Hunting and wildlife management

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Tonight's debate will be about hunting and wildlife management. I wish to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

Sweden is a fantastic hunting country. I believe we can be completely in agreement on that here. Sweden does not only offer very many different types of game for hunting. Sweden also has a history of conducting fantastic wildlife management. What has led to today's opportunities is that we have many species and large populations to hunt and that we can and do it so well.

Madam Speaker! Swedish hunting ethics far surpass those of many other EU countries, not least when it comes to the use of dogs. We in Sweden are fantastically skilled at the use of dogs in hunting, and it is also a fantastic aid when we conduct hunting. But it is no longer a given that we can continue with it. There are forces within the EU that want to ban the use of dogs in hunting.

There are also forces within the EU that want to ban the possibility of conducting hunting tourism, i.e., traveling around and hunting and being allowed to take one's trophy home. Several countries have had this as a proposal in their parliaments, and several have also implemented these proposals. It harms hunting in general, but in Sweden, we have a strong opinion in favor of the hunting we conduct. When you ask the Swede today, 80-90 percent are positive towards hunting being conducted in Sweden. It is extremely important.

The Swedish Hunting Corps provides great benefit to society. We saw that most recently, and perhaps most clearly, at the outbreak of African swine fever. The Swedish Hunting Corps stepped up and has practically solved the problem. We are taking action, Madam Speaker! The Hunting Corps made a fantastic contribution - many times, moreover, on a voluntary basis.

The Swedish Hunting Corps also stands up and conducts traffic searches at all hours of the day, year-round. We cannot appreciate enough the work that takes place - again with the use of hunting dogs. They need to be trained and kept active year-round to manage the mission that the hunters perform for the state.

Madam Speaker! The dogs that I speak so highly of – I am a dog owner myself – are also exposed to dangers. They are exposed to a somewhat too high predator pressure, primarily from the wolf. The presence of the wolf can become a limitation for hunting and for how we can manage to keep the wildlife populations down. Someone says, for instance, that if one lets the wolf population grow, it can manage the wildlife populations, but it will not be that way. We need our hunting dogs, and we must be able to feel safe when we hunt with them and that we can use § 28 to protect our hunting dog.

It should be easy to arrange a protective hunt when there is a wolf causing problems in an area. Now, new guidelines for protective hunting have been issued. They are clearly better than they were before. Fewer attacks were needed, and it is faster to arrange a protective hunt now. Several county administrative boards have already tried it. The first one was in Skåne, and there, through quick decisions, an effective protective hunt on a damaging individual was also arranged and the problem was able to be resolved. That is exactly how it should be if we are to get acceptance from the people who are to live and work in wolf country. It must be easy and fast to arrange a protective hunt. We also need to arrange an increased license hunt. We shall reduce the Swedish wolf population.

Much of this will happen more easily when we, at the EU level, hopefully in the near future, get through the question of moving the wolf from critically endangered to manageable. It is the EU's environment ministers who are to vote on this, and if we are lucky, it will happen in June. Then we will have greater opportunities to steer towards a reduced wolf population in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! The moose is our Swedish national symbol. I know that there is some member here in the chamber who is particularly passionate about the moose. The moose's existence as game is, of course, threatened - in some areas. In other areas, we still harbor a good moose population.

We must, however, be able to find ways forward for agriculture and forestry in harmony with huntable wildlife populations. Agriculture and forestry deliver food and forest, which is a climate-smart alternative. We have substitution effects and so on. In that case, we cannot have excessively high wildlife populations. But no one shall make me believe that the way forward is to essentially erase the moose in certain areas. We must find ways forward.

Rural Affairs Minister Peter Kullgren tasked the landowner side, the hunting side, and Sveaskog last year with talking together about the future moose management. I have not seen any result of that yet, but I assume it is underway. We must also remember that we in the Riksdag should try to interfere as little as possible in the legislation regarding hunting.

Hunting is based on something historically very fine that landowners, hunters and users have managed together. So we want it to be that way in the future as well. A harmony between these three can deliver large game populations but also a land and forestry management at the forefront.

In today's report, there is a proposal for an announcement regarding a unified management of hoofed game. That may be good, but we do not want a unified management of hoofed game that is managed by the public sector. In that case, we would be giving away the control over hunting that we, at the landowner, hunter, and user level, once obtained. The day we let an authority take over the management and bring in all hoofed game species, which we have actually done today regarding moose, we lose the right of control.

I hope instead that the proposal in today's report will lead to us being able to investigate and perhaps find tools for how the future management should look. By that, I do not mean a future management governed by the public but by landowners, hunters and users. It is only then that it will work, and this is what has worked for a long time in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! Some important investigations are underway, and I believe they should be highlighted. This concerns, on the one hand, an investigation into a new wildlife authority. We do not know what it will result in, but it could lead to something very good where we gather hunting, wildlife, and weapons issues under one umbrella. It also concerns, on the other hand, an investigation into new hunting legislation. That too can become very important. The former is outdated and needs to be adapted to a new society, new wildlife species, new sizes of wildlife species, and new issues of interest.

These are important investigations that are underway, and we will have to see what they will land on.

I want to raise one final question, which also concerns an investigation. It is an investigation that I am currently sitting on, namely the Renmark Committee. We are handling hunting and fishing in the northern part of Sweden. It is incredibly important that it reaches a final result that mandates that all Swedes have the right to hunting and fishing on state land above the cultivation limit.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Widegren for the speech. I stand behind much of it; it contained much wisdom. I do, however, have a question that I would like to have slightly further clarified.

