Hunting and wildlife management

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report on hunting and wildlife management. Even though Miljöpartiet has no reservations, I would like to take this opportunity to speak a little about my and Miljöpartiet's view on hunting.

I was one of the more than 290,000 people who purchased a hunting license last year. I have been hunting since I was little, and last autumn I had the privilege of taking a newly graduated hunter along on a moose hunt. My friend has wanted to take the hunter's exam for a long time, and last year it finally happened – there was a bit of corona in the way. As a city dweller without hunting land and experience, he wondered if he could come along with me, which he did.

It was fun to be able to share the experience with someone and exciting to act as a teacher. It was about where you place the weapon when you are sitting still and how you do it when you have a coffee break. Some female ptarmigans passed by, and we discussed the difference between female ptarmigans and female black grouse – they don't always look like they do in the book. A fairly large wild boar passed by, and I am always just as surprised by how quietly and quickly they move.

Even though the two of us did not shoot any moose, the team did, so my friend got to be involved in pulling an animal out of the forest and participating in the follow-up work. At first, he was a bit shocked, because they are, after all, large animals and there is a lot to take care of. But he quickly got into it and got to be involved in all the stages.

It became a memorable day for both of us that made him even more determined to join a hunting team and continue with hunting.

But it also became clear to me what different circumstances we have. I belong to those who have been involved since I was little. I see my uncle's name carved into a tree at some of the passes where I sit, and I know that he has sat there and been just as bored as I have been at times. My grandfather's rifle stands at home in the cabinet, and it is now registered in my name. Even though I did not get to meet my grandfather - he died before I was born - it feels great that his rifle gets to be included. In the buttstock, there is a small pin for every elk he has felled. I myself have my uncle's rifle.

Many of us have hunted, but at the same time we can see that many of the new hunters are born in the big city and perhaps do not have the relationship with nature, that is to say they see hunting as something else. Many still have a feeling for nature and want to get out, and hunting is a part of this. But it is one of several different interests.

The Swedish right of public access is among the finest things we have. Many must share. It can be hunting, but it can also be a matter of fishing, mushroom and berry picking, and hiking. It is about being out and walking in the forest - nowadays it is called forest bathing.

Tourism is growing stronger - both foreign tourism and domestic tourism. In nature tourism, it is precisely about the nature experiences. Here, our interests can clash with one another. A nature tourism company may be dependent on a certain wildlife being present to attract guests. They sell the same moose, beaver, or wolf from the same pack several times to different groups. If one puts on the hunter's hat, it is game right there and then. Forest owners want their seedlings to grow at the same time as there are moose that enjoy munching on them. Here, all these different conflicts of interest exist.

In short, there are as many conflicts of interest here as everywhere else. But there is a small difference, namely that hunters carry weapons – and weapons evoke emotions. Here, we who are hunters need to ensure that we have an ethical and good approach. We who have been, and are, hunters should invite the new ones so that they gain an understanding of nature and can participate.

In addition to the fact that there are many conflicts of interest between humans and different interests, there are also conflicts of interest among the animals. There are more and more different animal populations in Sweden. There is more ungulate wildlife than in a long time; roe deer, fallow deer, moose, and wild boar. All utilize the lands in different ways.

Unfortunately, we rarely manage this as a whole. It is species by species, sometimes with multi-year management - but we do not look at the whole. There, we in Miljöpartiet believe that it should be a total ecosystem-based management. It should be a multi-species management that also considers the soil's load-bearing capacity, how many animals can be there, and other animals should also be a part, for example predators. It must be a functioning biodiversity. Then we can tax the interest.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to assert that hunting is part of the broader interest in nature, but it is also something that requires responsibility. I personally find the hype for hunting films where it bangs away, swarms with animals, and everything is shootable difficult. Hunting trips are sold with a guarantee of shots, and there is estate hunting with raised ducks that are downed in dozens - often hundreds.

This is not hunting for me - not ethical hunting. For me, hunting is that we should tax the interest of nature and get a good sustainable meat that has been in the wild in nature until the shot is fired. Game is everyone's until the shot is fired. Therefore, we must have an ethical hunt, behave in a good way and practice a management that is accepted by everyone. All interests must be represented with respect for nature, respect for others who stay in nature and of course respect for the animals.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate hunting and wildlife management. I want to begin by moving for the approval of motion number 3, Strengthened local influence in wildlife management.

I also want to thank my predecessor in the speaker's chair, Emma Nohrén, for a fine description of the hunt as so much more than just the moment of the shot.

I have also hunted my entire life, and I intended to use my time today to focus, among other things, on the important interaction between landowners and the hunting community. It is not possible to have a debate today without debating the predator policy. I also intended to discuss hunting ethics and wildlife management efforts. These are very important issues for me as a hunter.

Mr. Speaker! For many years, we have had a great focus on moose and grazing damage, particularly on Scots pine forest and Scots pine plantations. This discussion and this focus have led to the wildlife management delegations across the country focusing very and exclusively on reducing the moose population, with the ambition of achieving a significantly reduced amount of grazing damage, especially on Scots pine forest. We have formed moose management areas with an extra large focus on reducing the moose population, and we can state that from the perspective of reducing the moose population, we have indeed succeeded. Today, generally speaking across the country, the size of the moose population has decreased by nearly 35 percent, and in some places significantly more.

The question then is whether this reduction of this very important game and the king of the forest, the moose, has to a corresponding extent succeeded in reducing the grazing damage, which was the very purpose of this focus on a specific game species. The forest companies see a small reduction in damage to Scots pine forest, but to achieve the goals, according to the forest companies, a continued substantial reduction of the moose population is required.

For many, the moose has a completely unique identity and a great and important value for its uniqueness in our country, which attracts many tourists, and for many hunters, it is the most important reason why they both hunt and work with wildlife management. Without the moose in our forests, Sweden as a country loses a unique and very important game species.

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats would like to expand and deepen the mandate of the moose management areas to include all ungulates and not only focus in their mandate on the moose. We believe in cooperation groups where landowners and the hunting corps reason together and inform each other about the different problems and damages that can arise when different types of game populations grow significantly and cause problems regarding both agriculture and forestry. We also consider that in different parts of the country there are problems with growing game populations when it comes to red deer, roe deer, and wild boar. In several geographical areas, these game populations are increasing significantly, which naturally entails a risk of major damage to both agriculture and forestry.

To succeed in creating a balance between the food supply and the size of the wildlife population, a better and deeper dialogue is required between landowners and the hunting community, which can contribute to a better understanding and thus a wiser management of the wildlife, as well as hopefully a greater understanding between all these important interests.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we Social Democrats believe there is every reason to proceed with the proposal for a joint management of caple game with significant regional and local influence.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the important predator policy, it is as always a balancing act between favorable conservation status and the fact that it must be possible to live and reside in the entire country, as well as have the opportunity to farm and keep domestic animals reasonably protected from all too large predator attacks.

There is a large majority in Sweden in favor of preserving the predators that exist today and exist in our environment. But there is also great frustration and fear among both hunters and farmers who live and work and operate near our large predator populations, not least when it comes to the wolf.

We see that the wolf population is increasing significantly and that its distribution in the country is becoming ever more extensive. We have now identified territory-claiming wolf pairs from Skåne in the south to Jämtland in the north, and the number of individuals will likely pass 500 within a very near future.

Mr. Speaker! In order to achieve long-term acceptance for the wolf, we must be able to manage this predator in a reasonable way and keep the number of wolves within reasonable limits. Therefore, it is important that the government continues and intensifies the work to achieve a relocation of the wolf issue from Annex IV to Annex V of the EU's Habitats Directive, which would mean that the wolf is a manageable wildlife that we in Sweden ourselves have the possibility to manage.

