(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Norwegian nature is full of decaying sauelik. They are scattered over difficult areas, with open bowels, eaten eyelids and crawling white fields in the abdomen.
There is certainly no pleasant sight, and there is certainly no pleasant death for the sheep either.
It is not the wolf that is responsible for this enormous damage to the Norwegian sheep tribe, but on the contrary the farmers themselves. When it comes to inflicting Norwegian livestock suffering and trauma, the sheep farmers are a hundred times worse than the wolf, and then we have only increased the numbers in the relationship they actually have.
The undeniable fact is that the wolf kills something like eight hundred sheep every year, while one hundred thousand of them are lost because they are released on free range in an area they cannot manage. This is, of course, because we got rid of the sheep that really belongs in Norwegian forests and mountains, and instead we got a sheep breed that is completely ineffective in meeting most dangers.
Therefore, we are not moved as much as a centimeter when the sheep farmers cry crocodile tears over something as natural as animals killing other animals. When animals kill other animals, the result is reasonably bad, with severe bite damage and bloody remains, and that is the case only.
When the hunters show off the wolf's terrifying tooth guard on television so that we all understand that we cannot have such beasts walking in the Norwegian fauna, yes, then we hum in the car seat. If the hunters do not know that the wolf is a predator, but are equally surprised every time they see one (dead one), then they do not deserve the title of hunter, and neither do they, because they are unable to catch the wolf on the good old way, but must use helicopters to find and massacre it.
There are proud Norwegian hunting traditions there!
It also does not make things better that the hunters, when they are not employed by the state, go around laying out poisonous animal food so that the wolf will eat it and die completely on its own – which is a criminal act. And just as bad is the fact that the state, via the state-employed helicopter pilots, scares the water off the activists by plunging into their heads and letting the helicopter blades rotate just meters above the ground.
Right now we are wondering what the state intends to do with it, and here we will follow – we, and probably many others. The episode has at least been reported to the police, but that does not mean anything since Minister of the Environment Siri Bjerke has already shown what she thinks about fauna crime by hiring an animal killer who previously snuck around in the woods with a backpack full of poisonous bait.
Therefore, we already know that the case will be dropped. Because of the "position of the evidence," as it will probably be called.
First you find out where the wolf is. Then you look for areas where the wolf is definitely not. Then you create wolf zones in the areas where the wolf is not. And then you create red zones for wolves in the areas where it actually is.
For Norway, this ingenious predator policy has led to two out of three wolf packs being mowed down. So far, seven wolves in the so-called Atndal herd and two from Imsdalen have been "taken out", and a tenth is next.
This last wolf has now been given a name; Martin Wolf after rally driver Martin Schanke, who scolded Environment Minister Siri Bjerke for notes during a two-front meeting in Editorial 21 last Monday. Schanke has a helicopter himself, and this helicopter is now in the fight to preserve the tenth wolf in the Atndal flock. And that is why Martin Ulv.
One can say a lot about this harder line on the part of the activists, but right now we are fully on their side and have no problem recognizing the violent rage that must build up in that camp – against Siri Bjerke first and foremost, but also against wolf haters who physically attack tent camps, cars and tracking wolf friends on the trails.
Enough is enough, and many of us thought that maybe the Minister of the Environment and some experts were right when they claimed that it would be just one advantage for the wolf population that it was weeded out a little. It was, of course, a way to turn away from the commitment, because we – and all of you others – have enough to do with other prejudicial things if we are not to fight a stupid Minister of the Environment.
But that was before the news came that the Koppang herd would also be taken. The Koppang herd is also outside the so-called wolf zones, and it was last week that the directorate for nature destruction stated that "everything is up to" another nine wolves to be shot.
It will happen next winter.
Next year at this time, Norway will be twenty wolves poorer, and two out of three herds will be "taken out." Now we are just waiting for the "irrefutable" proof that the herd in Østfold are hybrids and not real wolves, so that the state can hire professional wolf haters here as well. Such documentation will certainly come, but we will follow it also because we have already picked up that DNA tests are by no means reliable and that one can never say for sure whether an animal is an animal or another animal.
Siri Bjerke will say that the animal in Østfold is another animal and that there is no point in preserving something that is in practice a dog breed in Østfold.
In two years at this time, Norway will be a country without wolves, and the Norwegian state will have a complete crush for people who live next to nature but who do not like it or like it. Then they can call it hot if they want.
In all countries other than Norway, the wolf lives perfectly alongside humans and cattle, and it is enough to recall that in Finland there are one thousand wolves without the population there going berserk for that reason.
In the ten-year period from 1846 to 1855, a common premium for a total of 175 wolves was paid only in Hedmark county, and from this it can be deduced that there must have been quite a few of them at that time.
This means that Norway must raise a few hundred animals before it is natural to manage wolves, and everyone with their sanity in mind knows that this is the only right thing to do. For example, Landbruksforlaget itself knows this – aren't the farmers' organizations in there? – which states in a book they have published, "Wolves in Norway," that it is necessary with "very large populations try to provide security for genetic survival in a long time perspective."
It is clear that the sheep farmers do not agree with that, and like most other press groups, they are allowed to work politically for their causes. What they are not allowed to do is post poison and say, as a mayor did last year, that "if we do not shoot the wolf, we will take it badly."
It is incitement to crime, and if this mayor had spoken about other things than wolves, he would probably have been caged inside. But in the wolf debate, everything is legal, and in the country's sheep municipalities, one would never accept that crime is crime "up there" as well.
We have a news piece fresh in memory of a sheep farmer who had his dog killed by a wolf bite while standing outside at night. He cried his courageous tears as well, and that is something we can relate to here in the big city; pet owners and dog lovers as we are.
But when asked if he had seen wolves in the area, this farmer replied that he had probably seen beastly snuff around the house walls in recent weeks.
In other words, he knew that the wolf was nearby, and he probably also knew that with his teeth. We do not know how people think in Norway itself, but we ourselves would probably not have tied our dog out at night when the wolf was just around the corner…
