Hunting and wildlife management

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report number 7 Hunting and Wildlife Management. First, I would like to move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

During the autumn of 2024, the government shut down the ongoing Renmark Committee inquiry, which handled many large issues. It was a very large inquiry that had been ongoing for a long period. One of the main issues that was heard much about during that time was the question of hunting and fishing on state land above the cultivation limit. It was presented in the inquiry that this right should belong exclusively to the samebyar, and we were three parties who, upon the submission of the partial reports, reserved ourselves against this – M, KD, and SD. Our feeling during the course of the inquiry was that this was heading in completely the wrong direction, and I am therefore very happy that the inquiry was shut down. M wants hunting and fishing on state land to be a right for all Swedes and for all Swedes who wish to utilize state land for this to be included.

These questions will of course need to be addressed in the future. Already when this investigation was concluded, it was stated that a new investigation would be appointed. I believe it is incredibly important that the directives for that investigation land in a way that makes it possible to defend all Swedes' right to hunting and fishing on state land.

Madam Speaker! There are a couple of inquiries underway in this area. These concern, on the one hand, an inquiry into a new wildlife management authority, in accordance with the announcements during the previous mandate period, and on the other hand, an inquiry into new hunting legislation, also in accordance with the announcements during the previous mandate period. These are, therefore, deliveries from this government. We said that we would carry this out, and now it is being carried out. I do not want to anticipate these inquiries, but it will of course be interesting when they land on the Riksdag's table.

A few weeks ago, something absolutely horrific happened in Sweden, in Örebro – a school shooting. It has since been revealed that it was a man with a hunting weapon who committed this crime. I think it is incredibly important in a debate like this to point out that the vast majority of Sweden's hunters are law-abiding citizens, and they are tested daily for their weapon licenses in the police registers. We must never forget this.

I think it is important to mention the disgusting, incredibly awful thing that happened, precisely because some are making connections to hunters. That is why it is important to say that from the political side, we stand up for Sweden's hunters. We shall stand up for their importance and for what they contribute to our society. There are many things that the hunters do in Swedish society that no one else would be able to manage and no one else has the capacity to mobilize around and carry out.

Madam Speaker! Let me take some examples. We had swine fever in Dalarna some years ago. Then Sveriges jägare stepped up and carried out the work so that the country was cleared of the swine fever outbreak faster than anywhere else in Europe. It was thanks to Sveriges jägare.

We have hunters in Sweden who, day and night, all year round, volunteer and perform traffic searches – in snow and sleet and sometimes at risk to both their own lives and their hunting dogs' lives. This is done every day, week in and week out – a task one does for Sweden.

It is sometimes said that we have far too large wildlife populations in certain areas, for example, wild boar or roe deer. It is the populations of these two that are often spoken of as being too large. When we need to reduce wildlife populations, it is Sweden's hunters who carry this out. It is they who help to restore the order and balance in the ecosystems where the wildlife pressure is too heavy.

I think it is incredibly important to highlight the importance of hunters for Sweden and that we in politics stand up for the Swedish hunters.

Madam Speaker! It is difficult to avoid the wolf when we now have the hunting and wildlife management debate. Right now, very many good things are being done by this government, and good things are happening at the EU level. That means we are hopefully approaching a situation where we can seriously begin to reduce the wolf population in Sweden. Most recently, it was the vote within the Bern Convention, where it was voted through that the protection status for the wolf should be lowered. Now the question goes back to the EU and needs to go through there as well. We have a government here that has announced that from the Swedish side we shall report a new reference value of 170 wolves, which we have reached a majority decision on in this chamber. Delivery is thus being made.

There are also other parts of the wolf policy that it is incredibly important that we maintain. It concerns the tools we have to manage the wolf population. This includes the license hunt, which we shall use to make the large removals when the population is to be reduced, and the protection hunt, where we shall have quick and simple decisions when we have problem individuals. Then we also have paragraph 28, which gives individuals the possibility to protect their own animals against wolf attacks. It is incredibly important for Swedish livestock owners that we do not complicate or delay these tools.

I have said it many times before, Madam Speaker. I do not lack respect for those who have had wolves for a long time, but we see that the problems increase as the wolf population spreads southward. This is largely due to the fact that we have more livestock owners and more animals in the south. In that case, it is incredibly important that we are allowed to have these tools to manage the wolf population.

There is also another issue in all of this – it concerns food, which will be addressed in the debate following this one. We hear time and again that food producers choose to stop their livestock farming and their grazing animals precisely because of the presence of wolves. We cannot tolerate this. We are in a situation, a world situation, where we need to increase, not decrease, our food production in Sweden. Therefore, we must not let an excessively high presence of predators affect food production.

There are, Madam Speaker, other parts that this House has sent to the sitting government and also to governments before it. It concerns the seal and cormorant issue, and there the Minister for Rural Affairs is currently taking major steps at the EU level, at the Council meetings. But things are also happening locally, for example through the marine environment bill that we passed a while ago, which clearly marked that we must handle seals and cormorants in a different way. Even these are, however, issues that are of course handled at the EU level, and it is there that we need to do heavy work to make it possible for Sweden to simplify the management of seals and cormorants.

Madam Speaker! I am about to go down for landing, but we cannot have a hunting and wildlife management debate without also talking about the moose. The moose, the king of the forest, is suffering quite significantly in many parts of Sweden. I am incredibly worried about the moose and the moose population right now.

I hope that organizations, together with politics, find ways moving forward for how we should manage the moose population. The system that has been found has not functioned sufficiently. The moose deserve better management than that which has been.

Today we strike an extra blow for the moose in our forests.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, John Widegren, for the contribution! There are several things that we share an opinion on. It is about the respect and reverence we hold for our hunters and what they do. It is also based on the fact that we have a common set of rules and that there is an acceptance from the general public.

There are two things – certainly more, but we shall see what my time allows me to take up – in your speech that I want to address. There will be no hunting and wildlife management debate without us talking about wolves here in the chamber. Now, the member was very clear that one should submit the new reference value of 170 wolves.

I wonder: How is it that the government and a majority of the parties here disregard the science and think that 170 wolves is the correct number? We know that it will not result in a viable population. How has it been planned: Should wolves be culled or moved? How has it been intended to be done, and what happens if the new reference value is not approved?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the questions! In his introduction, the member raised an interesting point, namely the acceptance of hunting in Sweden, which is incredibly high. It is a figure that we shall manage and be very careful with. I believe that today it concerns 85–90 percent of the Swedish population when it comes to acceptance of hunting. That is something one should take the opportunity to mention.

There is different research regarding the wolf population and its size. The first research that was presented a number of years ago, before the predator bill 2013, spoke in a first instance of 40 wolves, but then one moved to speaking of 100 wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula if new blood was added every five years, I believe that was it. That is what they wrote in their report.

With 170 wolves, the margin to the 100 is quite good, if new blood is added. How to add the new blood, I do not have the answers to. I think that at the civil servant level, solutions will be found.

But it is important that we in politics point out where we are going in the wolf issue. The politics in this chamber have now actually pointed out on several occasions that the wolf population should be reduced, because it causes too great problems for Sweden – for Swedish food production, for those who live for their hunting, and for people in the countryside in general, who think that the wolf has become a problem.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! In biology and genetics, one often speaks of N 500, meaning that 500 individuals are needed who reproduce with each other in order to avoid inbreeding. This applies to almost all animal species. It is also not all individuals in a population that reproduce.

If one looks at it purely biologically, one needs at least 500 individuals who have the possibility to mate with each other and pass on their genes.

If we have 170 wolves, that is much less than 500 wolves. All of these will not meet each other either. If I understand the answer correctly, the idea then is that at the civil servant level, one should devise some kind of artificial breeding and try to see the wolves out in nature a bit like zoo wolves, where one seeks mates and tries to fix the whole thing so that the genetics work. Otherwise, it simply won't work. Then we get bottlenecks. It can work for a while, but if something happens – for example, climate change is ongoing, and we get in new parasites – the entire population can be wiped out if we do not have a broad genetic base in it.

I asked the same question to a colleague from another government party last year. At that time, I also received the answer that one was prepared to look at other possibilities. If I understand correctly, one could therefore imagine moving wolves from other places to achieve this. But the few wolves that we are left with will then become more valuable. It will become harder to obtain protection hunting, and it will become harder to hunt away problem individuals than if we have a larger population, where each individual does not become as valuable. How has the government intended to solve this?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I appreciate the reasoning and think it is very important that we reason about how this can be viewed in different ways. As I pointed out in my previous contribution, the policy has pointed out a clear direction for where we are going: We are to reduce the wolf population. How we solve this, there will be a number of proposals on.

