Despite court order Norwegian environmental minister allows killing 42 wolves

Updated 15.12.2017

While the EU continued the protective status of the wolf in Europe earlier this month, Norwegian wolves are threatened again. We recently shared the good wolf news in November, including the news of Norway’s ban on wolf culling. Earlier this year, for the second year in a row, the Norwegian government allowed wolf culling of 50 individuals. The proposed numbers would almost entirely exterminate the population. If hunters meet the culling quotas, the remaining individuals will face immense pressures and risks for continued survival. Recent studies showed that the culling will have a critical impact on the genetic viability of the Norwegian wolf population. Hunters already killed at least 6 wolves, before the Oslo District Court stopped the culling of the remaining 46 wolves, after requests from WWF-Norway.

Killing wolves for Christmas

This week, Norway’s Minister of Environment Vidar Helgesen, approved the continuation of culling 42 wolves. The government altered their decision slightly, enabling the continuation despite the Court order. The last official counts indicated 52 to 56 individuals in Norway. This is 17% less compared to last year. Another 50-odd wolves live at the border between Norway and Sweden. Meanwhile, Sweden provides a home to over 350 wolves.

The wolves in Norway are classified as critically endangered, according to the Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre; and the Norwegian parliament has decided that Norway must have a sustainable wolf population.

The planned wolf hunt will eradicate almost all Norwegian wolves. The Norwegian government is acting against international obligations under the Bern Convention, as well as breaching Norwegian law and decisions made by the parliament.

states Friends of the Earth Norway.

In response WWF Norway is suing the Norwegian state for the second time in a short time span.

Suing the state is demanding in many ways but we feel that we do not have a choice, considering the current Norwegian wolf management. We need a sustainable management that ensures the wolf population in the long-run while at the same time initiating mitigating measures to reduce conflicts between wolves and grazing animals.

said Ingrid Lomelde, Policy Director at WWF-Norway.

Killing wolves is not a problem-solving method. With the hundreds of wolves in neighbouring countries, wolves will continue to wander into Norway. Although Norway is not the only country that allows wolf culling, the percentage to be killed is by far the highest in Europe. Instead of killing them, Norway could welcome the wolves and adapt to this predatory species. Proper herd management techniques are effective in minimising conflicts significantly across Europe, like in Germany and Switzerland.

Stay up to date on the Wilderness news, subscribe to our Newsletter!

You May Also Like

5 thoughts on “Despite court order Norwegian environmental minister allows killing 42 wolves

  1. I am so embaressed that the Norwegian state still allows wolf and lynx hunting on such scarce animals in Norway. I hope the European parliament can put on some pressure to stop this hunting that has been going on too long.

  2. Dette er grusomt..Det er kun WWF som gjør noe for å bevare Ulvene (eller de andre Rovdyrene vi her i Norge har) utenom det lille privatpersoner kan gjøre,som å gå i demonstrasjonstog blant annet. Fortsetter det slik,så kan barne-og oldebarna mine kun se Ulv,Rev,Gaupe,Jerv, mm i dyreparker og på museum.. 🙁

  3. so is there any reaction of European Commission or mr Timmermans? He is so keen on nature conservation

  4. Both very surprising and very disappointing that such a civilised country as Norway will resort to such simplistic ‘solutions’ for such a small problem, particularly after seeing David Attenborough’s BluePlanet 2 on Sunday evening, where we were told how a very sensible Norway had managed it’s herring fishery in such a responsible fashion (after a policy of killing Orca’s!); so much so that it’s a viable industry again, after a long term ban on fishing and, not killing the herring predators! How then can the same country apply such uncivilised and worse, unscientific, methods to control a few apex-predators, the very sign of a healthy environment? Shameful and very irresponsible, in the 21st century!

  5. How can we prevent this immanent killing? this is insane! Sweden might protest as well, as their protected wolves are in danger too!

Please Leave a Comment

Join more 100+ forest experts demanding a radical change in German forestry management.

Sign the Open Letter to the German Federal Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

Open Letter to the German Ministry of Food and Agriculture

Federal Ministry of
Food and Agriculture
Minister Julia Klöckner
11055 Berlin

Dear Minister Klöckner,

The current situation of the forest in Germany is worrying. It is a forest crisis not only driven by climate change. The current crisis management of the forestry industry is backward-looking and harmful to the forest. The declaration announced at the meeting of ministers in Moritzburg can be described as a `Moritzburg declaration of bankruptcy´. We call on the state forestry industry to, instead of expensive rushed actions, finally carry out an expert analysis of its own work and to involve all stakeholders in this process. What is called for is a consistent departure from plantation forestry and a radical shift towards a management that treats the forest as an ecosystem and no longer as a wood factory.

On 1stAugust 2019, five forestry ministers of CDU and CSU-led states adopted a so-called “master plan” for the forest in Germany, which was affected by heat, bark beetles, fire and drought. As of 2020, the federal government is to make 800 million euros available as a reaction to climate change. This money is to be used to repair the damage caused, reforest the damaged areas and carry out `climate-adapted´ forest conversion – including the use of non-native tree species that have not yet been cultivated in the forest. Research should therefore focus on on tree species suitability and forest plant breeding in the future – keyword: `Climate-adapted forest of the future 2100´.

