Threatening wolf in Sweden

There are times when conservationists shall take strong action and the time has come now for the wolves!

A Swedish hunting organisation suggested in public to eridicate wolf from the country (see the article here in Swedish). Our Society asks its supporters and everyone who sympathises with our aim to protect Wilderness across Europe to say NO to this proposal.

There is a public voting in the Exressen website where the question is: Should the wolf exist in Sweden? Shockingly the result of the poll as of today is:

  • 30% yes
  • 70% no

This preliminary result is really surprising! Let us copy and paste two quotes from the social media linked to the issue and our society:

European Wilderness advocacy is like solitary wolves coming together in a pack to protect their homeland

John Muir Trust

This proposal is an attack on nature conservation and all the ethical values of a free and wild and healthy nature and a tolerant society that respects life

Staffan Widstrand
Swedish nature photographer and co-founder of the Wild Wonders of Europe

We ask you to vote for YES, wolf should exist in Sweden and we go even further: wold should be re-introduced in all European countries where it went extinct!

Stay up to date with our Newsletter!

You May Also Like

6 thoughts on “Threatening wolf in Sweden

  1. Great story, been a hunter with such high conservation and wilderness appreciation. Do not you want to share your story on our website?

  2. I think everyone needs to relizae the reason all wildlife populations are shrinking is because of people. Not wolves. Period. Habitat fragmentation, loss of range due to roads and development, introduced species, disease, poor concepts of management, grazing, ranching, (although I would rather see cows than condos), poaching, you name it are all factors. The wolf has been histories scapegoat. We need to take a much harder look into our own actions and extend our combined passion for the outdoors beyond just hunting and into our everyday lives. If we the outdoorsmen don’t come together and protect these lands no one will. That protection must come beyond voting for politicians it must be incorportaed into our everyday lives and the lives of our children. Join outdoor groups, educate young people, practice and enforce the ethical use of our wildlands, and just maybe we can have wolves and elk and deer and people.A note for everyone who will email me in response to this and whom questions my comments I have been a hunter for as long as I have been alive and I will have it no other way. I live in AZ where we just reintroduced the Mexican Grey Wolf and I have a degree in Conservation Biology and I believe that if you want to gripe become educated and find a way to make a difference. I hope you all enjoy many beautiful days a field.

  3. Dear Ruth,

    Despite of all scientifically proved knowledge and arguments particularly of the benefit of large carnivores and their importance for the healthy ecosystems human behaviour is changing very slowly. Since a young age we are educated in a very much egocentrism concept. That obviously doesn’t help us not only to understand but to accept and adopt knowledge bringing by science already for decades.
    Many Europeans consider Sweden and also other Scandinavia countries as a last threshold of the European wilderness. Many of them visiting this corner of Europe still have that consideration. Suddenly coming to the land with a lot of trees can get the feeling that they suddenly are in the one big protected area. The true is that only small segments of these countries provide examples of the real wilderness.

    Activity of European Wilderness Society is focusing on positive approach, highlighting the last remnants of the European wilderness and focusing on the potential to expand them through the smart and scientifically based wilderness focused restoration. If you are keen to contribute to these positive examples come and join us…

  4. In the past Wolves were killed, because they were seen as competition to the hunters and a threat to the livestock. Today, the threat to livestock is typically well managed with reimbursement fees, electrical fences and carnivore management plans in the few areas where livestock are filling in for a lack of herbivores. If wolves are hunted, the reason must therefore be found in the first argument. So focus your attention, why hunters feel threatened by a few wolves and argue on that level.

  5. I have signed the petition to stop the killing of Susie the wolf on Care2 etc. I find it unbelievable that in such a huge wilderness of sweden ( seen all the parks on visit sweden), that there is all this land & a handful of wolves, a natural species & they want to kill this new blood.!!! it seems to me that greed, intolerance, & bloodymindedness are at work here. was thinking of holidaying in sweden but not now. I see it has lots of scenery & HUMAN activities which so obviously have priority in this country. Just an empty clinical attractive scenery with little wildlife in it! no mention of it on the site I visited.. very disappointing. With the overpopulation of humans on this planet , eventually there will be no room left for wildlife! How sad is that!

  6. Of course the wolf must stay! NOT only in Sweden, but on every place where this beautiful creature was ‘put’ from/throught genuine nature!
    Let people not behave so arrogant = destructive towards animals, not only wolfs, but accept them as part of OUR world!

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: