Simplifications in hunting legislation

Malin Larsson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Swedish wildlife management is based on a balance between viable wildlife populations, hunting ethics, and people's everyday lives. It is a model that has served Sweden well for a long time and which must also be guiding when hunting legislation is changed. The legislation must work in practice for people who live and work close to nature. At the same time, simplifications must never mean that we compromise on responsibility or on long-term sustainable wildlife management.

The Social Democrats support the committee's report on simplifications in the hunting legislation. This report contains several changes aimed at modernizing the regulatory framework and making it more purposeful. It concerns, among other things, hunting on public waters, sale hunting in Sweden's economic zone, the possibility of pursuing injured game for animal welfare reasons, and strengthened confidentiality in predator cases.

Mr. Speaker! For us Social Democrats, hunting ethics are absolutely crucial. Hunting must be conducted responsibly and with respect for both the animals, nature, and the people around. Therefore, it is important that the legislation provides the opportunity to act when animals are suffering.

Today, for example, one can see blood trails in the snow or receive images from a wildlife camera indicating that an animal is injured, yet clear support is still lacking to search for and track the animal in order to end the suffering. It is not reasonable. Facilitating and shortening a wounded animal's suffering must be prioritized. Therefore, it is good that the hunting rights holder now gets the opportunity to search for, track, and pursue game that can be assumed to be so injured that it needs to be euthanized for animal welfare reasons.

At the same time, we must be clear: Illegal hunting is a serious crime and completely unacceptable. Predators and other wildlife shall be managed through legal and regulated hunting, never through criminality.

Mr. Speaker! Another important part of the bill concerns the possibility of seal hunting in Sweden's economic zone. For our coastal fishers, seal damage is not a theoretical issue here in the Riksdag, but it is about destroyed gear, damaged catch, and diminished opportunities to conduct a coastal fishery that is already under heavy pressure.

For many people along our coasts, this is about both jobs, culture, and faith in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable that there is an opportunity for protection and license hunting even in Sweden's economic zone. It is not about free hunting but about regulated hunting within clear frameworks and with continued control. If we mean business with strengthening Swedish coastal fishing and creating better conditions for our coastal communities, the sales management must also be part of the whole.

We also need to dare to talk about how changes in the Baltic Sea affect our ecosystems. When the balance in the Baltic Sea changes, wildlife is also affected. Here in Västernorrland, we see how both seals and cormorants are seeking their way further up rivers and into coastal waters in search of food. It shows how important it is to have a functioning, knowledge-based, and locally anchored wildlife management that can manage changes in nature. Here, the county administrative boards have an important role. Sweden is elongated and looks different, and the management must be able to take into account regional conditions and local needs.

Mr. Speaker! I also want to highlight the part of the bill that strengthens confidentiality in predator cases.

It is actually a failure that people who participate in legal hunting matters or seek compensation for predator damage should need to be protected from threats and harassment. The debate on predators and hunting needs to be characterized more by respect and less by polarization. No one should have to feel anxiety about participating in legal processes or about engaging in issues concerning hunting and wildlife management.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats stand behind a policy where natural resources are managed responsibly and where people who hunt, fish and live close to nature are given reasonable conditions and influence. Fundamentally, good wildlife management is about responsibility, balance and respect – for nature, for the animals and for the people.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here to debate the bill entitled Simplifications in the hunting legislation.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet believe that Sweden needs hunting legislation that works in practice. We need rules that are clear, legally secure, and applicable for hunters, landowners, authorities, and the judiciary, and they must inspire confidence in the public. Therefore, we need wildlife management that is based on knowledge, responsibility, and long-term perspective.

Miljöpartiet does not oppose the changed legislation, but we think many parts are good. But there are some places where we see that it goes a bit too far, and I intend to use a few minutes now to explain why.

The question where we want to see a rejection and where we have a specific statement concerns the part of the bill that deals with hunting of seals in public waters. In the bill, the government proposes that Swedish citizens and citizens of the EU or EEA shall be allowed to hunt in public waters and from rocks that do not belong to any property.

Furthermore, the government proposes that the Hunting Act shall be made applicable in Sweden's economic zone for the purpose of allowing hunting of seals in the zone. We believe this goes too far. When looking at what the referral bodies say, one can see that there are significant problems and uncertainties regarding what this is intended to lead to.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency says that there are difficulties regarding supervision and control and what consequences this has for seal management. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management points out that the hunting must be compatible with a long-term sustainable and scientifically based management. SLU, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, also points to uncertainty regarding population development and system effects.

We believe this is sufficiently important, if not extremely important, for one to pull the handbrake. The seal issue is not just about the hunt for seals specifically, but it is also an ecosystem issue. It is about our fish stocks and our marine environments, which are already under severe pressure.

As many here in the chamber know, it was precisely the maritime issues that brought me to this chamber once upon a time. When one changes the management of an apex predator such as the seal, it should be done with great caution. It must also rest on a scientific basis, but several referral bodies state that we do not yet have a scientific basis to release it freely in that manner, especially not in the Baltic Sea, which is a sea in imbalance. It is a sea under very heavy pressure, and therefore it is problematic that the government in the bill proceeds faster than the expert agencies and the research consider to be wise. In that part, Mr. Speaker, we want the bill to be rejected, and therefore we have a specific statement on that.

We have two other remarks regarding the bill. Some concern what is called the management marking of felled animals. It is about marking animals so that they can be tracked. I think it is very good. We need to do this to have good wildlife management, but several referral bodies request that there must be clearer criteria, a national coordination, and also a better clarification between legal certainty and clarity when it comes to responsibility and traceability.

We do not say no to this, but we think it is good. However, we lack the parts requested by, for example, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and want such criteria to be developed before the legislation is in place. A system that is unclear risks creating problems for authorities rather than facilitating, which is exactly what the new legislation is intended to do.

Mr. Speaker! Another part where we are fundamentally positive, but where there are things that should be in place before the legislation enters into force, is the possibility of killing animals without an authority's decision. We heard in the previous statement that this is important.

Through a trail camera, one can, for example, see an injured animal. Last year, I personally followed the movements of a blind moose in Dalarna, where I have a cottage. It could not be culled, and eventually, it sank into a mire and died a painful death in front of a family who were out on a picnic. It was horrific; no one wants to experience that. With this legislation, such animals can be culled.

At the same time, the referral bodies are quite clear. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency warns of issues regarding boundary definitions and that the protection hunting system could be undermined. The Prosecution Authority points out that there are legal certainty problems and difficulties with retrospective control. The Police Authority highlights that illegal hunting could become harder to detect and investigate.

We must take this very seriously. Illegal hunting is not a marginal problem, but it is a serious threat, primarily to our predator management and also to the trust in hunters overall. The vast majority of hunters conduct hunting in a serious and responsible manner. We have a high level of trust in our hunters in Sweden, and we must continue to have that. Precisely for that reason, we must have legislation that is clear and possible to monitor.

Now this simplification is being made without having these criteria in place. These are criteria that the referral bodies, which are nevertheless experts, have raised. I think it is unfortunate, and it risks leading to an unnecessary debate about legislation that could truly make a difference when it comes to suffering for animals. This could instead end up going wrong.

Mr. Speaker! Overall, we in Miljöpartiet think that many of the amendments are good. It will result in modernized legislation. We are therefore saying no to hunting of seals in the Swedish economic zone in the way it is described, and we would, of course, have wanted to have these criteria in place before proceeding with the legislation in these parts. But we will not object any further than that.

We need to have a functioning wildlife management, and we need to have high hunting ethics and strengthened legal certainty. We must also have decisions that rest on a scientific basis.

Mr. Speaker! With this, I move for approval of reservation 2 of Miljöpartiet.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report 23, which concerns simplifications in the hunting legislation.

During the mandate period, we have had the opportunity to debate issues regarding hunting in this chamber on several occasions. On those occasions, as a member for Sverigedemokraterna, I have had the opportunity to present my party's visions and priorities for how Swedish hunting can be facilitated both for the individual and in the work of our authorities. It is simultaneously about being able to uphold the ethics that exist within Swedish hunting.

We must remember that Swedish hunting traditionally has strong support among the population. It is a support that must, of course, be maintained.

Improving the conditions for Swedish hunting can be done in many ways, partly through propositions similar to the one we are discussing today in the chamber, and partly by the government changing regulations. But it can also be done through the government's agency management – then, of course, in addition to the major budget bill, which makes it possible to direct financial resources to varying extents to Swedish hunting and wildlife management.