The Speaker speaks about artificial respiration. The Swedish wolf population is part of the European wolf population. It is going very well for the wolf in Europe. I believe it is in the order of 20,000 wolves in Europe. If we add the Russian wolf population to that, there are an additional 20,000 individuals. That would mean there are around 40,000 wolves. It is very viable.

That there are certain geographical barriers and so on, one must solve. But the policy has pointed out that the population should be reduced, and we are doing that now from the government's side. We are showing ways forward to implement what the majority in Sweden's Riksdag has said. We shall reduce the wolf population.

I would therefore not want to call it artificial respiration. It is a poor argument. It has not gone particularly badly for the wolf. It is going quite well, which means that it seems to be able to adapt to the conditions that exist right now.

Small sheep producers in areas with high predator pressure are doing worse. They are doing worse. I am more worried about them than about where the Swedish wolf population is headed right now.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member John Widegren says in his report on the wolf population that the government delivers. 170 wolves are the future wolf population.

But we are in a current situation. Is the member satisfied with how the wolf hunt is being conducted right now? This year, the hunt was interrupted before the established level was reached, and we are then at approximately double the level of the 170 that the member considers the government has delivered on. Is the member satisfied with that level?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! Anders Karlsson asks: Is the member satisfied? No, it is clear that the member is not satisfied! But I see that we are doing a lot right now that indicates that we are heading in the right direction.

It is no secret that even today I would have wanted to see a much lower wolf population in Sweden. I have been quite clear about that in this chamber for a long time. But I also know that this is something that takes a very long time. And if we think it takes a long time in Sweden, we should know that it takes even longer at the EU level. That we have gotten the wheels to start rolling now is incredibly valuable.

There have been various events around Europe that have led to Europe now viewing this as an important issue in a completely different way. It has been realized that if you let the wolf run further, you will get more problems. This is exactly what is happening right now. We are getting increased problems with food production. The EU is beginning to realize the seriousness, much thanks to our Minister for Rural Affairs and also previous Ministers for Rural Affairs who have signaled on this – there is someone here in the chamber who I know was down there and signaled on these issues at the EU level. It means a lot that we actually show interest and explain why it does not work for Sweden.

Am I satisfied? No, I am not satisfied. I won't be until we have started to reduce the wolf population. For the Moderaternas part, it has been an issue for a long time: that we want to reduce the wolf population.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The member is speaking about what might happen in the future, but in this year's hunt, I believe there were approximately 30 wolves left that were not shot.

When we end up in that situation, one can wonder. When we are unable to deliver at the high level we have today, Madam Speaker, I wonder: How are we to achieve a function in the future for this, when we are unable to do so according to the decisions we have made today?

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

John Widegren (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for another question.

The first, short answer is: Keep this government! The next answer is exactly like the things that I preferred. What is now happening at the EU level will be reflected. When Sweden chooses to report a new reference case, it gives us additional tools. Until now, we have not had these tools when Naturvårdsverket has taken into account, made its allocations, and given the county administrative boards the opportunity to decide on license hunting of wolves.

I have good and great hopes that we will see something completely different before the license hunt in January 2026. If we have not succeeded by then, the member shall have to come back once more and ask: What are you doing? We will have that debate then.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I will begin by saying that it was not out of rudeness that I did not shake hands with my opponent during the exchange earlier. I have a bandage on my hand. That is why I did not do it. Good day, good day does not work so well. Otherwise, I would obviously have done it.

We are here to talk about hunting and wildlife management today. This is an annually recurring consideration. It is a subject that engages our committee greatly – and the Riksdag as a whole. There are more hunters, calculated in percent, among the members of parliament than there are in society at large.

Hunting in Sweden differs from hunting in many other countries. Sweden has a high hunting ethic. We have a high acceptance among our citizens. We heard earlier that it lies between 85 and 90 percent. Most in Sweden have some kind of relation to this. If they do not hunt themselves, they have a relative or friend who does. It is quite unique. In many countries, hunting is something for the few.

In Sweden, hunting is often close to nature. It is local. And we have, by tradition, a great consideration for the conditions of the wildlife and the public's opinions. I believe that it is precisely for that reason that we have this high acceptance. People trust that it will be done right.