We see now that several large forestry companies, or rather groups of companies, are not following the culling decisions made by the County Administrative Board. When it comes to the culling of moose - it is I who am that moose lover in the room who often debates the moose - one has had a culling based on their own assessment and has made their own decisions.

This has resulted, Madam Speaker, in that the culling of moose has increased by everything from 25 percent to over 55 percent. It is not a small deviation, but it is quite extensive. It has meant that hundreds of moose have been taken down unnecessarily, as I see it, in a situation where the population is about to be red-listed.

For me as a Social Democrat and moose lover, it is obvious that there must be order and clarity in the rules that we have collectively established, regardless of whether it concerns the culling of moose, general hunting seasons, or other ethical rules. I think it is incredibly important that we comply with them, whether we are large forestry companies or small landowners.

My question to John is: Will you act to ensure that an investigation into these, in my opinion, clear poaching offenses gets underway and that some form of sanction is imposed for what has occurred?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the question. There are many of us who love the moose and safeguard the moose's survival, which shall take place in a way that is good for Sweden but also for landowners, users, hunters and so on.

This is a difficult question. The hunt is fundamentally a land ownership issue. It is the landowners who should decide what level of damage from wildlife can be tolerated. What is being raised is very clearly highlighted in the example. When we stand here in the chamber, we are not to go into examples, but we can look at the broad strokes. It is about how much should be tolerated in terms of damage and so on. At the same time, we have a common agreement between landowners and hunters which means that we have released the moose hunt to the public, which decides very much about the whole thing.

Since we introduced the system, we have also established ourselves in it. Therefore, I think it becomes a bit unfortunate when one takes matters into one's own hands. Then one departs from the agreement that exists.

Do I think I will fight for an investigation or similar to be appointed for just this? It is perhaps not something that I, as a Member of Parliament, will do. But I am currently following with interest what the Minister for Rural Affairs initiated last year to find a new model for moose management. It is quite obvious that the system we have followed when we have hunted for over ten years has not really functioned in the best way. If there are forces, companies, or similar, who think that this is so bad that they take a step too far, then we have indeed failed to produce a public management.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the reasoning – it was not a clear answer. But perhaps the member will come to it.

I see a somewhat unfortunate and unpleasant development. If it comes to the point where, simply because one has large forests and large areas, one makes the assessment of what should be felled and which different species should be on one's land depending on forest damage and other factors, it will undermine the trust that exists for today's coordinated management, which both you and I strive for.

After many years, we can state that the coordinated management, which takes place between hunters, landowners, and the County Administrative Board, has functioned well in quite many areas. This is a typical exception that can actually cause the whole thing to quickly collapse.

I think it is extremely important that we address this part and ensure that it becomes a penalty. We must also work towards a system where the hunter's interest and the landowner's interest are equal. I want an impartial chairperson who looks at the whole.

I am very grateful that there is a proposal for a motion today. I will mention a bit about it in my speech later. This would be a step in the right direction. I would like member Widegren to fight for the question of measures.

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! The member and I are not oceans apart on this issue, but we perhaps do not want to approach it in quite the same way. I find it difficult to see that anyone would be punished in this situation, because I do not really see the crime in it all. One has broken a handshake, I think above all. If it continues in this way, the handshake will not be worth anything in the future. The large landowners who are highlighted as examples are also dependent on there being hunters who want to engage in meaningful hunting, and the hunting lease is a source of income for these landowners. One must be able to find ways forward.

When it comes to the biological, it becomes very strange. I am not so sure that it is the right way to go to eradicate the moose, but that is somewhat what is about to happen in some areas right now. One lets the moose bear the brunt for all the forest damage that occurs, even if one perhaps has other species of antlered game. But I also do not believe in letting the public step in and legislate and complicate the management by, for example, our county administrative boards - or even worse, I was going to say: the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency - should come up with plans where they decide on the wildlife management. It is not the right way to go.

However, we must find incentives forward for these landowners together with hunters and users, if there are users who do not own the land in the area. One must find the way forward, because it has worked well. It is a handshake that has worked, both when we built up the moose population to the all-too-high levels we had in the 80s and when these types of organizations succeeded in reducing the moose population by somewhere between 25 and 40 percent depending on the location. It is that model I believe in for the future, and it is what I will continue to talk to the Minister for Rural Affairs about.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! We have just heard a speech about how hunting is a part of the Swedish soul, so one might say. There are very many who hunt themselves, and if one does not hunt oneself, one knows someone who hunts. It is quite unique for Sweden to have that situation. A few weeks ago, I was down in Paris at a meeting and discussed rural issues. They asked what we in the Swedish Riksdag discuss in the committee. Then I said that it is the usual things: environmental and agricultural policy, rural development – and then, of course, hunting. Hunting? Do you have that? They sort of didn't understand. Yes, it is an important part, I had to answer. Who has the opportunity to hunt is, in fact, something that distinguishes Sweden.

Every year, it is 280,000-290,000 people who apply for and obtain hunting licenses in Sweden. It is also 8,000-12,000 who take the theory test for the hunter's examination. How many of them then proceed and hunt, one does not really know. But all these people surely have their reasons for hunting. I do not think one can generalize the hunting community. I am a hunter myself, and I believe that my reason for hunting may differ from many others.

But the hunt affects so many more. Everyone who stays in the forest and on the land, especially perhaps in the autumn, risks encountering a hunter. There are many who use the forest and land for other reasons, ranging from mushroom pickers, canoeists, wanderers, and scouts to photographing tourists and tourism companies, who earn their living by taking people who want to experience Swedish nature. We also have reindeer herders, and we have companies that take people for hunting tourism.