Mr. Speaker! From the Sweden Democrats' side, I have during the debates of recent years focused primarily on the importance of countering hunting sabotage, where different types of activists have targeted not only hunters but also hunting towers and so on. In addition, I have often highlighted the need for precisely strengthened secrecy for hunters in various contexts.

With the report and the bill we are dealing with today, we have come a good way for exactly this, even though we from the Sweden Democrats would have preferred to see that a new crime of hunting sabotage was introduced into Swedish legislation. It would further sharpen the seriousness of the attacks that occur against hunters. These attacks damage the conditions for Swedish hunting and also pose a danger to individuals' lives and health, for example when the legs on a hunting tower are sawed off.

My hope is that, with an election victory in the autumn election, we can achieve this new legislation in the Penal Code during the coming parliamentary term and in this way continue our work for Swedish hunting and for Swedish hunters.

Mr. Speaker! With the committee report and the bill we have before us, we improve Swedish hunting and strengthen the protection for Swedish hunters. The Sweden Democrats have for a long time highlighted the need for clearer confidentiality within our authorities as there are threats, harassment, and vandalism in connection with hunting, not least when the hunting concerns wolves. This is something that also appears in the investigation that preceded the bill we have on the table today.

In the investigation, it is described how individuals are threatened on social media and via email and telephone. In more serious cases, "individuals have also been sought out and threatened in their homes."

It also occurs that persons who have applied for a protection hunt or reported a predator attack are threatened. In some cases, people simply refrain from applying or reporting this out of fear of exactly such threats. This is something that is completely unacceptable. We therefore need to tighten the secrecy in accordance with the proposal being presented today, namely that secrecy shall apply at Naturvårdsverket or a county administrative board in a case concerning hunting of bear, wolf, wolverine, lynx or golden eagle. In a case concerning compensation for damage caused by such an animal, the secrecy shall apply for a maximum of twenty years.

The Sweden Democrats' hope is that this change will contribute to better conditions for Swedish hunting and hunters who feel continued strong support from society. It should also contribute to our ability to prevent sabotage and threats against hunting and individuals by preventing activists from accessing personal data.

We must remind ourselves that threats against individual hunters, whether they occur digitally or physically in the home, in the long run can also affect loved ones in the form of family with partners and children and the fear that this entails.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing that the Sweden Democrats and the government are now enabling hunting of seals in Sweden's economic zone. Even though it must be said that the Sweden Democrats would have wanted to go further in this regard, it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. I nevertheless harbor a hope that an election victory and the coming parliamentary term could mean further steps in the right direction when it comes to hunting of seals.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I want to highlight what is at the core of the bill, namely simplifying the legislation. It is also something we do as the conditions are now improved for acting upon the search and management of damaged wildlife. We also continue the work to reduce unnecessary administration and bureaucracy for the country's hunters.

We have during previous parliamentary terms seen how the EU has taken an ever greater grip on issues linked to hunting, not least by referring to other issues such as environmental issues. Now, however, we have begun to resist this more clearly, partly through the Swedish legislation, which we can influence, and partly by not allowing the EU to take further rights at the expense of the Swedish Riksdag.

Let me also remind you that during this mandate period, we have worked to reduce the protection for wolves within the framework of the Bern Convention. It is something we have been successful with, and it increases the possibility for hunting wolves in the future.

We are now also implementing EU rules at the lowest possible level in Sweden. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we see that this is something that a future red-green government will not do, as these parties really like the EU and when the EU comes with more and more lectures to Sweden.

In my opinion, this means that the Swedish hunting community should think twice—and then some—about what the choice will mean for them and for Swedish hunting. What does it mean if EU legislation is allowed to be implemented at an ever higher level again? What does it mean if one allows the EU to bypass the legislation by tackling hunting issues through other issues, for example, environmental issues?

If one wants to be sure that Swedish hunting will receive better conditions, one should consider how one votes in the autumn election.

With that, I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet stands behind modern and functioning legislation. We welcome several parts of the government's bill, but we oppose two of the proposals because they risk harming both nature and long-term sustainability.

It concerns partly the proposal to allow hunting on public water after a simple notification, and partly the proposal to open for commercial fishing in Sweden's economic zone.

Mr. Speaker! I begin with the hunting on public waters. Today, a special permit is required to hunt on public waters and on islands and rocks that do not belong to any property. The Government wants to remove this requirement and replace it with a simple notification and furthermore let this apply to all citizens within the EU and EEA.

We in Vänsterpartiet believe that this is the wrong path to take. These areas are often sensitive habitats for many species. They are also frequently used for outdoor life and recreation. Increased and less controlled hunting risks disturbing both wildlife and people.

Several referral bodies have warned that the proposal could lead to increased hunting pressure and even to hunting tourism. This, in turn, could lead to an overexploitation of the wildlife and an exploitation of our archipelago environments. We therefore believe that the current order with requirements for permits should remain in place.

Mr. Speaker! The second question concerns hunting of seals in Sweden's economic zone. We in Vänsterpartiet support the possibility of protection hunting when seals cause damage to fishing gear. It is important for the fishing industry.

But unfortunately, the government is going further than that. They now want to open up for expanded fishing, despite the fact that there is a lack of scientific support that it would improve the fish stocks.

Research from both authorities and universities shows that the declining fish stocks are primarily due to long-term overfishing and not the seal. Increasing the hunt could therefore risk being the wrong measure. It could also have unwanted effects. For example, the hunt could scare seals away from their natural resting places and instead drive them closer to the coast, where the problems for the fishing could then become greater. The Coast Guard has also questioned the need for the proposal and pointed out that the consequences are not sufficiently investigated.

Mr. Speaker! Politics must rest on knowledge and responsibility. And when it comes to natural resources and ecosystems, we need to be particularly careful. We in Vänsterpartiet say yes to a modern hunting law, but we say no to proposals that risk undermining the protection of nature and that lack a scientific basis. I move for approval of reservation 1 in the report.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lars Johnsson (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a very long coastline. For those who live and work along the coast, hunting has historically been a very important part of their livelihood.

Already in the 1808 hunting regulations, it was established that every Swedish citizen was allowed to hunt on the open sea and on so-called "ödeskär", that is, islets and skerries that did not belong to any property. In 1938, a requirement for a permit to hunt on public waters was introduced. Today, it is the county administrative boards that decide on permits and regional regulations for how the hunting shall take place on public waters.

The government now proposes that the permit requirement be removed. It shall be sufficient for those who wish to hunt on public waters to instead make a notification. The background to the proposal is that an application for hunting on public waters rarely or never leads to a rejection. The proposal is simply about removing an unnecessary administrative barrier.

Hopefully, this can mean that interest in this type of hunting increases. Today, less than 1 percent of all seabird hunting in Sweden is conducted on public waters. We Moderates would like to see increased hunting of, for example, cormorants, as the cormorant poses a major problem for fishing.

Mr. Speaker! The Government also proposes that it shall be possible to hunt seals in Sweden's economic zone after notification, i.e., in the sea outside Swedish territorial waters. The idea is that the hunting there shall be conducted on the same terms as currently apply for hunting of seals in other areas, i.e., in the form of license or protection hunting. The proposal aims to improve the conditions for commercial fishing, and it is welcomed by us Moderates.

When meeting fishermen, one often hears that the ever-increasing seal populations, just like the cormorants, constitute a growing problem for fishing. We Moderates advocate for an expanded seal hunt and would like to see economic incentives for seal hunting also be introduced. Furthermore, we believe that the EU ban on trade with seal products should be removed. It is, after all, good hunting ethics to always handle and use the game one harvests.

Mr. Speaker! Another part of today's report concerns a proposal for a new confidentiality provision to protect personal data in cases regarding the hunting of large predators, for example, wolf or lynx. Confidentiality shall also apply in cases where domestic animal owners report predator attacks.

The background is several cases of threats, harassment, hunting sabotage, and vandalism, and it is not only hunters who risk receiving threats and having their cars vandalized. There are also reports that it has gone so far that animal owners, out of fear of threats, vandalism, and harassment, choose to refrain from reporting predator attacks or applying for protection hunting. The stated purpose from the activists has been to try to prevent protection hunting.

That is why the government is now proposing strong confidentiality protection for individuals' identities with the aim of protecting both pet owners and those who participate in the hunting of large predators. We Moderates think that is good. The Moderates are, in fact, a party that stands on the side of farmers and hunters.