We Social Democrats also consider it important to change the conditions for granting permits for protection hunting. The process for obtaining the opportunity to protect one's livestock from attacks must become significantly simpler and more efficient. Therefore, it is crucial that protection hunting is simplified, which I believe will also lead to greater acceptance of the wolf throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker! The Swedish hunting movement is among the oldest popular movements in our country. It has been and is organized in the Swedish Hunters' Association since 1830. That one organized the Swedish hunting corps was not primarily about facilitating and creating better conditions for felling more game, in any case not initially and in the short term. On the contrary, it was about creating conditions for a wildlife management in the whole country that takes into account the conditions and challenges for the wildlife in order to thereby create sustainable wildlife populations of roe deer, fallow deer and moose, which at that point in time were almost extinct.

That the Swedish hunt has had and has a great trust among the public is absolutely crucial for us to also be able to continue practicing this important and popular tradition. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we also in the future, when we discuss and decide on hunting laws, hunting seasons, and various aids for the hunt of different wildlife species, always keep the best interests of the wildlife in mind.

We Social Democrats want to safeguard the Swedish hunting tradition as well as ethical hunting that ensures important breaks in the hunt where the game is given the opportunity for reproduction and rest. We must also be careful that different aids, for example night sights during wild boar hunting, are so safe and of such high quality that the hunter can clearly ensure that the right type of game is downed and downed in a humane and effective manner.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I can state that today's hunting and wildlife management in our country functions very well in the main. The reason for this, I am convinced, is the long tradition of cooperation and collaboration between the Swedish Association of Hunters and its members and the state, where several important missions in the nation's interest are carried out by Jägareförbundet and its members. I truly hope that this trust will be deepened and not exhausted.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for a very good speech! It was so good that I almost could have delivered it myself. We agree on the absolute majority of what was raised in the speech. It shows that we have great unity on the issue, so it is mostly out of curiosity that I take the floor.

Tomas Kronståhl moves for approval of reservation number 3 regarding strengthened local influence in wildlife management. Yes, thank you, more than gladly! We agree on that.

In the position statement in the reservation, it says as follows: "Hunting is an important part of many people's lives. It strengthens the countryside and keeps people together. Sweden is an elongated country, where wildlife and hunting differ. We think it is important to safeguard the local and want decisions on sustainable and ethical hunting to be made as close to the citizens as possible. We see the county administrative boards and the wildlife management delegations as important and want their work and mandate to be developed. It is important that wildlife management is decentralized and that the local anchoring of the local wildlife management delegations is strengthened in order to be able to obtain better support for wildlife management." Great!

There was an announcement about this in 2015. It was dismissed by Tomas Kronståhl's government in communication 2016/17:75.

A new announcement regarding exactly this was issued in 2018, and the previous government - or the previous governments - have done nothing with it.

What is it that has caused the Social Democrats to change direction now? It is a change that I truly welcome, because here we already have an announcement that we will work with in the current government.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Kjell-Arne Ottosson! Today we can [hear] your name.

I can only say that this issue has truly been discussed in many different ways and that there have been different forces, including in many of the wildlife delegations, regarding how it should be handled.

I believe there is a very strong confidence in our party to try to manage wildlife as locally as possible. What it is about is trying to safeguard the geographical uniqueness that we have in this country. It looks very different in the northern part, in the central part, and in the southern part of Sweden. Therefore, it is wise that we, in different ways, try to ensure that at least moose populations are managed as locally as possible.

I do not know what happened in 2015, I can honestly admit, but during my time in the Swedish Riksdag we have worked on this issue and had great consensus on it.

Since it is the case, Mr. Speaker, that one does not change these issues so easily. One must try to discuss them in different contexts.

We have discussed, among other things, the management of roe deer in moose management areas. It can also be an economic issue to get members to take on an even greater responsibility than today. But my conviction is that if we take this dialogue with both landowners and forestry people and also hunters and the hunting community, we can find a good solution, because it is about achieving a functioning interaction in the future.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the answer!

I fully understand that Tomas Kronståhl does not have a full grasp of what happened here in 2015, but it is still quite interesting to see the change that has occurred within the Social Democrats – a change that I truly welcome because, as we said, we have a commitment in this area and it is something that the current government is working on.

Another question that Tomas Kronståhl raised was the protection of large predators.

We had a handling – I don't remember if it was last year or two years ago – where we put forward an announcement regarding exactly this, that it must become easier to obtain a hunting license. At that time, it was about revising Viltskadecenter's guidelines for hunting licenses. It became an announcement in 2021, it must have been. Nor on that front have we seen that anything has happened. But things will happen, and it is apparently the case that the Social Democrats have changed direction even regarding the view on hunting licenses. Or what is it that has happened there?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you once again, Kjell-Arne, for your question!

I can at least state that I am much more familiar with this subject. I know that we were in the government during the last mandate period to facilitate, among other things, the protection hunt on wolves, and the government gave a number of assignments to Naturvårdsverket to facilitate just the protection hunt on wolves. Then I do not know how quickly it has gone and how far it has come, but Naturvårdsverket has in any case received such an assignment.

I also know that we worked a lot to achieve a significantly easier management regarding the hunting of wild boar because these caused such great damage in agriculture. There, the government also exemplary presented a complete wild boar package, which included a number of different simplifications for the hunt - including allowing hunting at night and, as I also mentioned in my speech, hunting with night vision. This has also resulted in us having reduced the wild boar population. It may not be just because of this, but it has of course contributed significantly.

Then I think it is important that in all forms of protection hunting, a great responsibility rests on the hunter and the person requesting the protection hunting. But it must actually work so that one has the possibility to protect their livestock and other things in a sensible way, and therefore we want to simplify the protection hunting even when it concerns the wolf.

There we also have another issue that it is important for the current government to continue working on, namely to ensure that the wolf can become a manageable wildlife. There we will have to try to help each other, Kjell-Arne and I.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! It was two fantastically interesting presentations, I must begin by saying. It shows that these may be some of the issues that we are most in agreement on in the committee.

The tradition of hunting in Sweden is strong. The acceptance of hunting in Sweden is also incredibly high. I believe it is closer to, or even has passed, 90 percent among the general population, I was about to say, that is, among those who are not hunters. It is incredibly high.

In Europe, unfortunately, the opposing forces are growing in a different way. There, very much money is also being pumped into hunting opposition. Money is being pumped into opposition against using hounds in hunting and so on. Hound hunting is perhaps one of our absolute finest cultural heritages here in Sweden. We hunt in a responsible and ethical way and use our dogs in a good way.

I note that Miljöpartiet does not even have a reservation in this year's hunting report and that Vänsterpartiet is not even here. I therefore assume that they simply agree with the government's policy when it comes to hunting issues.

Jokes aside, Mr. Speaker: I naturally move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision in its entirety.

I just said that in Europe, the opposition to hunting is growing. We also see in some places in Sweden how smaller forces want to carry out sabotage against hunting, how they threaten and commit sabotage against people who conduct search efforts or license hunting of our large predators. This is something we can never accept and something the government views incredibly seriously. This must be stopped. If one does not like hunting, one must prove through the democratic path that it is not right to carry out hunting, not by being out there threatening, hating, and sabotaging.

I see this myself now when I organize a hunt at my own hunting grounds. Since I am a hunting leader, I have a briefing in the morning, and I tell all the shooters before we head out into the forest: Look at your hunting towers so that there are no severed legs! This is something we never needed to think about before. Now it happens time and again that hunting towers are sabotaged and so on, and so accidents happen because of the small amount of ill will that exists towards Swedish hunting.