Not everyone is actually equally positive about hunting, even though most in Sweden still have a positive basic view of hunting. It is important that we have an acceptance of hunting and continue with it. Therefore, the legislation must be broad and provide opportunities for influence for many.

Too large wildlife populations can cause unrest and create difficulties for, for example, farmers and forest owners. Few people enjoy having their crops trampled by wild boar or geese that arrive in large flocks, or suffering forest damage to either seedlings or growing stands when deer rub their antlers.

Therefore, it is important that the hunting and management occur in such a way that acceptance is created, Madam Speaker, and that there is an anchoring in society. Today we see that it is not always the case. Miljöpartiet therefore considers it important that we modernize the hunting legislation and harmonize hunting with the rest of society. It should not only be hunters who decide about the game, because everything belongs to us all until it is shot.

The modern hunting legislation saw its beginning in the 1930s. During the 1980s, quite large changes occurred. Ever since, we have had a patching and mending in the legislation. We have had the EU accession. We have had a changed forestry with clear-cut forestry that has changed the situation in the forest. We have new leisure interests, which mean that more and perhaps different people go out into the forest. Then we also have the climate changes, Madam Speaker, which, together with increased mobility, provide quite large changes. We see new distribution areas for many wildlife populations. We get a faster spread of foreign and sometimes invasive species. Several diseases and parasites also arrive.

But at the same time with this development, we have also obtained better research and better environmental monitoring. We know what is happening, and we have a better grasp of our wild animals and what is happening out there. That also, of course, gives us new cards to play. Several of our wildlife populations have increased. We have had a favorable management of many populations. We now have, for example, a wolf population of about 450 individuals; previously they were a handful, if even that. Several bird species are increasing in the landscape, while others are disadvantaged. New-old species such as wild boar have entered, and we may need to manage them in a different way. Some things have happened there as well.

We in Miljöpartiet believe that new management methods are needed. We believe that ecosystem-based wildlife management is needed, where there is also multi-year management. There is an announcement regarding this in the committee, but I do not think it goes all the way. Therefore, I move for approval of our reservation number 1. When one has ecosystem-based wildlife management, one needs to look at the entire ecosystem. It has to do with the land's carrying capacity, the predator pressure, what other activities are taking place, the availability of fodder, and what the landscape looks like.

Madam Speaker! We heard earlier speakers talk about some of the investigations being conducted. I printed out some of what is written in the report regarding what is underway. There are an incredibly large number of different investigations. I have highlighted a part in my papers. Naturvårdsverket has been commissioned to look at a new management plan for roe deer and moose. This has since been paused, as the agency received another government assignment. Naturvårdsverket has also been commissioned to promote wildlife management, they have received a new assignment regarding the Viltvårdsfonden, Skogsstyrelsen has received an assignment together with Naturvårdsverket, and so on.

It is an incredible amount that is happening simultaneously, but everything is not quite coherent, I think. One probably wants to achieve the same thing, but if we are to have a hunt and a wildlife management that gains acceptance, we must probably ensure that we get there. We must have an ecosystem-based wildlife management that takes into account several of society's different parts, and we must see how they interact with each other. In that way, we will get continued acceptance for the hunt. We will also get good wildlife populations and can cooperate with other activities.

Actually, this is nothing new. I believe that most hunters see that one must manage the resources one has and that one must also create resources for the future. With today's knowledge and the research we have, I believe that we can achieve an ecosystem-based wildlife management that provides game to hunt but also harmony with other activities and other species.

(Applause)

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the proposal in the report and against all reservations.

Hunting in Sweden was previously completely vital for survival. It is not anymore, even though it is a very good way to get food for the freezer. It has rather become one of our greatest cultural heritages, and it is in large parts a popular movement.

It is especially visible when the moose hunt begins how our regions come to life when people come back home again. It is the year's best week for the general store. Lights shine in the cottages, for example. You see in the north when the reindeer hunt begins how incredibly many who travel north to get this wonderful week in the mountains.

We heard earlier about when we had outbreaks of African swine fever. At that time, there were several hundred hunters who immediately stepped up to be involved in the containment. It clearly shows that it really is a people's movement that is now our greatest cultural heritage. That is perhaps why there are so many assignments, as Emma Nohrén previously mentioned. It is such an important issue for many.

Acceptance was mentioned. It is 80-90 percent of those surveyed who have a high level of acceptance for hunting. It is thanks to the fact that we in Sweden truly conduct hunting in such a way that one sees that we do not cause unnecessary suffering to wildlife, as it states in the legal text. It is very important from several aspects.

I have intended to go into some of the reservations that we have in the report we are dealing with today. First, we have an announcement, which was mentioned earlier, regarding collective management of wild and hoofed game.

Madam Speaker! There is no doubt that we see how more and more wildlife species are spreading across larger parts of our country, resulting in many wildlife damages. At the same time, we must remember that it is not everywhere. In some areas, the pressure is very great. In other areas, there is hardly any pressure at all.

There is a lot of talk about large game damage. In areas where you have very many ungulate species, there is greater game damage than, for example, at home in my part of Värmland. For the first time since 1959, we did not shoot any moose during the moose hunt at home last autumn. It is a very sad development that, unfortunately, is largely due to the wolf.

At the same time, we note how the moose is getting a lot of flak just because there is so much game damage. This autumn, we had a visit here from SLU which showed the latest research. The moose population is clearly shrinking and decreasing, but the game damage remains at the same level. Is it really the moose that is behind it, or is it just very easy to blame the moose? One can wonder about that.

Madam Speaker! I shall say something brief about the wolf. We had a debate last week on nature conservation where the wolf is included. Then there are certain parts that are included here as well. We perhaps should have merged the two reports.

The government has given several new assignments. We have started to receive answers, and we are still waiting for answers from some of them. But there is no doubt that we have a vital wolf pack.

We see in Europe that the distribution area for the wolf has increased by approximately 25 percent over ten years. At the EU level, the wolf population has increased by approximately one third over the last six years. At the Swedish level, the wolf population has increased by 700 percent over 20 years. Do not come and say that we do not have a viable wolf population.

Other reservations being addressed today concern hunting of cormorants and seals. We have a major challenge there, Madam Speaker. It is the trade ban, which primarily applies to seal products. As a hunter, you want to take care of what you shoot and not just shoot to discard. The challenge is when you are not allowed to trade with seal products, and it is a difficult hunt. How are you then supposed to act? We argue that the trade ban should be removed so that one can utilize the seal when it is shot.

Madam Speaker! Then more must be done. We must change the rules regarding the protection of seals. We must make it easier to be able to hunt seals. The second part concerns cormorants. There is also no doubt, Madam Speaker, that we have a job to do at the EU level. There we have a Habitats Directive and a Birds Directive that put spokes in the wheels for so much.

It is not just the hunting issue. There are many other parts where we see how the directives really cause problems for us. Therefore, we must make changes so that we can get a general hunt for cormorants again, as we had in Sweden previously. We see how the cormorant destroys so enormously much. It is not just islands out in the archipelago that become completely dead, but we see how it destroys for our fishermen.

Then it is about the subsidiarity principle. It is a complicated word with a very important content. Decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level. Therefore, we must move hunting decisions and decisions regarding our wildlife species from the EU level to the national level, and in some parts also from the national level to the regional level.

Regarding the review of the hunting law, for which there is a reservation, an investigation is ongoing, just as we heard earlier. We will have to see what it concludes, but the work is underway.

There is also a reservation regarding measures against illegal hunting. This primarily concerns illegal hunting of predator species. One might ask: Why is illegal hunting taking place, if it is indeed taking place? What is it that makes people choose to break the law?

Madam Speaker! We notice that there is no acceptance. One must take people's experiences and concerns seriously. If one does that, I am quite sure that that part will absolutely decrease.

Madam Speaker! Next to last on my list, we have a reservation regarding lead ammunition. In that regard, we in Sweden have largely already made our journey. We have a ban on hunting in wetlands. We have come much further than what has previously been done at the EU level.

It is now a matter of seeing: What are the alternatives, and at what costs? Proportionality is very important. If it is to cost 100 kronor for a cartridge, the hunt will truly become a class issue. Then there will be many who will not be able to afford to hunt or who may choose to hunt with ammunition that one is not supposed to use.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a rather heated debate is taking place regarding hunting and fishing in the mountains. The Renmark Committee is now doing work on this. For us in Kristdemokraterna, it is a self-evident matter that everyone in Sweden shall have the right to hunting and fishing on state lands above the cultivation limit. In that regard, there is no doubt. It is our starting point in the work, and we are truly fighting for that to be where we end up.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Much of what the previous speaker has discussed, I will also discuss. That is how it is when we sit in a committee where there is a very large focus on hunting, and many are also very interested in just that form of being out in our nature.

I want to begin by stating that there will now be an announcement regarding, among other things, our proposal for a unified management of roe deer, which I think is very good. Then we can get a significantly better holistic view of the wildlife that exists, of the feed resources available, and also the grazing damage that occurs both in forests and on grazing lands. That is positive. I also want to move for approval of our reservation number 2 regarding moose management.

Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the concern that I and many others feel regarding the ongoing, in some places almost acute, reduction of the moose population.

Everything started with the forest companies and the forest owners demonstrating quite large damages to the forest, especially in the Scots pine forest. An extensive work was initiated using Äbin, the Moose Grazing Inventory, to see how much damage there was. A limit was set that only 5 percent of the Scots pine forest at a certain age was allowed to have grazing damage. This was started as early as 2015.

Focus has since then been on reducing the moose population due to these grazing damages on the Scots pine. We can now, after ten years of one-sided focus on moose, state that it has gone much too far. At the same time as we see that the moose population is decreasing significantly, by 35-40 percent across the whole country and in some areas by 50-60 percent, large grazing damages on Scots pine are still claimed.

Madam Speaker! No one, except the large forestry companies, believes in the one-sided connection between grazing damage and the moose population any longer. Of course, there are several wildlife species that affect and graze in our forests; we have both roe deer and red deer which are active forest consumers. The question is what actually constitutes reasonable grazing damage and forest damage. Is it 5 percent, or is it significantly more?

There are other measures to reduce these damages, for example, to preserve important tree species for wildlife during clearing. One can also focus on several different measures simultaneously and not just unilaterally on the culling of moose.

Madam Speaker! It is shocking to review the collected statistics regarding this year's moose culling. We can, as I said earlier, observe that it is several large forestry companies that totally ignore the county administrative boards' decisions on the number of moose that are to be culled. The deviations are not just isolated or few; here we are talking about really substantial violations of 25 to over 55 percent. This means that hundreds of moose have been culled beyond the number specified in the county administrative boards' decisions. If this had been an individual owner on small plots of land, it would have been a complete catastrophe.

We definitely cannot have a situation where the large forestry companies and forest owners do as they please and unilaterally decide how much and which species should exist in their specific forests. This is a development that completely deviates from what was the very point of local moose management areas and which actually legitimizes that everyone, large as small, follows the decisions we have made.

Madam Speaker! We must therefore, in my opinion, seriously investigate these examples of what I consider to be deviations in elk management areas where both deliberately and without consequences, they have deviated so significantly from and violated the decided allocation.

Madam Speaker! Enough said about the elk. It is also about the hunting of and control of the various invasive animal species that can enter the country in different ways, for example by spreading themselves from neighboring countries. This concerns, for example, the raccoon dog, which exists in large quantities in Russia and which comes to us through Finland and creates very large problems for many other species, not least for birdlife.

We also have another current example. It is the stone marten, which can enter the country in several different ways, probably most often through various freight transports in which it can easily hide and thereby enter the country. This new species for our country is notorious for causing enormous damage to society - partly by affecting biological diversity, and partly through vandalism that ultimately affects people. For species that nest in wetland-like areas, such as the southern snipe and the red-shanked andean, it is not welcome to have even more ground-based predators. The goal of the stone marten seems to be to get into cars and properties and gnaw apart everything that can be gnawed, most often power cables. In the rest of Europe, where it occurs more frequently, this is something that costs billions.

Madam Speaker! In 2023, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency invested approximately 2.4 million to eradicate the stone marten. That was enough to commission the Swedish Hunters' Association to employ two full-time hunters to try to get a grip on the spread and eradicate the species before it is too late. Now, unfortunately, these funds are exhausted, and the government has imposed significant savings on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. This means essentially a free pass for a rapid spread of this probably invasive species, which could cost society enormous sums in damage and negative impact on other important species.

Madam Speaker! In Sweden, we have the Swedish Hunters' Association, which is commissioned by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to manage, monitor, and remediate the occurrence of all invasive species on land. This mission has been carried out and has been very successful thanks to the Hunters' Association's large network of contacts with hunters and hunting teams all around our country.

That is why the fight has been able to take place at a very low and reasonable cost compared to in other, both Nordic and European, countries. Nevertheless, the government chooses to cut these so important appropriations in order to save a few million in the short term on something that could result in billion-dollar costs in the future.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to hunting and protection hunting of our predators, it is also in the future an important balancing act between the conservation status of the different species and people's right to defend their livestock and be able to conduct farming with animal husbandry and grazing ungulates, which is important not least for biological diversity.

It is pleasing that the government has continued the work to try to achieve a shift of the protection status for wolf from Annex IV to Annex V in the EU's Birds and Habitats Directive. This means that we ourselves can manage this wildlife to a greater extent. It should also facilitate a more generous protection hunt, not least in order to protect domestic animals.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would just like to mention the frustration that exists among our hunters and fishers regarding the granting of permits for desired protection hunting on both cormorants and seals. This can be a gigantic problem locally, not least for the small-scale commercial fishing which both has its catch eaten and its gear destroyed. This must be reviewed and addressed immediately.

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring and Sofia Skönnbrink (both S) concurred.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I am involved in association life, and when there are association meetings, one can usually request the floor to provide a factual clarification that breaks the speaking list. I know that we do not have those rules in this chamber, but this is more of a factual clarification than a pure rejoinder.

I agree with Tomas Kronståhl on most of what he raised in his speech. He told me when we met here in the chamber that I had taken his speech, so we are largely in agreement.

And I want to say something about the stone marten, which actually does not belong in this report but was the subject of debate last week. We are in complete agreement regarding the stone marten. Furthermore, the government has added 50 million to the budget per year to combat invasive alien species.

The challenge, Madam Speaker, is that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has been tasked with producing a national list of invasive alien species. But on the national list that the agency has submitted to the government, the stone marten is not included. Despite what Tomas Kronståhl mentioned in his speech about the stone marten being fantastically skilled at getting into both cars and buildings and other things and causing great damage, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency does not count the stone marten as an invasive alien species on its list.

This will therefore be subject to political assessment. I do not know if the politics can step in and change the lists in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's proposal. But I sincerely hope so, because I believe, as I said, that Tomas Kronståhl and I are in complete agreement that we shall combat the stone marten even if it is not included in this report.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne, for the observation! I am well aware that is exactly how it stands. On the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's list, it has not yet been recorded as an invasive species. Despite this fact, we have actually fought it during 2023. We have also previously kept an eye on this so-called non-invasive species, which nevertheless can cause great damage. We have every possibility to ensure that it does not become a species that establishes itself in Sweden, as it is not yet accepted as a species in Sweden's habitats.

We and the government still have the opportunity to influence the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency regarding this assessment and to try to ensure that we can use the skilled and successful hunters who have actually caught over 200 stone martens, I believe, to keep track of the development of the stone marten.

Madam Speaker! What we see in other parts of the world where it exists, not least in Europe, is that it causes very great damage. It does not benefit biodiversity or the species we already have in Sweden in any way. I think it can be called an almost invasive species.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! As I said: It was more of a factual clarification than a rebuttal. We are in complete agreement. It is exactly as Tomas Kronståhl is pointing out. Now it is the politics that must try when the responsible authority does not do what we wish. Then we, from the political side, must do what we can.

I have myself had contact with the hunters who have worked with the stone marten and know what fantastic job they have done. I also know that they are gladly used in other countries, all around Europe, precisely because they are so skilled. I sincerely hope that we can achieve a change regarding this at a political level and that the work to remove the stone marten from Sweden's land area continues.

I believe that Tomas Kronståhl and I are in complete agreement that this is an invasive alien species, which unfortunately causes problems not only for biodiversity but also for many other things.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne, for the fact that we are in complete agreement on the issue! We simply must use the majority in the government to ensure this. We can state that we have also seen various Sweden Democrats who have been up and discussed the issue of invasive species and the importance of continuing with this. Therefore, I think it should be possible to get a majority in the government to ensure that even this species is also combated in every possible way, so that we get it away from our biology and from our species, so that it does not cause great damage.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I am not the first here tonight to emphasize the importance of the hunting carried out in Sweden. Hunting is an important part of nature conservation. It provides opportunities for recreation and nature experiences, and it is something that many value highly. The opportunity to hunt is a part of many people's freedom.