With those words, Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favor of the proposal in the committee report and against all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating MJU23 Simplifications in the hunting legislation.

When one reads this report, one wonders whether to call it simplification or modernization. One does not see much simplification in the report.

What is very good about this is that we get a greater opportunity to conduct hunting of seals. But it comes a bit late. If you listen to the fishers, you hear that many of the smaller actors have switched to other techniques than nets and that type of simpler technology. Even on the small boats, they have switched to bottom trawling in many cases. This is due to the problems with both seals and cormorants. With this change, there will be an opportunity to continue with nets, but this comes a bit too late.

In the committee, we received an indication today that the Czech Republic has listened to Sweden's inputs regarding a shared management, something that the fishers also want to achieve.

These are two positive things that go in a direction that makes the industry significantly better. So, it becomes a yes when it comes to the sales hunt.

However, I think it would be reasonable to receive feedback on the effects of this change, that is, how the fishing will change and how much seal will be shot with the new legislation. That feedback would be appropriate to understand what we are deciding on.

The next part concerns confidentiality, something that we absolutely should not need to discuss, but because the predator issue is so sensitive, it would be appropriate to include this in the legislation. Even there, there is a clear yes from Centerpartiet.

Marking of animals for research purposes, which is also included in the report, is also completely okay, as long as it does not interfere with hunting and does not pose a risk of accidents for those who are to perform the marking. It is important that this is done at appropriate times.

The part that people might react to most and that could be misinterpreted is the one concerning following injured animals onto someone else's land. We already have a routine for this today, where we in the hunting association agree on how we handle a situation with an injured animal.

In the preparatory works, it is described that it is appropriate to contact another hunting group. What can happen with this wording and the change is that the hunters do not listen to the word appropriate. If they do not do that, there is a risk that one, two, and three groups will come out at the same time. Again, I see a risk of accidents, and one does not want shooting accidents during hunting. As I see it, one probably has to think a bit about how to express this so that these parts are captured. This is actually not a simplification but rather a boundary change in the legislation.

The important thing when making changes is to achieve impact and an understanding throughout the entire hunting community, and it is large. Already today, there are quite a lot of discussions about details, about what applies and what does not apply, and about how to handle the legislation. Here, it is necessary to be very clear about how the parts regarding the tracking of animals will look so that they achieve the desired effect.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the committee's proposal and reject the reservations.

We have previously heard the praises of hunting sung from the rostrum. I can only agree on how important hunting is for very many Swedes. It is also very pleasing that hunting and hunters are held in very high regard. There is high acceptance for hunting and hunters in Sweden, which is very pleasing, but unfortunately not among everyone. It is among other reasons why there are changes in this bill. It concerns changes in several different laws, as well as moving provisions between different legal areas, in order to simplify and facilitate hunting.

Among other things, it concerns a new opportunity to hunt game on someone else's land for wildlife management. It is an important part, Mr. Speaker, not least in the work we are now undertaking to try to reduce the wolf population in Sweden. There, it is very important that we have track of the individuals in order to be able to reach the level that the government and a majority in the Riksdag desire. Therefore, this also helps, precisely so that the wolf population can be reduced.

Several speakers have addressed the ethics of the hunters, which is extremely important. In today's hunting law, it states as follows, Mr. Speaker: "Hunting shall be conducted so that game is not subjected to unnecessary suffering." A bit further ahead it states: "If game has been injured during hunting, the hunter shall as soon as possible take the measures needed so that the animal can be tracked down and killed."

The challenge in the current situation is, therefore, that the law is in the way of hunting ethics. It is in the way of doing what the Hunting Act says we should do and which is so important for hunters: to ensure that the animal does not suffer unnecessarily. Therefore, this is a welcome change, not least for ethical reasons.

Another part of the bill concerns the EU and reporting towards the EU. Here it is extremely important, once again, that Sweden sticks to a minimum level. When we in Sweden are to implement directives and regulations from the EU, we would like to be "Bror Duktig" (Good Brother), and so we go far beyond what is considered a minimum level. The one we ruin for is ourselves. That is something no one benefits from, Mr. Speaker. I am therefore very happy that this is also included.

