(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Norway's political leadership acts with stoic calm. Despite massive protests from home and abroad, it is currently adhering to the decision to wipe out 47 of approximately 68 wolves in Norway – even though they are on Norway's list of highly endangered species. Although the wolf causes minimal loss of livestock. Although Norway consists of people who are said to love nature. An environmental nation at odds with itself. Understand it who can. The country of the land marks itself again.
Part of the explanation – probably the most important – is admittedly obvious. Sheep farmers and hunters have their loyal allies in local government as well as in national politics. 11 hunters are looking for 000 hunting competitors, also within the wolf zone. This is despite the fact that the competition through predators is generally microscopic, and despite the fact that claims that wolves are a danger to humans can largely only be confirmed by Little Red Riding Hood. But the hunters do not need arguments. They've got theirs license to kill.
Protected in Italy. And the sheep farmers? They have become accustomed to getting political support for their worldview: We have sheep that we make money from and that we send out into the wild on our own. No matter how we (dislike) keep our flock, it is the predators' fault when they supply food they should not. We humans have the first right to nature. With the blessing of the law.
Norway is a large country with lots of space, and a tiny population of five million inhabitants who are known for their close relationship with nature. By comparison, Italy is an equally large country, but with little space due to a population of 60 million. Italians are known to love culture. To them, nature is really something they have rarely seen, because it is driven by people, sunflowers, vines, handmade landscapes and ancient ruins. But look – still 600-700 wolves have found places to thrive, and people welcome them. The stock is stable. In Italy, too, there are naturally enough groups who see their own interests threatened. Poaching – not licensing – is a problem. The wolf is a protected species. In Italy.
Wilderness scenery. Foreign media do not try to understand Norwegians' rabid treatment of endangered species such as wolves, bears, wolverines, golden eagles and lynxes. (By the way, Lyngen municipality reports 10 kroner in shooting premiums for lynx. In addition, the association Lyngen Sau & Geit promises a bounty of the same amount. Twenty notes on the rap to shoot a red-listed animal.) The British author and environmental activist George Monbiot , who writes regularly for The Guardian, describes the situation in devastating detail. In the article "Norway's plan to kill wolves shatters the myth of the country as a virtuous environmental nation", he breaks through the image of Norway as a far-sighted, liberal and green nation. Norway's current political class "is no more sophisticated than the conquerors of the Wild West in the late eighteenth century." Monbiot describes a world upside down – Norwegian authorities who seem to confuse integrity with stubborn solitude. He refers to the statistics, which point out that the overwhelming majority of sheep killed are due to accidents in rough terrain (which in any case is not suitable for sheep): drowning, traffic accidents, diseases. Monbiot points to the need for the predator as a scapegoat – to divert from relatively small but powerful groups state-supported hunting – hunting for both predators and for profit. Not that these arguments have not already been put forward by our own environmental organizations, but it hurts a little extra when it comes from outside. Although obviously not for licensors.
Now the statistics also show something else, namely that around 80 per cent of both the rural and urban population actually want to preserve the current wolf population, and are also happy to increase it. A large demonstration in Oslo in the autumn as well as many thousands of letters of complaint and signatures were sent to the Ministry of Climate and Environment. This is a positive and a negative indication at the same time. It shows that Norwegians are getting involved. But why have they got politicians who in a central case represent the country so disastrously bad?
Could it be that we simply have to restate our priorities? That we have to stop choosing our leaders with half an eye, because "everything is going so well"? We go for a walk in the "wilderness" and accept that it is actually an empty backdrop, though with a lot of rubble. Is there perhaps also the human urge for it to lurk somewhere, the fear of the uncontrollable around us and within us, even so naturally happy we mean to be?
Exterminated. When a man long ago found the fire and began to frighten Shere Khan and his corpse, something that has since grown into a malignant tumor started. We can call it the Conqueror, the planet's CEO or the executioner – those who read the law of natural diversity as the devil reads the Bible. This is how it is OK that a few gray bones are enchanted into "viable wolf population". Some put forward the philosophy that because we have already destroyed so much original nature, the damage has already happened. So dirt let go. They underline the fact that natural habitat recovery – whether through active renaturation or relocation – allows for the recovery of entire ecosystems, and that there are regions in Europe where hunters and environmentalists, among others, seek refuge, for the benefit of all ecosystem in balance.
The Nature Diversity Act and the Bern Convention – whose framework we have to follow – state that legal felling of wolves should not be detrimental to the survival of the stock. The wolf is an endangered species in Norway. Once we had large groups of predators in the country, animals belonging to our fauna. Then they were hunted almost to extinction. A few copies survived. Once in the 1970s, the wolf was protected. It didn't last long. Now we are in danger of eradicating it.
"Norway's plan to kill wolves shatters the myth of the country as a virtuous environmental nation."
Vidar Helgesen is moving towards the end of his first year as Environment Minister, where he now has a golden opportunity to use his position as it can and should be used. In a television interview this fall, Helgesen said he could not comment on the demonstration and protest letters as the matter was "pending." With this he will obviously give the impression that the result has not already been given.
The result will be remembered.
Eckhoff is new firm
organic writer in Ny Tid.
ranveige@gmail.com
