(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
The Storting has adopted a new "wolf settlement". But the danger is that new wolves are constantly emerging. For the wolves themselves, they no longer have a chance in the political game of their lives.
In recent years there has been a change in the Norwegian wolf debate. Those who were previously cautious that they "were not for extinction", but only wanted "the stock at a reasonable level", have long admitted that the reasonable level in their eyes are zero wolves in Norway. Not surprisingly, the Center Party is in the forefront of eradicating wolves from Norwegian soil. Their leaders have stated that the wolf should be "undesirable" in Norwegian nature.
Eradication has unfortunately again become stuerent. After scarce 40 years of trying to teach new generations that species diversity is good and eradication bad, the old troll from the 1800 century has raised its head again. Why do we let it stand out? Why should the troll be included in the debate at all? Maybe the troll can join, not because it is so big, but because it is so bad: harsh words, angry threats to shoot wolves whether it is law or not – this is how the extermination troll emerges. Is it simply heard for fear – fear that the troll will make even more trouble, destroy even more if it does not get its will? The indulgence of the politicians who, in their own eyes, stand for the protection of the wolf, is striking.
For though SV, V and MDG broke out of negotiations at the Storting – for the sake of the wolf – nor was their proposal worthy of a critically endangered species. It was a compromise with the absurd corner Norwegian wolf policy has painted into. In this corner, the new conciliation parties H, FrP, AP and KrF are now in agreement that the wolf will still be critically endangered in Norway, and that the areas the wolves can moving in will be even smaller.
It is easy at least when even ministers and secretaries of state pretend to believe that their task is to limit and eradicate when it really is to protect. But we must be able to demand more from our Storting politicians than to allow extinction attitudes from the 1800 century to govern our common wolf policy.
In Norway, both heart and shelter for animals that are "in trouble" are shrinking. The argument that arises when studying the debate on the part of predator opponents is a basic attitude to the wolf as a "bad animal". The reluctance seems to be because the wolves are not seen to be of any benefit to humans – they cannot be "used" to anything. But what is worse: they contribute to the fact that one may have to take some considerations into one's behavior.
In Norway, both heart and shelter for animals that are "in trouble" are shrinking.
The economy is happy central to people's attitudes to what is "good" or "bad." When SP's leader stated that "it costs society a lot of money to provide for the 30 wolves living in Norway", it was probably perceived by wolf opponents as a good point. Why should we pay for something we don't earn? But the wolves themselves do not cost money, they do not require anything but to be at peace. The wolf resistance, on the other hand, is expensive. The costs that SP attributes to wolves are largely related to the fact that we in Norway plan for a total control of this animal species, and based on all measures necessary for humans to adapt their activity to nature, is a common corporate social responsibility – precisely to satisfy predators. The cost of the actual hunting of endangered predators – a hunt that many people oppose – is also paid by the taxpayers. While other countries with far less money in the Treasury employ forest keepers to protect endangered animals from hunting, the money bag in Norway is primarily used for measures that do not serve the animals.
Dare our politicians to say what has obviously become the unknowable? That is, other animal species have a right to life – not because we "have anything to do with them", but because they have value in themselves?
The Storting report on wolves is unequivocal with regard to the legal basis for taking care of wolves: The Berne Convention is a protection convention and "obliges Norway to take care of wolves". In addition, wolves are listed as species that require special protection, the minimum requirement being that "all forms of intentional capture and captivity and intentional killing, destruction of areas used for breeding or resting places, significant disturbance of animals, etc." must be prohibited. The Natural Diversity Act builds on the Bern Convention and states that the species should "occur in viable populations in their natural areas of distribution". But the law seems worthless in the hands of our politicians. The theory protects the wolf – but the practice is different.
Norway has two critically endangered predatory mammals – the wolf and mountain fox. It is striking how much discrimination these animals are subjected to. While measures to secure mountain reefs in Norway are constantly being highlighted, getting the wolf off the red list is not even a political ambition. When the wolf zone is now reduced by the Storting, and the number of wolves living in practice goes down, the result of the Storting's new wolf settlement can be a large-scale slaughter of one of Norway's two critically endangered predatory mammals.
Martinsen is a veterinarian and leader in NOAH – for animal rights. siri@dyrsrettigheter.no