What perhaps most people have raised so far during the debate is the hunt for common seal and the hunt for seal. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that commercial fishing, not least coastal fishing, struggles enormously with both seal and cormorant. A change must be made here if one is to be able to continue with their fishing at all. We hear about how the seals destroy fishing gear and go in and take the catch. When the fishermen haul in the nets, there is nothing left, because the seal has already been there. It is therefore very important that we move forward regarding the seal, but also regarding the cormorant.

As several have pointed out, it is also extremely important that we move forward regarding the ban on the sale of game. For a hunter, it is important to make use of what they have shot, and then we should not have a ban on the sale of game that forbids the hunter from doing so. Therefore, it is extremely important that we move away from this, even if it is not a part of today's bill.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address the confidentiality in predator cases. Unfortunately, we have activists in Sweden who cannot follow democratically made decisions. Unfortunately, these also act in a way that I find very concerning. We see how hunters are affected. We see how, for example, they saw in hunting towers so that they almost break, in the hope that they will collapse when the hunters climb up and that these will then injure themselves. It says something about the mindset of these activists. It is extremely frightening that we even need such legislation at all.

We saw a year ago, Mr. Speaker, how our Minister for Rural Affairs had been visited at his own home in Karlstad by activists who were out to intimidate him. That does not belong in a democracy. Therefore, it is very important that we move forward in the issues regarding confidentiality concerning the hunting of large predators so that hunters will dare to participate and dare to report attacks and the like, even if it concerns large predators. We must have an administration worthy of the name even regarding them.

Mr. Speaker! There are not many points included in the bill, but the points that are included mean very much for those who are affected. Therefore, I move once again for approval of the proposals in the bill.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, so that I do not forget it.

A very large amount of everything that the Liberals and the coalition partners have done within the area of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture during the mandate period is about finding, or perhaps rather regaining, a balance in the policy. This applies in particular to what we do in the matter of forest policy and the environment, but it also applies to the hunting issues. These are in many and most cases conflict-ridden issues where previous policy has created very large problems. We are now doing something about that, and I am very happy to be a part of it.

Mr. Speaker! Hunting is largely about responsibility, nature conservation, and precisely balance. We live in a country full of nature-loving people. Many of us seek tranquility in nature, and many of us also do what we can to care for and protect nature. There is a strong connection here to precisely hunting, which is a decisive part in the management of healthy wildlife populations.

In all contexts where hunting is debated, all the important contributions that the hunting corps makes deserve to be highlighted, not least in the time we now live in with war in Europe.

I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine last week, among other things together with Emma Nohrén, who sits in the bench in front of me. It is very strange to visit a country at war, and it takes time to process all the impressions. One thing that stood out as soon as we crossed the border, however, was that the civilian population's preparedness and ability to handle the situation they find themselves in is an indispensable part of the country's ability to defend itself against Russia's attacks.

What I want to say with this, which may feel a bit sidelined in relation to what we are debating, is that the Swedish hunting corps and Swedish hunting organizations are an indispensable part and an indispensable resource in Sweden's civil preparedness. This is something that is not highlighted often enough. It is a nuance that is lost in the debate, and therefore I want to put it forward today. I believe there are many who share that view, but it deserves to be highlighted further.

And speaking of nuances: the hunting debate often lacks important nuances. It is often simplified and polarized. Hunting is, as mentioned, an obvious part of and a solution to wildlife management issues. Despite that, we all see the problems with hate and threats that have been raised previously. That is why we are now presenting proposals to handle exactly this. Those who participate in hunting should not have to worry about being subjected to harassment, hate, and threats. Therefore, we now propose a new confidentiality provision that shall remedy this, or at least make it more difficult for activists who go way too far in their actions to actually seek out hunters. We have seen this in recent years during the wolf hunt that has been conducted here in my county, in Örebro, where the police must be constantly present during the licensed hunt for wolves. This happens when people do what they are allowed to do and what the state wants to be done, and it is completely unacceptable.

It is a necessary and good change, but it is regrettable that it is needed. Hate, threats, and harassment are never okay. If you want to influence society, if you want to influence politics, you must find other tools where people do not come to harm. You must actually stay within the framework of the law. We are now working to improve the conditions for participating in hunting, and that feels good.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 May.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)