The management of the wildlife populations in our country is entirely dependent on there being hunters throughout the country and that enough people hunt. Just as several here have mentioned before me today, the hunting corps' efforts during the outbreak of African swine fever were completely decisive for the rapid management that we saw.

When it comes to hunting and wildlife management, it must be based on a scientific foundation and function in a way that people and businesses affected perceive it as legitimate.

The hunt, that is, the hunters' efforts, is crucial for the balance in the ecosystems. The challenges of achieving that balance vary over time, in step with the wildlife populations increasing or decreasing. We have seen too many wild boar. Now we see how the populations are decreasing. There have been too few moose. Some argue that there are too many. There are too large scavenger populations. We see a growing wolf population. This is how one can continue for a long time.

Madam Speaker! Let me dwell a little on the wolf. I live in one of Sweden's wolf-densest areas, in Örebro län. Over the last two years, a fairly extensive license hunt has been conducted in my area. When I speak about the wolf, it is important for me as a Liberal to emphasize that it is part of the Swedish fauna. We shall have a viable wolf population, and we shall manage it wisely, sustainably, and in the long term. When one mentions sustainability, one must consider all three aspects of sustainability – ecological, economic, and social. This means that license hunting can be justified, and we must have a protection hunt that is effective.

My view is that we do not achieve this balance by specifying an exact number of wolves. It is better to focus on establishing a functional protection hunt. Here, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's new guidelines, which were presented in March, are a welcome development. They provide better conditions for an effective protection hunt.

Madam Speaker! We see now how the wolf is spreading southward in our country. In that case, the protection hunt is actually absolutely crucial. It is crucial for the conditions to remain good for keeping livestock – in Skåne, for example. Active management with an effective protection hunt is therefore crucial for a sustainable coexistence. Furthermore, one needs to consider the costs associated with setting up predator-deterring fences. In southern Sweden, where the proportion of livestock is larger than it is in my county, it will require a lot of money and considerable work efforts, and the state's coffers are not bottomless.

In order for the effects of the wolf spreading out to be manageable, we must ensure that the protection hunt is effective. That is taking responsibility for Sweden in several ways. It is also a way to increase the acceptance of wolves and ensure that we continue to have them in Sweden. We shall have a viable wolf population in Sweden - there is no doubt about that. But how many individuals it shall be must be a question for science, and that assessment will change over time.

There is an interesting question in this context. It was raised in the debate we had a few weeks ago, where the wolf was also addressed. It concerns the lack of genetic variation in the population, that is, the high degree of inbreeding. In that context, the question was raised about moving individuals here who are not related to the wolves we have in Sweden. It could be a way to have a smaller population that is actually more viable than the one we have today. Then we could also reduce the effects on livestock. It is about a lower degree of inbreeding, a more viable wolf population, but perhaps fewer individuals. My view is that this should not be ruled out.

Now, this is an issue that is incredibly polarized. The debate often spirals out of control. People stand in their respective corners and slug at each other. But I believe that the way forward is to see what gives effect and how we move forward. When it comes to increased coexistence and increased tolerance, this is actually the only way to handle this issue.

(Applause)

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 3.

The Sweden Democrats emphasize the Swedish hunt and wildlife management as a tradition dating back to time immemorial. Hunting and trapping methods have differed between regions over the centuries depending on landscape type and wildlife availability.

In the vast forests and the countryside that, only a few generations ago, was the home region of the vast majority of Swedes, people have lived and worked in harmony with nature for many generations. People have cultivated the land and lived off what the forest has provided.

Mr. Speaker, hunting has undergone major changes. What was once a life-essential occupation is now a leisure interest or a job. However, this does not mean that hunting as a phenomenon is less important. Hunting is not just an interest for many, but it has become a lifestyle. The Swedish fox hunting, which has roots many centuries back, is, for example, a unique cultural heritage that must be defended. It is, however, now being challenged, primarily from Brussels.

This is a heritage that I myself am also a part of. Both my father and my grandfather engaged in this, and I am very proud that both of my sons carry the heritage forward. I wonder, however, if my sons will be allowed to participate in the hunting with hounds that I have participated in - I doubt it given the development we see now.

Wildlife management needs to function satisfactorily, not least to minimize traffic accidents and damage to land-based industries, but also so that the wildlife populations remain healthy and strong. This actually constitutes a prerequisite for long-term sustainable hunting that provides value in the form of game meat, contact with nature, and an active outdoor life.

Madam Speaker! The moose is a natural part of the Swedish fauna and furthermore a resource that must be managed in the long term. The reasons why the number of moose is decreasing vary between different regions, but culling, predator pressure, and a changing forestry industry can be highlighted. Here, it is important that common paths are found through dialogue involving landowners, hunters, and other stakeholders. The overall goal, however, must be that the moose population shall be in balance and that we preserve this resource, which on its part is also considered a symbol for Sweden.

It is urgent - in many places in Sweden where there were previously strong moose populations, the hunting of moose is soon to be a mere memory. I have sat on the board of a moose protection area for 26 years, and I have seen how it has become worse and worse. What it is due to, one can speculate about. I am quite sure that the climate is one reason why we get reduced slaughter weights and fewer calves.

This is, as I have said, an issue we must keep alive. The moose is important for Sweden and for Swedish hunting.