It was previously highlighted here in an exemplary manner how we, through the popular movement, have built up the hunt since the Swedish Hunters' Association's start in 1830. We have built up the wildlife populations. Some wildlife populations we have built up far too much. In some areas locally, we need to manage wildlife populations that are too large. The Swedish Hunters' Association has been very contributory in this. I believe that the Swedish Hunters' Association will also in the future be a very important party towards the state in this matter.

There are announcements, and also reservations in today's report, regarding what the Swedish Hunters' Association's mandate should look like in the future. This is well something for the government to handle after the announcements that have been made.

As has been said, we today conduct the hunt - primarily linked to the moose, Mr. Speaker - with our wildlife management delegations, moose management groups under that, and all the way down to the moose management area level. It is good. We have had this system for ten years, and now a fair amount of evaluations of it are beginning to emerge. Once we have seen everyone's interest in these evaluations, we will simply have to sit down and see how we take it further.

It is nothing to hide under the table that the moose in certain areas of Sweden today is having it quite tough. This is partly due to a too high hunting pressure but also to the fact that the moose suffers under large attacks of moose lice, with severe wound formations and so on. The moose is having it quite tough, and it is something that we need to take care of. The moose is our great and fine big game, the entire foundation and symbol of Swedish hunting. It is something that we must be very careful about.

There is talk of a multi-species management, perhaps in a similar way as we manage the moose. Yes, no, maybe, I would say. It is not a given. We have agreed to manage the moose in this way, but actually, the moose management involves a restriction of the right of ownership. Hunting is one of the finest parts we have in the right of ownership, but when we have let the moose go into a system that is fundamentally managed by the state, we have let go of a part of the right of ownership.

That is why I am concerned about the speech on a multi-species management. It could also lead to more restrictions on our property rights when it comes to managing the wildlife.

The Moderates still believe that landowners, users and hunters together can move forward in these issues. I am completely convinced that we can find systems for how we can continue to manage the wildlife populations in that way.

It is as I said earlier: In some areas, we have far too large wildlife populations, which today is affecting food production. One thing we know for sure is that we are to increase our food production in Sweden. Then, excessively large wildlife populations must not be the obstacle that prevents us from achieving that. There, we need to find tools to move forward.

Mr. Speaker! Wild boar is often spoken of in this chamber. It is only to be noted that the tools that have been introduced and the changes that have been made linked to the wild boar population have caused this to be heading downwards quite strongly in Sweden. Partly it is because the knowledge has grown among the hunters. One is more efficient in the wild boar hunt. It is also due to the decisions we have taken here in the Riksdag regarding more efficient aids for the wild boar hunt. But it is also due to an increased disease pressure on wild boar.

This means that wild boar are not as much of a hot potato as they have been for a long time. I believe it is important to mark that. Just as the moose sometimes has to take the fall for everything bad that happens in the forest, the wild boar has to take the fall for everything bad that happens on the farmland. That is not the case.

Mr. Speaker! Not a hunting debate in the chamber without us talking about our predators! The large predators are doing quite well in Sweden. The populations are growing. In some places, they are growing very fast, actually across all species. Some think this is good. Some see problems. I mean that we now need to take a collective grip on the large predators and make a plan for how large predator populations we should have. Much has been talked about the wolf, but we need to take a collective grip on all predators in Sweden to find a balance.

It is the same thing when we have too large ungulate populations in certain areas. It affects our food production. And it is the same thing when we get too large predator populations. It affects our food production.

I read the day before yesterday that some farmers in Skåne are now choosing to replant their smaller natural grazing lands, due to the growing wolf population in Skåne. Here we lose biodiversity, but we also lose Swedish food production at a time when it needs to increase.

Mr. Speaker! There are many other important things I would like to talk about in a hunting debate. But I want to conclude by saying that even if one does not believe it when looking out right now, we are approaching summer. I hope that everyone during the summer will be able to taste something good from the wild kingdom that has been grilled. It is a fantastic resource that we manage. And an important part of hunting is that we can produce a good, fine, and wonderful meat to grill.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, John Widegren, for your speech!

It is, as you say, quite a large consensus and very good discussions when it comes to hunting and wildlife issues. I do, however, have a question that I almost feel compelled to ask. I hear discussions about it and want to know a bit where John Widegren stands on the issue. Will there eventually be any wildlife management authority in the country? What will its mandate be in that case?

Today it is divided so that Svenska Jägareförbundet, which is a member organization, performs quite many assignments for the state, which I touched upon in my speech, Mr. Speaker. They have, among other things, the adaptive wildlife management where they try to further develop and increase the basic competence regarding the country's ungulate population. They have exemplary taken over the responsibility for wildlife and traffic. We have very good training for search hunters. That is handled in a very good way. They also have the wildlife monitoring and the wildlife sampling.

Mr. Speaker! This means that many of the tasks that one might imagine a state agency should have today are performed by a member organization, which enjoys great trust among its members but also among the people. Therefore, I wonder if John Widegren intends to proceed with a wildlife management authority or what the thoughts are.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

The question of a wildlife authority also came up in one of all the announcements that occurred during the Social Democratic government's time. I understand the thought and the starting point when it comes to the assignments that today lie with the Swedish Association of Hunters. But there still needs to be an authority - it is hardly believable that it is a Moderate standing here saying it, but we do need to have it.

A number of tasks concerning hunting and linked to administrative issues are located with Naturvårdsverket. Historically, Naturvårdsverket has not been the hunters' best friend. That trust is, in many respects, quite damaged. Therefore, we believe that a wildlife authority could be a way forward in those issues. We also believe that other issues could be moved over, for example, license management and other things that could fall under a wildlife authority.

But I shall not anticipate anything. I know that at the Government Offices, they are now looking into a wildlife authority. If not otherwise, Member Kronståhl is well acquainted with the tune that it is being prepared at the Government Offices, Mr. Speaker. That is what I can say right now. It is being prepared at the Government Offices.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, John Widegren!

I was looking into some of the lines of thought you mentioned. I know that there has perhaps been a somewhat less functional cooperation between the hunters and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. At the same time, we see now that those problems are actually gone. I also think that one can sometimes manage different agencies with regulatory letters and other means.

I am, however, well aware that it is usually associated with quite large costs to start an agency. I believe that John Widegren shares that fear.

If the costs that may arise are to be taken from the hunting corps in the form of license fees, the resolution of state hunting licenses, or otherwise, I am concerned. In that case, I believe that much of the trust that exists between the Swedish Association of Hunters, the state, and the general public could disappear. That is the concern I feel. The question is whether John Widegren shares that concern or how he feels.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the questions. They are interesting questions.

Why should we start a new agency that is to handle issues that another agency already handles? But some of the basis is in what I said earlier. We also intend that information should be picked up from other agencies to gather everything linked to the hunt and wildlife management under one umbrella. So that is at least how it has been when we have pushed to get the announcements through.

It must absolutely not lead to new costs for the hunters. That is not the intention. It is about looking at how it can be handled in the budget work. Some funds will be able to be taken from Naturvårdsverket and so on. They receive funds for hunting today.

As has been said, there is no reason to stand and speculate about how it might eventually look. The government will handle it and look at it during the coming period. But the hunting corps has probably rarely or never had a government so oriented towards hunting and hunters. This means that it will land in the best possible way for the hunters.

I am convinced that when the energy is finally directed towards the issue, it will land in a good way. And I am convinced that it will be a way that also suits the Social Democrats, Mr. Speaker.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I reacted a bit when Member John Widegren said that it seems we have total consensus here. At that point, I had to press the button and request a reply. I believe there is a consensus regarding the cultural values of hunting and how it should be conducted. But there are differences when it comes to the details. I also thought that in the member's statement, ownership rights, predators, and all sorts of things were brought in. Here, the differences begin to crystallize.

