and the Environment answers are superficial, and do not go into the points we listed from the convention text that do not comply with Norway. The answer is unsuitable to show that the government’s wolf administration complies with the Berne Convention.
Now it’s the turn of ordinary species!
This winter, the government decided to kill four wolf packs inside the wolf zone. This constitutes five per cent of Norway, where it has been legally established that wolves must have extra strong protection. The reason for shooting the herds was to look after public interests and conflict mitigation, according to Smedshaug. But these wolves posed no threat to humans or animals.
The wolf is critical threatened in Norway, and illegal wolf killing is punishable by one year in prison. Illegal predator killings must be seen in the light of the government’s so-called predator management, which is a euphemism for predator killings, rather than dealing with the protection of endangered animal species.
With this winter’s wolf shooting, the government violated Article 6 of the Convention, because it confirms that:
“All forms of intentional killing on List II species (where the wolf is critically endangered) are prohibited. The countries associated with the conference must ensure that this does not happen. It is further forbidden to disturb wild animals on purpose, and especially during the breeding season, etc. ».
As we point out our article provides for exceptions in Article 9 of the Convention for the killing of endangered predators as well. However, conflict mitigation is not one of them. Exceptions to the protection provided for in Article 6 may be made if there are no other satisfactory solutions and the withdrawal is not to the detriment of the population.
Dancing on wolves
This can be done out of consideration for public interests such as health, safety and other predominant public interests. This is what the State Secretary is referring to, when he says that: “The aim of the felling was to safeguard important societal considerations related to, among other things, district political interests and conflict mitigation”.
So what are they district policy interests? The wolf packs were stable and did not threaten public safety or sheep farming, which is often cited as a district policy interest in Norway. If the Secretary of State is referring to forest owners or hunters, we can say that I am not in the public interest of predominant importance.
Hunting interests are special interests. Shooting wolves because a minority of Norway’s population does not like wolves or has an irrational fear of wolves is also not a public interest of predominant importance.
Wolf panic
The Storting’s population target with 4-6 juveniles is not scientifically based but politically determined. No country other than Norway manages critically endangered wolves with a maximum population target. In the management of critically endangered animal species, the goal is for the population not to decline below a certain number of individuals.
A scientific analysis of Norwegian wolf management by Trowborst, Fleurke and Linnel (2017), shows that the population target violates Article 2 of the Berne Convention. that wild animal populations should be provided at a level that satisfies ecological and scientific requirements.
The Berne Convention is accused in the same article of being consensus-oriented (like many international conventions) and of giving advice rather than criticism, when it complains about breaches of the convention. The fact that the secretariat does not directly criticize member states thus does not mean that the convention does not violate.
The government on wild roads
Helicopter hunt on the wolves violated Annex IV of the Berne Convention, which states that hunting using aircraft is prohibited. Helicopter hunting during the breeding season is also a violation of the Animal Welfare Act, the Biodiversity Act and the Game Act.
The State Secretary does not answer how the government contributes to spreading positive knowledge about the importance of large predators, and thus promoting respect for biodiversity. The government’s witch hunt on wolves rather contributes to a demonization of the wolf that feeds on prejudice and hatred.
So, last but not least, the increasing slaughter of wolves does not dampen conflict. On March 5, approx. 1000 people in front of the Storting against Norwegian wolf policy. There were people from the wolf zone, researchers and conservation organizations. If the Secretary of State had been present, he would have heard shocking testimonies from people who became depressed and upset by the hunting that is taking place in their immediate area.
Overrides the villagers
He wanted to hear about ecological grief over the loss of the wild animals in Norwegian forests, over declining biodiversity. He would sit down when the government only listens to one side of the wolf conflict, so it causes frustration and pity for those who want large predators in Norway. This is the majority of Norway’s population. Why does he not listen to them?
The government must stop to use the wolf shooting instrumentally to satisfy people who are against wolves. Wolves also have intrinsic value. The government must promote biodiversity, not only where it is practical and easy, such as abroad, but also here in Norway.