Madam Speaker! Finally, we have a government that shows some form of decisiveness when it comes to Swedish wolf policy. The decisions are now moving slowly but surely in the right direction. The regulations regarding protection hunting are changing in the right direction, and hopefully, we will have license hunting in all of Sweden next time. The Minister for Rural Affairs has actually shown that he takes these issues seriously. It is pleasing to see, especially since the wolf population in Skåne is today growing completely uncontrollably in an environment where it definitely does not belong. Almost daily, one is met with reports that wolves have been seen in densely populated areas and in villa gardens.

This is a development that benefits no one. The wolf disappeared from Skåne at the beginning of the 1900s. No one missed it then, and no one will miss it if it disappears now. The wolf shall be allowed to remain, but in its proper environment, and that is definitely not in Skåne.

Madam Speaker! The EU election is approaching, and at that time, hunting and wildlife management issues usually become very topical. Few engage in the EU election as much as the Swedish hunting community. The parties, in the usual order, compete with one another for their votes.

The Sweden Democrats are clear and oppose the EU dictating Swedish wildlife management. There are basically no added values in the EU's institutions now dictating the conditions. In matters concerning wildlife management, we believe that the national parliament should always have the final word and that the government should therefore clearly work to ensure that Sweden regains decision-making power regarding the issues covered by the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive. Swedish hunting and wildlife management issues should not be governed by bureaucrats in Brussels but always decided by municipality, region, and the Riksdag.

I also want to say something about the debate on the stone marten. I come from Bromölla municipality, which is one of the densest stone marten areas in Sweden. I have actually succeeded in the feat of shooting a stone marten that has been submitted to the Swedish Hunters' Association. I agree with the criticism - I think it is regrettable that there is no money to continue this. I hope that it gets resolved, because they are doing an enormously important work. The stone marten is not a species we want in this country.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Magnus Persson for his speech, which I thought was sensible and wise in large parts. I do, however, have some questions, especially regarding what I previously discussed with Kjell-Arne.

Several people testify to how counterproductive it is to save on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's grants for measures for valuable nature. This includes the control of invasive species, for example, the stone dormouse. It concerns very limited savings that can lead to billion-kronor costs for the country in a rather near future.

I heard that Member Persson also saw that it is important to combat the stone marten and other invasive species. At the same time, I can state that the Sweden Democrats, as the largest support in the government coalition, have participated in saving over 931 million on the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's task to preserve valuable nature. My question to the Member is what his position is on these savings.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! If Tomas Kronståhl means the whole - all the savings - of over 900 million, I do not really know what to answer. I can, however, regret that money was not earmarked for the stone marten. As we heard from Member Kjell-Arne earlier, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has also missed putting it on the list.

There are many parameters, but I can regret that the money was not earmarked for the stone marten. That should have been done.

In the large whole, I have no further comments.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the comment.

I have followed the question, and for me and my party, the fight against invasive species is very important. We also see how the Swedish Association of Hunters (Svenska Jägareförbundet) has had this task for many years and managed it in an effective and cost-efficient manner. That alone, Madam Speaker, makes me guard this extra much.

The Sverigedemokraternas economic spokesperson Oscar Sjöstedt mentioned at one point when the environmental budget was being discussed, in response to a direct question, that it would be halved and that he believed this should be prioritized even moving forward. I believe that MP Persson has a job to do within his party to explain what this actually means for the Swedish hunt and for the Swedish environment when it comes to which animals and mammals we want in the future.

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

Magnus Persson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I can promise Member Kronståhl that I will work to ensure that we can allocate funds to combat the stone marten. You do not need to worry about that!

I will take this with me into the budget work. We should probably be able to find 2 million, and if Naturvårdsverket had made an effort, I believe those funds would have been found now as well.

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

TREDJE VICE TALMANNEN

I humbly wish to remind that in the debate, one refers to another speaker, for example, by using the speaker's first and last name. Direct addresses such as "you" and "you" (plural) shall therefore not occur.

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

Andrea Andersson Tay (V)

Madam Speaker! Hunting can fulfill several important societal functions, for example, maintaining biodiversity. Through hunting, one can ensure that certain populations do not grow too large at the expense of others. Hunting can also contribute to great nature experiences and community for those who hunt. Hunting is not practiced by a small upper class; it is almost 300,000 people who hunt in Sweden.

But the hunting conducted in Sweden is also large-scale in such a way that very many animals are killed every year. In that case, it is not surprising that conflicts of interest can arise between hunters and those who in other ways want to move in forest and land. Conflicts of interest can also arise between, on one hand, those who want viable predator populations and, on the other hand, those who want to keep the predator populations down. In that case, it is important that we have hunting that is conducted in the right way.

Much has happened since the current hunting legislation was introduced. Changed conditions and new knowledge require new management methods. An ecosystem-based wildlife management was needed to be able to look at the whole. The management system for moose that is currently in place needs to be developed into wildlife care areas where the entire ecosystem is considered. A multi-species management was needed that also includes predators. The local management must be connected with the rest of the country and with other populations. The management must also take into account the interaction between species, the land's carrying capacity, and other activities carried out there.

Madam Speaker! The preventive work to reduce the risks of predator attacks on domestic animals is of central importance. Attacks from predators cause great suffering for those affected and affect the economic conditions for keeping domestic animals. Strengthened preventive work against predator attacks also improves the acceptance of predators. Currently, it is possible to receive compensation for the material costs of predator-deterring fences. Vänsterpartiet wants state support to be introduced for the labor costs as well. We also want to see increased economic resources for compensation for the loss of domestic animals due to predator attacks and compensation for other wildlife damages.

Madam Speaker! It is important that there is order and regularity in the hunt and that illegal hunting is combated with force. We know that many wolves have been shot illegally, and this also applies to other large predators. This is a crime that must be prosecuted but which in all too few cases leads to a conviction.

But it is also important with preventive work, namely that there are more people out in the forests. We must, for example, have more nature wardens and people who work with hunting supervision who are out in our forests and ensure that things go correctly. Unfortunately, they are far too few today.

There are also a couple of other variants that we need to address. I am thinking of something like the game hunt. What is the social utility of breeding hundreds of thousands of ducks, pheasants, and other birds just so that directors and other well-off people can come there and shoot them? No, this is a form of hunting that we should ban here and now. This also applies to driven hunts, which are a stressful form of hunting. Bow hunting should not be allowed, nor should trapping of, for example, foxes and badgers.

Madam Speaker! It has been established that golden eagles that eat entrails left behind after hunting become poisoned if the animals have been shot with lead ammunition or if the eagles eat wounded animals. Fragments from lead bullets cause poisoning, which impairs the eagles' ability to fly. Analyses indicate that even low lead levels can increase the risk of death for the golden eagle. Even wounded animals constitute toxic food for eagles and other scavengers.

That lead in hunting ammunition is both a health and an environmental problem has already been established previously, and many other countries have bans or partial bans on using lead in hunting ammunition. A ban on lead shot in the vicinity of wetlands was introduced within the EU in 2023. Sweden has had such a ban previously, but the EU's ban is more extensive. Vänsterpartiet considers that a general ban on lead in hunting ammunition should be introduced both nationally and within the EU.

I vote in favor of reservation 7.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report Hunting and Wildlife Management. The Committee has a motion regarding a unified management of hoofed game, and it is welcome.

The announcement is well in line with what the Center Party - Daniel Bäckström with others - has demanded regarding multi-species management. When looking at the management of ungulates, one should also look at the whole, that is, what affects the possibilities for ungulates. Here, the question of predators comes in, which Member Andrea Andersson Tay also touched upon. One must look at the whole even regarding the predators; wolf and lynx.

A lot is happening with the wolf population today. This concerns, among other things, the EU's view on how we should handle the management of wolves. The wolf is particularly problematic specifically for the domestic animal population. What is problematic with the wolf is that it roams over large areas, and it can be many miles. When a wolf comes near a domestic animal, it is in the genes that the domestic animal becomes slashed and frightened. The stress that the domestic animals are exposed to should be avoided as much as possible.

This means that one avoids developing food production with lamb. Sweden currently has a self-sufficiency rate of 30 percent, and we would need more lamb production in Sweden. It is directly linked to the fact that if there are wolves, it will be a no for many.

There are many ways to manage wolves beyond hunting. Here I move for approval of reservation 4 under point 3. In our reservation, we propose licensed hunting for wolves, even if the population is small in some areas, and that the period for wolf hunting shall coincide with the moose hunt.

License hunting is important. Protection hunting is too defensive. In protection hunting, the damage has already occurred, and then there is the stress surcharge. The lamb production is clear. The wolf often bites many lambs to death, and it is very visible in the media. But even the scare effect on other wildlife is so important that these issues must be handled.

It is with pleasure that I see that our minister Peter Kullgren has followed what the EU has decided regarding the protection status for the wolf. Elin Nilsson pointed out that when the number of wolves is reduced, there is a risk of inbreeding, and we must manage that inbreeding. We were involved in discussing the issue at the predator conference in Järvsö, and we discussed then that the number might not be the most important thing, but that we must look at the whole here. The number we are discussing today will mean that new genetic material must be introduced. We should also discuss here what type of characteristics should exist for the wolf in the future. Now it is a bit random. With few wolves in Sweden, it has become a new wolf population, and what were the individuals that we actually bred?

It can only be stated that, for example, the Baltics have significantly more wolves than Sweden does, and they seem to manage this in a better way. It is possible that such a wolf population has characteristics that would be interesting for the Swedish wolf population—if one is to introduce genes. That will be a question for further down the line.

We also have a special statement from the Center Party, as we have discussed this here regarding reviewing the hunting law.

A lot has happened. This issue with the wolf population is a change, Madam Speaker, but much else has happened. We have moved from a very high pressure on our ungulate wildlife to a significantly lower pressure.

A lot is happening. Today, for example, we hear a discussion about predator-deterrent fences as a solution in many cases. If that part were to become very extensive, I see it as a restriction of our environment and our endeavor to use the right of public access, which not everyone would like. It is also a rather expensive solution. In the Småland highlands where I come from, we have a lot of pasture land in forest areas, and after a storm, there are always damages to the fences there. Managing that and also the maintenance would involve significant additional costs, and we must take that with us forward in that part.

The most important thing about this management, I believe, is what we have been touching upon here tonight – that it is local. There are large variations. Within just a few miles, one can speak of very little moose to very much moose. It shows that we must stand guard over local management, whatever that may be, and do it in a sensible way. The consensus between landowners, hunters, and others is also important to gain acceptance moving forward.

The Renmark Committee is also an issue that is currently relevant. Hunting shall certainly continue to be conducted in the north, regardless of whether it is the state or the Sami who own the land. The most important thing is that we find forms to be able to manage the hunting moving forward. We have already seen many good examples of this, so I believe we can see a solution.

Hunting and wildlife management

Then we have this matter regarding the damage to the forest, which has also been discussed this evening.

Just because there are forest damages when they are small seedlings, it is not so simple that they become permanent damages when they are to be harvested.

I find the Finnish model interesting, Madam Speaker. One looks at the production on an area when the stock is to be harvested and perhaps does not have quite as much focus on what happens at the seedling stage.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 May.)

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