In my speech, I tried to highlight that hunting is one of many things where one has a right to nature and utilizes nature in the same way, and that hunting does not stand above anything else. We must coexist. Sometimes hunting must take a backseat to other interests, and sometimes it applies to other parts. These are always major, difficult trade-offs.

My question to Member of Parliament John Widegren is: Do you and the Moderaterna consider that the hunt takes precedence over other interests?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

I might not express it as a priority. But hunting is a part of the property rights. You are allowed to manage the wildlife on your own property. You are a hunting rights holder if you own land. In that way, it comes before some of the other interests.

Allemansrätten, which the member highlighted earlier, is absolutely one of our fine customs. But allemansrätten must not be exercised in such a way that it, for example, disturbs ongoing land use or hunting. We know that. That is how it is. In that way, hunting takes precedence.

Then, if someone wants to conduct activities, nature tourism, or nature-based entrepreneurship on someone else's land – I assume that the person who wants to conduct that activity has contact with the landowner and makes an agreement about it, because it would indeed mean a restriction of ownership. In that way, we from the Moderaternas side mean that hunting comes first.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for that clarification! There I believe our opinions differ a little. Miljöpartiet has nothing against hunting but has great tolerance for this. Many of us appreciate hunting and eating game meat, but we believe that there are several interests.

Another thing that the member touched upon in their speech, and which we have well debated very many times in this chamber, is predators. We perhaps do not need to go into how many there should be and so on. We have done that before, and I believe we also know what we think. But one thing that I often miss in the Moderates' predator policy is preventive and protective measures. This applies, for example, to wildlife fences and increased compensation.

I have myself been a member of the board of De 5 stora, the predator center in Järvsö, for many years. We have had several different launches of new ways to protect animals. There is technology today where drones go up when the wolf, the lynx, or whatever species of animal it may be approaching. There are a lot of different new techniques, but of course, it requires research and money. There are, for example, vests for dogs, which cost very much for hunters.

Can the Moderates imagine not just shooting predators but actually also making preventive efforts so that we can coexist? Will you increase the compensations and ensure that one can both conduct animal husbandry and keep the predators?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! Here we have some of the issues where our opinions differ, if we are to look for them. It concerns, among other things, the conflict between, for example, grazing animals and the large predators, and between the use of dogs in hunting and the large predators.

We Moderates do not think it is reasonable that a farmer should have increased costs to protect themselves against predators. There are indeed grants for fences and so on, but at the same time, it has been seen that the predator-deterring fences do not work one hundred percent. One also knows the significantly increased cost it entails to maintain these fences, for example through grass clearing. We do not think these costs should be burdened on the farmer.

The Moderates, during the years we have sat in opposition, have allocated extra money for compensation in cases of predator attacks and similar incidents. We thought it was important, and we still think it is important, that one receives money when one is attacked by predators. But we actually believe that a simplified protection hunt – protection hunt at the first attack – could increase acceptance very significantly for those who are to live and work near the predators. We think in this situation, when the predator populations have built up and we want to reduce them, which we will manage and still maintain the predator populations, that number one is to increase food production, strengthen crisis preparedness, and strengthen Swedish agriculture.

If it repeatedly turns out that the predators - perhaps in this case primarily the wolf - are a very large problem, it must be managed. This can only be done by significantly reducing the wolf population.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! First, I would like to thank you for allowing me to take a debate on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, even though I do not sit on that committee. It was my great dream and ambition when I was elected to the Swedish Parliament in 2014 to sit on the Committee on Environment and Agriculture and handle hunting and wildlife management issues, but that did not happen.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve reservation 18.

The Sweden Democrats emphasize that Swedish hunting and wildlife management is a tradition dating back to time immemorial. It is a cultural heritage that is unique in Europe, a hobby for many but also a lifestyle for thousands of people in Sweden like myself and my family, where hunting and wildlife management have been a central part for generations. The Sweden Democrats' hunting policy is based on the starting point that responsible, regulated hunting is positive and contributes to outdoor life and contact with nature.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's hunting associations constitute an invaluable knowledge bank. They possess and, to a large extent, pass on knowledge about animals, nature, and culture. Hunting ethics are generally high, and wildlife management functions well in broad terms. Wildlife management does, however, have a number of unresolved issues, and the Sweden Democrats have an expressed ambition to be a constructive force in the work to make this policy area function even better.

Mr. Speaker! The way hunters live and the traditional folk hunting are being heavily challenged today in a way that one is not used to. It comes from all sides and concerns both activist authorities and purely criminal organizations that conduct witch hunts against Swedish hunters, but the greatest threat comes from the bureaucratic colossus we call the EU.

The EU dictates the conditions for Swedish hunting and wildlife management. It is a concession from previous governments from both the right and the left who did not understand the consequences and, unfortunately, entered into the EU cooperation completely without exceptions regarding the hunting and wildlife management policy. The power over hunting and wildlife management should originate from the national parliament and not from bureaucrats in Brussels.

Mr. Speaker! Before the election, the government promised that if they were given power, the wolf population in Sweden would be reduced to a favorable conservation status. That is the level above which the EU's Birds and Habitats Directive allows for regulation in order to, among other things, reduce the socio-economic damages for the rural population.

There are now no reasonable reasons at all not to ensure that the aforementioned parliamentary parties' promises to their voters are fulfilled during the next wolf hunt. It should take place from January to March 2024 and involve a significant reduction of the population. I hope that the government fulfills the promise it gave to the voters in the election. The Sweden Democrats will stand by what we said then, and we will contribute to it.

Mr. Speaker! The wolf's expansion creates consequences. It is spreading rapidly now, and it can be stated that at least three territories have been confirmed in Skåne, which in the long run will cause problems. Here, one must dare to weigh things against each other. What is most important for Skåne - wolf establishments or, for example, a continued controlled and unique for Europe managed roe deer population? The fine population is known throughout Europe - yes, the whole world.

The roe deer, as you know, is very sensitive to disturbance. Today, it is disturbed by outdoor recreation in the west and by the wolf in the east. This will lead to a concentration of roe deer in the middle of Skåne, with extremely large damages to the forest as a consequence. This will automatically lead to demands that the population be shot. This applies to the area around Vombsjön. An enormous amount of work and economic resources have been invested in preserving and managing the Skåne roe deer for decades. Are we then going to destroy it all by approving wolf establishment in the middle of the reserve? Here, one must dare to weigh things against each other. What is best for Skåne? What is worst for Skåne?

In the debate, it is said all the time that the wolf should be everywhere. No one thinks about either the consequences or the costs.

Mr. Speaker! One must dare to raise the debate and ask the question of whether the price for a wolf population in all of Sweden can be as high as it wants. In the reindeer herding area, it is crystal clear that there should be no wolves. That we have decided. There, there will be protective hunting immediately. But how should one view the large farms in southern Sweden where hunting and wildlife management are an extremely large source of income, just like the reindeer husbandry in Norrland? They are given completely different conditions. They have nothing to say about it - there, there should only be wolves.

It is starting to be time to look at Swedish wolf management in a more objective way, perhaps realize that large parts of Sweden are not suitable for wolves, and start listening to and facilitating things for those who are affected. It could involve things that we have discussed here before, for example, faster decision-making processes regarding protection hunting. It should not have to be three attacks before one is granted protection hunting. It should be able to be resolved after the first attack. More efficient solutions were also needed regarding inventory linked to the license hunt. We saw the blunders during this year's license hunt on wolves where there was no control over the territories at all.

Decision-making power can be moved closer to those who are affected. This, Mr. Speaker, is not just about predator management but about much more. One example is the introduction of the new hunting seasons, which the previous government launched, especially the general spring hunt for roe deer, which can be devastating for the roe deer population in parts of southern Sweden. Certain times for fox hunting with driving dogs were removed in some counties completely without justification. I asked a question about this to the responsible minister and received no answer that explained it at all.

Mr. Speaker! I could stand here all evening and discuss everything from moose management to hunting seasons for crows and ravens or threats and hatred against hunters, but I choose to stop here. I believe that the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, will handle these issues in a good and constructive way, as we, unlike the previous government, have a common positive view on Swedish hunting and wildlife management tradition when it comes to the biggest issues.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Given that much of Magnus Persson's speech, at least the second half, concerned the wolf and predator management, I have some questions linked to the Sweden Democrats' decisive importance for the current government constellation's hold on power.

The entire Tidö Agreement has been negotiated in a spirit where the Sweden Democrats have set the direction for many different policy areas, but also strong agreements with the government on what should be done, how it should be done, and the conditions for it to be done during this mandate period.

I have a question. We can go back one year in the Riksdag but also look at the summary in today's report of the announcements that the then Riksdag decided on towards the then government but which also apply to the current government. There was, among other things, a broad agreement that won a majority after we clarified our ambition of 170 wolves. This was also the Riksdag's view based on the majority conditions for the announcement.

Why is there no mention of this in the Tidö Agreement? And why have we heard nothing about how this is to be implemented during the mandate period from either the Sweden Democrats or the government? What did the requirements look like for the wolf issue, which accounted for a large part of the motion?

The member touched upon Skåne and three territories. Where should the 170 wolves be, does the member believe? Is it in Värmland?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the questions!

When it comes to the Tidö Agreement, I was not part of the negotiations, but I assume it is an issue that will be negotiated in the future. Not much time has passed since the election, and it has been chosen to focus on certain issues. I know that this issue will be raised in negotiations in the future, but I am not part of the negotiating delegation. That is the answer I can give now, but I hope and expect, of course, that the issues will end up on the table. This is what I expect both from my own party and from the government.

When it comes to the wolves, I do not think they should all be in Värmland. I do not think they should all be in Örebro either, because they cause problems. I have many friends in Värmland whom I know and hunt with. When one calculates Sweden's wolf population, one has always calculated for all of Sweden, but as Daniel Bäckström says, the wolf is concentrated in the middle of Sweden. What I want to say is that we close half of Sweden to the north because of the reindeer grazing land, but that we should expect to have wolves in southern Sweden and Skåne, which is a very unsuitable environment to have wolves in.

I mean that decisions on wolf establishments should be moved closer to the counties and that these should have more to say when it comes to whether they want wolves. We should not sit here, perhaps in Sweden's Riksdag, and decide who should have wolves, but this must be investigated.

I accept that the entire wolf population should not be in Värmland, and in that case, I hope that C stands behind a decision to expand the wolf hunt and shoot down the population significantly, if we cannot spread it to the rest of the country. Half of Sweden's area is actually closed to wolves.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Before the election campaign and during the last parliamentary term, this was one of the issues that the Sverigedemokraterna pushed hard and also profiled themselves in. I can, however, state that it is still not included in any agreement how one should reach 170 seats.

The government still has a decent majority for the issue, and together with the Sweden Democrats, they have an even larger majority to land on this objective. Therefore, it is extremely interesting that the representative for the Sweden Democrats in this important hunting debate cannot give any answer but hopes that this will be prioritized or included in the negotiations. It is a signal, because four years will go by quickly.

It is extremely important that the issue moves forward given that many around Sweden live with an excessively high predator pressure. We share that view. A prerequisite for there to be a proper mobilization regarding how we should reduce the predator pressure is that more county councils drive the issue.

Among others, those who live in Värmland but also Örebro and Bergslagen have waited for this to become an issue that permeates the political debate in earnest, because it concerns enormously large socioeconomic effects. I believe we share this view.

I welcome the commitment, but I need to ask the question again: How are the Tidö Agreement parties going to manage the mandate period so that we see results and reach 170 wolves? This is the big, overarching question for me during this mandate period, based on the conditions for hunting in our country. We will return to this.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I do not think that Member Bäckström should be worried. I believe that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna will get decisions on wolf hunting through significantly more easily and faster than the government basis that the Centerpartiet belongs to together with Vänsterpartiet, Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet. It will probably be considerably more difficult for Daniel Bäckström to get increased wolf hunting through there.

I will work very hard on this issue to ensure it is driven forward. I hope that the government will also raise the issue, as it is somewhat up to the government to do so. We are not in a government position, so the pressure is on the government to raise the issue. But the day they do, the Sweden Democrats will act.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Magnus, for your speech! I am also impressed by the commitment, not least regarding the predator policy, from your side. I have a couple of questions with a slightly different starting point than hunting.

The Social Democratic government that sat previously created a fairly successful labor market project called Naturnära jobb. It aimed to lift individuals who were newly established in the country or who had stood far away from the labor market for a longer period. The purpose of the tasks was that they should be important for society but also benefit the important green industries, where we have had quite a difficult time obtaining Swedish labor. This applies to both the forestry industry and the agricultural industry.

It was also about supporting important issues in society, for example, the fight against invasive species in both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom. I read the Sweden Democrats' motions and other documents and know that they have been engaged in this issue and think it is urgent, and I share this view with the Sweden Democrats.

They were also active in the work regarding assistance in building so-called predator fences, primarily for farmers and agricultural producers who have been granted state compensation to fence in their livestock to protect them against, for example, attacks from predators. The government has now removed that initiative, and my question to Member of Parliament Persson is therefore: Do you share the government's assessment that it was not a good measure? It was over 1,000 people who were employed in this area.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Tomas Kronståhl!

When it comes to budget negotiations, it is about give and take. One does not get everything one wants, and the member surely knows that too. I have not sat in on the budget negotiations and do not know what has been prioritized in these specific issues.

Predator fences and that whole part is something that is very expensive. Furthermore, it probably hasn't had the effect that one thought it would have. If the employment of 1,000 people depends on expanded predator fences and such, perhaps one should find other employment for them and not niche it in that way.

Tomas Kronståhl slipped in a bit on the labor market measures. I actually sit on the Committee on Employment and actually work with labor market policy in normal cases - I don't know if it was intentional that Tomas Kronståhl asked me about this specifically. The Sweden Democrats' philosophy is that we would prefer to see regular employment. Extra services and such that do not generate real jobs are something we have opted out of. We do not invest in that. But that is a debate we shall take in a completely different context and not now.

When it comes to the budget work and the predator fences, I cannot answer how the negotiations have gone, because I do not know. But I can answer that the effect of expanded predator fences and such is not as good as had been hoped for. It is very high costs for very poor results.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I must nevertheless correct Member Persson a little when it comes to the claim that this would have been a bad investment. It has been shown that over 40 percent of the individuals who have been enrolled for these various jobs have moved into regular employment, which is a slightly better result than both Arbetsförmedlingen and many other agencies can perform. Furthermore, it concerns things that I believed Member Persson also cared about a little, such as rural issues and the combating of invasive species. There has also been a lot of work for outdoor life and nature-related jobs, which has been very important in this matter.

I also want to ask another question in light of Member Persson's speech. He compares the distribution of the wolf population in southern Sweden with the distribution that could occur in Norrland, for example in Lappland, where they have reindeer herds which I consider to be more comparable to domestic animals than a red deer game population in Skåne. Do you not think it is right to protect the Sámi from the wolf population, Magnus Persson? Do you think they are not right in saying that it is not possible to have predators of that kind because the conditions for their income would then disappear?

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Tomas Kronståhl for the correction. It is positive that 40 percent proceeded to regular employment. It must be one of the best labor market measures that has ever existed in Sweden.

If Tomas Kronståhl had listened carefully to my speech, he would have heard that I did not say it was wrong that the Sámi were granted protection hunting. But why does, for example, a large farm in Skåne that manages an enormously fine red deer population, which may have been built up over several hundred years, not have the same opportunity to influence a potential wolf establishment in its area as the Sámi up in Norrland have? I am not saying it is wrong that the Sámi should not have any wolves there, but why can't it be seen from different perspectives? The hunting on large farms in Skåne, Sörmland, and so on is very important. It is what they live on, but they cannot influence this at all. The Sámi live on reindeer husbandry, and they can influence that. I mean that one must see it from different sides and that it should be the same scales, because it is actually about people's livelihoods.

Then one can have a negative view of large estates and farms. But we must be clear that without these large forest estates, which have taken care of and preserved the Swedish wildlife, we would not have been able to have these fine speeches in the rostrum here today about the Swedish folk hunting and how fine it is. Had they not put their foot down at some point, we would not have had any wildlife to hunt. Then it would not have been every individual person's right to hunt in this country. I think we should raise the level a bit on that discussion.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for a good debate. I am pleased that, despite some exchanges of remarks, there is still a great consensus in the chamber on these issues, which are incredibly important for very many of us in Sweden. I want to begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the report and rejection of the reservations.

Hunting is our greatest cultural heritage in Sweden. It is a cultural heritage that is incredibly important to care for, preserve, and develop for the future. As we have heard here earlier, the local connection, which we will return to, is among other things immensely important. The local connection ensures that there are sustainable wildlife populations and a well-functioning wildlife management, because one wants to care for one's local wildlife populations.

My good colleague John Widegren mentioned in his speech that a very large proportion of Swedes are positive towards hunting. According to the latest survey conducted, it is actually the case that 88 percent of all Swedes are positive towards hunting. This shows that we have handled hunting issues in Sweden in a good way. It is a good grade for the hunting corps, because if we had not had a hunting corps that behaved itself, it would not have been so.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is the case that hunting contributes to a climate-smart, locally produced meat that is fantastic on the plate – or now, when it will hopefully soon be summer: on the grill. Hunting is also, for various reasons, important for many of us who live in the countryside. Of course, it is a pleasant, interesting, and exciting leisure activity. It at least sometimes puts food on the table. But it also helps ensure that the countryside thrives. Not least, the moose hunt is incredibly important. Hunting rights are leased out, so that money comes into the area. The country store thrives, houses are rented out, and so on. It is a way for us who live out in the countryside to generate some income from what we have. Even for that reason, hunting is very much worth preserving and developing.

Then we also unfortunately, as we heard here earlier, have certain organizations and groupings that have completely wrong focus. Furthermore, we perhaps also experience that the EU opposes us in certain parts. It is extremely important, I believe, for the continued well-being of the hunt that we manage to move decision-making authority down from the EU to a Swedish context, but also that we then continue and move it down further from the state to the region. It should therefore be as much anchoring and decision-making at local and regional level as possible.

That is where the wildlife management delegations are extremely important. It is also a matter of having the right composition in these wildlife management delegations. One can reflect on the changes that have been made there. It feels rather like it is a disadvantage to have good knowledge in the matter and that one then cannot be a part of the wildlife management delegation. It is rather other interests that have the overweight.

Some of what I had intended to say, I already took up in the exchange with Tomas Kronståhl regarding strengthened local influence in wildlife management. As said, we agree on this, despite that there are reservations. There is an announcement, and the government intends to continue to pursue these issues during the mandate period, which I am pleased about.

Another question that several have raised is this matter of a unified ungulate management. In some parts of Sweden - there are not many - we actually have six different ungulate species sharing the same lands. Furthermore, we are starting to get more of the large birds, which cause great problems. There is no doubt that we have a challenge, but this is absolutely a landowner's responsibility. It is the landowner who must ensure that the land does not have more game than it can bear. It is extremely important. Here we must achieve a cooperation between landowners, hunters, and others who potentially use the land. I believe that we can absolutely manage it at that level, but it is very important that we get there.

Several have previously mentioned here a new wildlife authority. Just as it stands in the report, the government intends to appoint an inquiry to promote sustainable hunting and wildlife management. A wildlife authority is a part of this. Then we have a number of announcements from the previous parliamentary term that will also be handled in this.

Mr. Speaker! Even though it does not lie with the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, we have a multitude of motions in the Committee on Justice that concern hunters as far as it concerns law-abiding hunters and sport shooters and their weapons. Even there, we have a huge number of motions that we now have to handle.

It is about making things easier for the law-abiding hunter and the sport shooter. It is not the one who should be put behind bars. It is our gang criminals on the streets and squares who should be locked up and put away. It should not make things difficult for the ordinary law-abiding hunter.

As a person from Värmland, I cannot let the question of the wolf pass me by. Now, we had a fairly large wolf hunt this winter, which was positive. However, unfortunately, that does not help regarding the growth.

At home in Östervallskog, we hunt wolves, and I had the pleasure of being involved in that. There, we had a license for six wolves. But when we had shot two, the County Administrative Board cancelled it for various reasons. Unfortunately, we have seen that type of management in several territories. It does not lead to increased trust and acceptance for our authorities. We heard earlier here about how the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has acted in certain parts. We must achieve a trust where even the hunters can rely on the state.

Regarding the wolf, there is no doubt that we will continue, just as Tomas Kronståhl pointed out, to fight for the wolf to be moved from Annex IV to Annex V in the EU.

We now see how larger countries in the EU, such as Germany and France, are becoming increasingly active. They are beginning to realize what problems the wolf causes. We must change the regulatory framework there. We must also do so in some parts regarding bear, wolverine, and lynx, because we see how the populations are increasing.

I note that my speaking time is running out far too quickly, Mr. Speaker.

Finally, I shall speak about the moose, our big game. It is incredibly important. However, regarding the moose population, we have very large local variations. Some parts have a moose population that is sometimes too large.

Then we can come home to my place in Värmland or to other parts where we hardly see moose anymore. When I sat here earlier and waited for the debate, I received a snap from my cousin. He had taken a picture of a moose. Had it been 20 years ago, it would have been a non-issue. Today, it is a big deal to get a picture of a moose in my woods back home in Värmland.

Mr. Speaker! It is not only about the wolf. We also note that there are other parts involved. We see that climate change will likely push the moose further north because it suffers in the heat.

The moose is our big game. We must take care of it. One must also provide the opportunity to have a moose population even in the future.

(Applause)

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, to the honorable Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for a very good speech!

As a resident of the neighboring municipality, I have also followed the hunting issues in parallel with Kjell-Arne through the years. I share the concern over both the continuation for the moose and the future of hunting. I also share the fundamental values regarding why hunting is important for Sweden and our society.

We can start with the announcements from the previous parliamentary term, which Kjell-Arne Ottosson refers to in this speech. I thought I would take the opportunity to ask a question. Kjell-Arne Ottosson is the Christian Democrats' foreign policy spokesperson. He is in close cooperation and follows the work with the responsible minister and the rest of the government.

It is important to highlight the issue of the hunting of loose game. This was actively brought forward by Kjell-Arne Ottosson in a motion last year. It concerns a review of the Hunting Act and the mandate of the wildlife management delegations. It concerns what the investigation will contain more concretely and what will be possible to achieve in practice during the mandate period.

From my Värmland perspective, I am referring to how we are to reach 170 wolves and what the path there looks like. These are very practical questions. But I know that the commitment is shared by Kjell-Arne Ottosson.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the question!

We are 100 percent in agreement on these issues regarding the importance of driving this to achieve a solution that is sustainable over time and that works here in reality, regardless of whether we live in Säffle municipality, in Årjäng municipality, or wherever we may be located.

We are at the beginning of a parliamentary term. It is now when one, in some way, makes an impact. That is why one works full-scale with the directives for the investigation that I mentioned earlier to promote sustainable hunting and wildlife management. That is where the parts are included. One puts it so high on the agenda; it is so important to get it through. The work that is being done now during the first year is so important for us to ensure and be able to get as far as possible in the matter.

Just as my good colleague John Widegren said, we now have a government with very great consensus on the issue. We have the opportunity to move forward. It was not always possible in the previous government basis, which, among others, Daniel Bäckström's party supported.

I believe that in large parts we will find broad majorities to move forward. In that way, we will also manage to maintain it over time so that we can have a forward-looking perspective and know what actually applies.

It is exactly as Daniel Bäckström said. These are incredibly important issues for so many. There are about 300,000 hunters who purchase hunting licenses in a year. It shows how enormously important hunting is as a phenomenon.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! Given the growth in the number of wolves in Sweden, it is extremely urgent to make the most of the time. Soon the government will have been in power for six months. The first year is halfway through.

The only thing I have been made aware of is that the government has announced that it will appoint an inquiry to promote sustainable hunting and wildlife management. This concerns every announcement from the Christian Democrats and other parties that are part of the government and that have been involved in the work previously. Decisions have also been made in the chamber regarding the announcements. It is therefore very important to follow up point by point. What is it that will not be included in the inquiry? It is a matter of delivering on what was said before.

This Kjell-Arne Ottosson brought up earlier in the debate with the Social Democratic representative. It is therefore extra interesting to follow up on what the Christian Democrats will now present in the investigation. It is also about what plan one has from the government's and the Christian Democrats' side to ensure that it happens in practice.

We can only forecast how large the wolf population in the country will be in four years, in order to take one of several predators whose numbers are increasing significantly.

It is extremely important to make the most of the time. That requires both drive and commitment to move forward across the entire government. Therefore, it is important to hear more concrete information from the government's side going forward on how this will be driven forward until decision and implementation.

Centerpartiet has for several years called for a review of the hunting legislation. It is also part of the announcement. Will it be included now in the near future?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the questions! There is no doubt that we share the view regarding a sustainable wolf management and the concern that this will grow beyond our control. This applies in particular considering that we see how this affects, among other things, in Värmland, where we live and work.

I am a member of Parliament and neither a minister, state secretary or anything else on the other side of the water. I am not sitting in and negotiating exactly how this will be extracted and what the directives that they are currently working on will look like. Unfortunately, I cannot answer Daniel Bäckström that here and now.

I am, however, quite certain that the announcements that exist will be handled. There has been a very great clarity from the minister, state secretaries, and so on at the Government Offices that the announcements that we directed during the previous mandate period are extremely important. They must be handled, and therefore we are handling them now in the investigation in order to move forward quickly.

It is once again so, Mr. Speaker, that it is now we have the chance. In the government that the Centerpartiet supported with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, one did not make progress in these issues. With the current government base, the chance is significantly greater.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is one of the most inspiring debates we hold in the chamber and also one of the more important. It is about how the entire country should have the conditions to function and develop, not least linked to the importance of hunting and wildlife management for a sustainable development in the whole country.

This is also about developing activities and creating experiences in the forest and on land, and also on the water. It is also about developing and taking advantage of game meat and the resource that it represents for our food supply. There is much left to do, to monitor and to follow for us elected representatives.

The basis for a well-functioning wildlife management is a well-organized and active hunting corps. It is something that we politically must champion to defend, to advocate for, and to facilitate. Swedish hunters and their organizations have a great commitment and a central role in a long-term sustainable management of wildlife populations and forestry. Our task is to provide good conditions for the hunting corps to both advocate for and contribute to a sustainable management. It is about reducing red tape and achieving effective and predictable decision-making processes.

Swedish decision-making in hunting matters should, as far as possible, be a national competence and not be governed from the EU. And if decisions are to be made at the EU level anyway, the regional and local differences and conditions must be taken into account.

We in the Center Party share the view that a new wildlife authority with responsibility for wildlife issues needs to be established. We want to follow up on the announcement that the Riksdag has previously decided on. There are opportunities for a new authority to effectively manage the deficiencies in wildlife management that exist today. It is about building trust between the state, the rest of society and its institutions, and the hunting community. It is an important prerequisite and issue moving forward, also to strengthen the conditions for hunters, hunting, and the countryside.

The management of weapon licenses is also something that we need to continue to follow up on together. We hope that it can be included in a new wildlife authority. It is also about a time limit for the handling of a license application until a decision is made. It can be one month.

We have brought up Sweden's management of ungulate game earlier in today's debate. It is important given our conditions for producing forest raw materials and taking advantage of the forest's opportunities. There are various areas of conflict to manage and a holistic perspective to try to see. It is also about what the conditions for primary production look like and about the grazing damage. We must be able to see a whole where hunting and the extraction of game are balanced against the conditions for producing more in forest and land and in primary production in general.

A large part of the hunting inquiries and the conditions for wildlife management concern how predators and the predators' attacks on wildlife, but also on hunting dogs and livestock, should be handled. It must be taken more seriously. We have, as said, had these questions often. They have frequently appeared in the speaker's chair in the Swedish Riksdag.

This year, as we approach the Christmas celebrations, it is ten years since we made the decision. It needs to be followed up. We also need to ensure that the expansion of wolves that is now occurring is taken into account, with the socio-economic consequences it has even in southern Sweden as well as in the north.

A credible predator policy presupposes a strong regional influence in the management. Trust for the predator policy is best built by listening to the people who live with predator issues in predator-dense areas. Swedish predator management must be evaluated continuously, and in that regard, it is important that the current government ensures that it happens and that it is done all the time.

Centerpartiet wants to give farmers and hunters more influence in the regional management plans. This is about creating a decentralized and more regionally anchored wildlife management.

Members in delegations experience a sense of powerlessness and often lack real influence in the decision-making processes. This contradicts the intentions of the parliamentary decision from 2013. This therefore needs to be reviewed. The same applies to the work of the moose management; that also needs to be evaluated to ensure that it functions effectively.

I am just like Kjell-Arne Ottosson with several concerns about how it looks locally for the moose population and how quickly it is decreasing. John Widegren also raised this issue in his speech. These are issues that we in the Swedish Riksdag need to raise regularly.

Mr. Speaker! Our society and our country have an enormous and great responsibility to protect hunters against violence and harassment. When the rule of law is threatened and insecurity increases, it affects the conditions for a functioning wildlife management.

We have seen and followed how competitions have been interrupted, drives have been stopped, hunting towers vandalized, and bounty hunters have been subjected to both hate and threats. Most recently this winter, when the licensed hunt for wolves was carried out, there were disturbing elements out in the forest, which meant danger for the execution of the hunt. This is a very serious type of animal rights-related crime. It is unacceptable that it can function in that way.

There must be powerful measures against extremists who disrupt legal hunting throughout Sweden. Preventive measures are also needed so that it becomes safe and secure to pursue one's interest in wildlife management and hunting contexts.

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party wants to see a review and a new hunting law investigation, and it needs to be appointed as soon as possible. There are still several points remaining that were not clearly investigated when the previous government aborted the investigation after the 2014 election.

New challenges will arise for our society when wildlife damage imposes new demands. This needs to be included in an updated work.

There is also quite a lot to mention regarding how the conditions for the application of EU agreements on lead and ammunition will proceed. It is very important that the alternatives that are developed are practically available before this is implemented. It is important to monitor how the continuation becomes.

Madam Speaker! I therefore want, connected to this issue, to move for the approval of reservation 13.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We live in a country full of nature-loving people. There are many of us who seek tranquility in nature and who find existence insufficient if we are not given the opportunity to spend time in the forest - for the tranquility in the forest is difficult to find anywhere else.

Many of us do what we can to care for and protect our nature, and for many, this is strongly linked to just hunting, which we are debating here today. For many, hunting is an important part of life. It is much more than just a leisure interest - it is part of a lifestyle.

Hunting gives people the opportunity to come close to nature and at the same time make an important contribution to nature conservation. Hunting builds bridges between generations, creates a sense of belonging and carries forward an important part of our common cultural heritage. Hunting is an important part of life in the countryside and, Madam Speaker, also an important part of the management of healthy wildlife populations. It is an important part of nature conservation. The contribution that the Swedish Hunters' Association makes deserves to be highlighted.

With hunting and wildlife management come important efforts for biodiversity. It is about keeping the wild boar population in check and managing the moose population in such a way that grazing damage is limited while there are enough moose to shoot to be able to bring home food from the forest.

It is about keeping the wildlife populations at a good level so that the traffic accidents do not become too numerous and to assist with search efforts once the accident has occurred.

For me personally, hunting is strongly associated with having Sunday roasts to cook and with pleasant socializing over a good meal.

The list of examples can be long, but I will not prolong this debate any more than necessary.

I do, however, allow myself to dwell somewhat on that very Sunday roast, on the game meat. Game meat is an absolutely excellent food; it is healthy, tasty and sustainable. And it is a resource that we can utilize in a better way.

In the time we live in, we need to think anew and use our common resources wisely. We need to utilize the food that exists in a good way. There are many driven entrepreneurs here who are making important contributions. They think anew and drive development, and they work with meat from game that one does not always necessarily take care of as food.

An exciting example, Madam Speaker, that I recently became aware of is an entrepreneur in southern Sweden who combines his great interests in life: hunting and cooking. He works with utilizing meat from wild geese. The geese cause major problems for agriculture in the area, and therefore they are hunted. This meat is often an untapped resource. Here, work is being done to refine the meat into good dishes—an exciting work to follow and an important path that more need to take.

Just this way of thinking - to take a problem and create opportunities - is an important ingredient in the work of creating a more sustainable food supply. And it is yet another example of how entrepreneurs and business owners drive the development in society forward.

Madam Speaker! I remain there and move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! Heartfelt thanks to Member Elin Nilsson for this speech! I truly appreciate the connection to the Sunday roast and what it is like to grow up and actually be raised on game meat. It is something that many participants in this parliamentary debate share.

When we look at the availability of game meat, we see that it varies. This is strongly linked to the growth of and the yield from the moose population. In our regions, in Bergslagen, this is a major challenge. Since the wolf spread out and territories were taken over, the conditions for hunting have changed and hunting has decreased radically. In that case, the connection to how more people should be able to eat more Sunday roasts in the future is very relevant, so I thank you for that.

My question, based on the Liberals' commitment when it comes to the conditions for hunting moving forward and also the development of moose management and the question of how the moose population can regain a larger population in the areas where the wolf has large, extensive territories, is how the Liberals now position themselves in the government's work. It is about which baseline values need to be included in the investigation but also about the decisions that need to be taken to achieve a significantly lower number of wolves. Other parties in the government made an announcement during the previous mandate period regarding a number of a total of 170.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Daniel Bäckström, for the question! We share the commitment to the Sunday roast, I notice. I was also raised with moose meat, primarily. It was a luxury when one got to eat beef - that was how bad it was.

To your question: I also see the problems with the fact that there has been a heavy pressure on the moose population because there have been many wolves. I live myself in one of the wolf territories where licensed hunting was conducted during the winter. I believe three of six wolves were shot. Before that, there were very few moose in the area. Now, when one moves in the forest, one can actually see that they have started to come back, so the question is whether the wolves would have taken the moose or if the moose would have moved; that is for the experts to comment on.

The Liberals' entry into this issue is first and foremost that the wolf is an important part of the Swedish fauna, and we believe that the population should have a favorable conservation status. We are part of a government cooperation where work is ongoing regarding this issue and are part of those discussions. We are not saying that the wolf population should be down to exactly 170 wolves. The number should be based on science. The population should be viable. You therefore do not get an exact number from me.

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

Daniel Bäckström (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the answer! I will return to this issue further ahead when we see how the government in practice presents investigation proposals and makes decisions in these matters, as well as how the government and the governing parties handle the overall predator policy.

As we have touched upon previously, it is extremely important to include the time aspect in the calculations during the continued work. It is also important that there is a consensus within the government regarding how these issues should be handled.

When it comes to other issues linked to the investigation that the government will present, the question is how the Liberals intend to work for a review of the hunting law and also, when it comes to the wildlife management delegations, how the local and regional management is to be achieved in practice during this mandate period.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the question, Daniel Bäckström! I also share your view here. The administration should be local, and decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. It is still the people who live in the area in question who are most affected by how the wildlife management looks.

When it comes to exactly what the review should look like and how any directives should be designed, it would be a bit presumptuous of me to anticipate the announcement of such. This also lies on the government's table and not on the Riksdag's.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the speech! Now Daniel Bäckström preceded me, but I am touching on somewhat the same thing. The Liberals have previously had a predatory policy that has not always aligned with the current government colleagues and the coalition partner. For example, you were not part of the announcement that was made a year ago. You have rather been on the same side as the Green Party in these issues, namely that it should be about a scientific basis and favorable conservation status, and that we cannot state a certain number.

Now you are, however, a governing party, and we have had the largest wolf hunt in modern history in Sweden and also the largest lynx hunt. The wolf population is admittedly strong, but the age has gone down. The median age has gone down from eight to four years.

The question is: What is the Liberals' predator policy? Have you had to compromise, or have you simply changed your mind with the new government?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Nohrén, for the questions! The Liberals have not changed their stance. We have not changed our minds. Our starting point in the discussions is still the same.

But let me also say in this context - I do not know how clearly it has been expressed previously - that when a predator population grows as much as the wolf population did in certain areas, we also see that there can be a need for licensed hunting. We also stood behind the hunting that was carried out this winter. Then, of course, one evaluates afterwards what effects it has had on the wolf population. But when it is a high predator pressure that affects the game populations and the farmers locally, there can be a need for licensed hunting.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answer! There we share a view. Miljöpartiet is not opposed to wolf hunting per se. Licensed hunting of a species that has a favorable conservation status is completely okay. We have also had licensed hunting during the time we sat in the government. But now it was a very large licensed hunt at the same time as we see that the genetic status is not one hundred percent. We see that many males have problems. The testicles have not descended, which makes them infertile. We have also not had an immigration of wolves that would have provided a new genetic addition.

Even though we have more wolves in number, we have a genetically very isolated wolf population. What we see is that science says we should not have had such a large wolf hunt.

You are welcome to comment on this again if you think differently, Elin Nilsson. But I would like to ask you the same question that I asked the member from the Moderaterna earlier. There are other things that can be done, besides shooting animals. It is about preventive work, ensuring that the compensation levels for animal keepers are good and ensuring that preventive measures are taken.

We heard, for example, earlier that wolves have come to Skåne. They have been there before, in fact, but it was a long time ago. Could one enter money there, so that people can put up the right fences and so on? It is about ensuring from the state side that there are funds and the possibility to put up fences, so that the individual farmer is not affected. This exists to some extent today, but it does not cover the costs. Is this something the Liberals would want to work for – more money for protection and preventive measures, for example, wildlife fences and increased compensation levels?

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question! It is always better to act before a problem arises than afterwards. Preventive measures are absolutely welcome and should be prioritized. I cannot promise crowns and cents right now, but just as the member says, it is important to give farmers the support they need to protect their animal populations.

Another part of this is to ensure that the protection hunt works, that it is fast and that the processing is efficient when problems arise, so that one can prevent more attacks on livestock.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(The decision was to be taken on 12 April.)

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