Remarkably, the damage caused primarily by the extreme drought of 2018 is attributed solely to climate change. Climate change is meeting a forest that is systemically ill due to the planting of non-native tree species, species poverty, monocultures, uniform structure, average low age, mechanical soil compaction, drainage etc. A healthy, resistant forest would look differently! The master plan emphasizes: sustainable, multifunctional and `active´ forest management remains indispensable – and thereby means that its unnatural state cannot be changed. Reference is made to the `carbon storage and substitution effects´ of wood products. The use of wood, e.g. in the construction industry, should be increased and thus the demand for wood should be further fueled – while knowing that the forest in Germany already cannot meet this demand. In fact, forest owners are suffering from poor timber prices due to an oversupply of trunk wood on the world market.

All these demands make clear: the current forestry strategy, which has been practiced for decades, should not change in principle. The concept is simple: cut down trees – plant trees. At best, the `design´ of the future artificial forests consisting of perfectly calculated tree species mixtures, that are believed to survive climate change without damages, can be changed. In all seriousness, the intention is to continue selling the public a so-called `future strategy´ to save the forest. This strategy seamlessly follows the model of a wood factory, that is met with general rejection and must be regarded as a failure in view of the coniferous plantations that are currently collapsing on a large scale. An essential part of the forests that have currently died is exactly the part that was reestablished in 1947 as coniferous monocultures on a much larger area than today. There is only one difference to the situation at the time: considerable amounts of money are to be made available from taxes for forest owners this time.

Climate change is progressing, and this, without a doubt, has massive impacts on all terrestrial ecosystems, including forests. To pretend that the last two years of drought alone caused the disaster is too cheap. On closer inspection, the disaster is also the result of decades of a forestry focused on conifers – in a country that was once naturally dominated by mixed deciduous forests. People do not like to admit that for more than 200 years they have relied on the wrong species of commercial tree (spruce) and have also created artificial, ecologically highly unstable and thus high-risk forest ecosystems. A whole branch of business has become dependent on coniferous wood. And now the German coniferous timber industry is on the verge of bankruptcy.

It would only have been honest and also a sign of political greatness if you and the forestry ministers in Moritzburg had declared: Yes, our forestry industry has made mistakes in the past, and yes, we are ready for a relentless analysis that takes into account not only purely silvicultural, but also forest-ecological aspects. Instead, you have confined yourselves to pre-stamped excuses that are already familiar to everyone and that lack any self-critical reflection.

Clear is: We finally need resting periods for the forest in Germany, which has been exploited for centuries. We need a new, ecologically oriented concept for future forest – not a hectic `forest conversion´, but simply forest development closer towards nature. This gives the forest as an ecosystem the necessary leeway to self-regulate and react to the emerging environmental changes. We need a systemic forest management that is no less profitable than the present one, but must be substantially more stable and resistant to foreseeable environmental changes. The aid for forest owners that all citizens are now required to pay through their taxes is only politically justified in the interest of common good, if the forests of the future that are being promoted by it, do not end up in the next disaster, some of which is produced by the forest management itself.

That is why the signatories request from the the Federal Government, and in particular you, Mrs Klöckner, a master plan worthy of the name:

On disaster areas (mainly in public forests!) reestablishment through natural forest development (ecological succession), among other things with pioneer tree species, is to be brought about. In private forests, ecological succession for reestablishment must be purposefully promoted. Larger bare areas should be planted with a maximum of 400 to 600 large plants of native species per hectare in order to permit ecological succession parallelly.
To promote ecological succession, the areas should no longer be completely and mechanically cleared; as much wood as possible should be left in the stand (to promote optimum soil and germ bed formation, soil moisture storage and natural protection against browsing). In private forests, the abandonment of use in disaster areas should be specifically promoted for ecological reasons and in order to relieve the burden on the timber market.

Regarding the promotion of reestablishment plantings in private forests: priority for native tree species (of regional origin); choose wide planting distances in order to leave enough space for the development of pioneer species. For the forests of the future: Minimize thinning (low-input principle), build up stocks through targeted development towards old thick trees, protect the inner forest climate / promote self-cooling function (should have highest priority due to rapidly progressing climate change!), prohibit heavy machinery, refrain from further road construction and expansion, permit and promote natural self-regulatory development processes in the cultivated forest and on (larger) separate areas in the sense of an compound system; drastically reduce the density of ungulate game (reform of hunting laws).

Like in the field of organic agriculture, which has been established since the 1980s, the crisis of our forests should be the reason today to transform at least two existing forestry-related universities. They should be turned into universities for interdisciplinary forest ecosystem management. This is a contribution not only to the further development of forestry science and silviculture in Germany, but also of global importance! The goal must be to produce wood through largely natural forest production and to start with it here in Germany, the birthplace of forestry.


**your signature**

Share this with your friends:

%d bloggers like this: