(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
After hard fighting, a majority of the Storting consisting of the government parties, the SV and the Labor Party have now reached a compromise on the predator message. From nature conservation, one is cautiously positive, despite the fact that the number of breeding wolves should be reduced by 1/4 compared to the government's proposal. We do not share this optimism, because we believe that the Storting is now proposing an unrealistic management strategy that does not adequately take into account international obligations or the population of predatory areas.
The biggest weakness in Norwegian wolf management is, in our view, that there is too little number of wolves in combination with a meaningless principle of limiting the wolf's movement within certain county and municipal boundaries. That the wolf does not read parliamentary resolutions should be known to most people – it moves and settles where it wants. By and large, there are also games for the gallery to portray the expansion of the core area as a helping hand to the population in wolf-exposed areas. The wolf will mainly stay in the areas towards the Swedish border – and it is of it may be a problem. One or two stray animals should be able to live with – be it in the areas just west of Glomma, which is now part of the expanded wolf zone, or for example in Telemark and Agder counties, where the wolf is not allowed to stay.
A sound management of the wolf tribe would mean not setting specific geographical limits for wolf distribution, but setting clear limits on what the population of wolf-exposed areas must find before taking action. There is every reason to show appreciation for those who experience the problem of having gray-legged strolling around the house wall or kindergarten. Today, the people in these areas either have to go through a lengthy procedure to take out the animals that do the most harm, or are perceived as the most threatening. The main reason for this is the following: With less than 20 wolves in Norway, there would have been a disaster with a local wolf management. Only a few wrong decisions about wolf felling would have catastrophic consequences for the entire wolf tribe.
If the Norwegian-Swedish wolf population were allowed to grow sufficiently to withstand both sensible removal of animals, erroneous but legal traps, disease and illegal hunting – which we know is happening, and which there is reason to fear will continue – it would be far less dramatic to allow felling decisions to take place at the local level. In such a situation, national authorities could establish an overall set of rules, at the same time as the specific decisions were made locally and as a direct response to injuries or threatening behavior from wolves.
From other countries we know that the population can learn to live with large predators, be it crocodiles, lions and tigers, bears or wolves. At the bottom must be a recognition that Norway has an obligation – not only legally to the international community, but to nature itself – to take care of large predators. Based on that commitment, there must be a recognition that this responsibility applies to all of us. If we want large predators in Norway, we must accept that it moves freely. And we must accept that spending on measures that can prevent the loss of livestock is a shared responsibility.