We have an organized pursuit of traffic-injured wildlife. We have a hunting calendar for when one may hunt what, which is based on each species' ecology. We also have training for all new hunters and a hunter's examination.

But if these parts do not work, it happens very quickly to destroy a trust. We have several control mechanisms. Previous speakers spoke about weapons. It is a different debate, but it is not possible to escape the horrific act in Örebro and that it was hunting weapons that were used. I want to emphasize that it is incredibly rare that legal weapons are used in crimes, but in this case, it was done.

We know that the reason there are few legal weapons in crimes is that we have a large control apparatus. Weapons are recalled. There is a control. But obviously, even more can be done, and it can be made even safer. I believe that several proposals will come regarding this area, also so that the public feels that it is okay that some have weapons.

But this also applies to other parts of the hunt. We say that hunting shall be conducted with consideration for and respect for animals and nature. In our hunting law, it states in Section 27 that hunting shall be conducted so that game is not subjected to unnecessary suffering.

This prompted one of the reservations we have, Madam Speaker. It concerns our view that the use of snares to catch red foxes and others should be prohibited. This is because it causes great suffering. It is impossible to say who will go there and get caught by their leg. One sees that the animals chew themselves to pieces. This is a form of hunting that we do not believe belongs in modern hunting. We also believe that certain traps should be prohibited. We see that wolverines and others who have been caught in traps have scratched themselves so that they are bloody on their paws, and they have splinters in their stomachs. It is not compatible with good hunting ethics.

There are other capture methods. There are also certain traps that work well. When it comes to wild boar, it can work perfectly well and be the only way. But precisely those where we see stress and snares, where one gets stuck, we do not believe belong in modern hunting legislation.

This may perhaps be remains of how it has been previously, which have persisted. But there are new proposals that can shatter the social contract between hunters and the public. It concerns the investigation report "Ani malieproduktion med hög konkurrenskraft och gott djurskydd", which arrived last year. There, the investigator proposes that the right to conduct protection hunting without a permit from the County Administrative Board should be introduced for landowners and agricultural tenants with hunting rights regarding roe deer, red deer and roe deer, that is, in addition to wild boar, which can already be hunted without a permit today.

I believe this would be devastating. There is a reason why we have hunting calendars, which are based on when hunting causes the least damage. These are closed seasons during the mating and calf-rearing seasons. I hope that this proposal is not taken further.

When it comes to wild boar, they have a different type of rut, I was about to say. They have no specific time of the year when they have offspring. There is a different type of hunting there. But just these deer have very clear calendars for when things happen in their lives. I do not think opening up for hunting them year-round would benefit the hunt or make us have a better understanding.

I will also say something about predators. We have already had a small exchange of remarks here regarding predators. From the Green Party's side, we want to ensure that we counteract the major conflicts as much as possible – before they occur. We believe there should be higher support and assistance when it comes to fencing against predators. We want there to be full coverage for the additional costs that arise for someone who has unfortunately had their animals torn apart. This includes veterinary costs, loss of income, and such parts that are not covered today. Today, one basically starts from the slaughter weight of the animal that has been torn apart and nothing else. It can take time to rebuild one's herd. It costs with veterinary care, just to stand still, and with what happens. We believe there should be full coverage for those parts. We have included that in our budget proposal.

Madam Speaker! I will not dwell much longer on this. I want to move for the approval of our reservation number 9, Wildlife and Ungulate Management. I hope that we can strengthen hunting ethics based on new research and the animals' ecology and ensure that we strengthen the social contract so that both the general public and the hunters can continue to have high confidence in hunting and the regulations.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! The hunting and wildlife management debate is always quite lively and spirited. This year, most of the motions are being treated simplified, as it is called. We therefore have many motions that are not up for consideration. But when one looks at the motions that are up for consideration, one sees that it is clearly two animal species that are truly engaging. We have already heard a back-and-forth regarding one of them: the wolf. The other is the cormorant, and we will come back to that.

Here, the government points with the whole fist towards the goals. It is a clear goal-setting. This applies not least to the species I just mentioned, but also to the lynx, which often generates quite a lot of debate.

Just as my colleague John Widegren pointed out, there are a lot of investigations ongoing. Some investigations are finished and are now being handled in the Government Offices to become reality in the form of government bills. I remember when we were in opposition during the last parliamentary term and usually received the tedious answer that "the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices" when we submitted interpellations and written questions. Even if the answer remains the same here, it is at the same time still the case that at least something is in motion, which pleases me.

The hunting legislation is something that is raised in a number of motions. At the beginning of last year, a decision was made that a review should be conducted so that we can get a new, modern hunting legislation that entails long-term sustainable hunting and wildlife management. A very important thing in that investigation is that the EU legal rules shall be looked at. In Sweden, we are very good at implementing EU rules a bit further than we actually need, and the investigation shall, among other things, look at how the EU rules regarding hunting and wildlife management shall be implemented so that we do not end up there.

Even ungulate wildlife and multi-species management are subjects of motions and are also handled in the investigation. We see, therefore, that several of our ungulate species are increasing. As hunters, one might think it is very exciting, but as farmers and forest owners, it is not certain that one thinks it is just as fun. We also unfortunately see that our national species, the moose, is not doing so well anymore, and a job really needs to be done to protect it.

As my colleague was already at work, it was already being worked on during the alliance government that a new hunting and wildlife management authority would be formed. Now a new investigation is working on this and will report its assignment on April 30 this year. We will see what the investigation comes up with, but the idea is to handle issues concerning hunting and wildlife management. We also have input on more issues that in different ways concern hunting, for example weapon licenses. We will see what the investigation lands on; it will be interesting to receive it at the end of April.

I began with the cormorant, and if there is any species that evokes engagement, it is the cormorant. It is not so long ago that we here in the chamber debated and adopted a committee report regarding the bill A living sea – increased protection, reduced eutrophication and a sustainable fishery, i.e., the marine environment bill. There, the government's direction was very clear regarding cormorants and seals, and there is, I feel, a very large consensus here in the chamber that we must do things as quickly as possible when it comes to both the cormorant and seal populations. Here, the government has pointed out that it wants to work so that we can introduce a general hunt for cormorants. That is where we must get to, because now the cormorant populations are so large that we must introduce a general hunt to bring down the population.

Exactly the same, Madam Speaker, is it when it comes to the seal. In the same bill, it is pointed out that we must get to a point where we can introduce a general hunt for seals. At the same time, we have the ban on trade with seal products. There is a very large consensus in the chamber that we must get rid of this ban. As hunters, we believe that an animal should not die unnecessarily. We should be able to make use of the animal and what the animal provides, and therefore it is a very great waste not to be able to make use of what the seal provides.

We must also work on developing seal-safe fishing gear, and we must obtain other management plans for the seal. I believe it was last week that the government gave a new assignment to Naturvårdsverket concerning just seal and cormorant. The assignment is about facilitating an expanded hunt for seal and cormorant. The County Administrative Board has been tasked with reviewing which seal protection areas we need to keep and which areas are actually not needed for the seal to still have a favorable conservation status.

SLU and Formas have also been tasked with seeing what it means for the fish stocks when the seal and cormorant populations decrease. Here, research that has been conducted both in Sweden and in other parts of the world shall be examined.

Madam Speaker! As a person from Värmland, one naturally does not escape the wolf, and during the previous parliamentary term, we had announcements almost every year regarding issues concerning the wolf population. During the previous parliamentary term, an announcement was also adopted regarding the change of protection hunting. Now, the Wildlife Agency has changed the rules of thumb regarding protection hunting. We have thus come one step further, and thanks to an enormous influence effort, we have succeeded in taking a decision in the Bern Convention that the wolf shall be changed from strictly protected to a protected animal species. On March 7, this shall be implemented in the Bern Convention, and then we are one step closer. The next step is to influence the rest of the EU to follow up with a decision.

We see, just as we heard earlier, that the wolf in Europe is doing quite well. The wolf population is increasing, and thus we see how the damages from wolf attacks are increasing down in Europe. It is of course very sad for those who are affected, but it simultaneously helps us up here who have seen these damages from the wolf for a long time. Now we get help to be able to push this forward, and hopefully, within a very near future, we can report another figure regarding favorable conservation status and thereby bring down the wolf population to the 170 individuals that we have decided on.

Madam Speaker! I also want to conclude by touching upon the horrific events we experienced in Örebro two weeks ago. I also want to point out from our side that no one distrusts the Swedish Hunting Association. There are investigations that have been conducted pointing out what proportion of the serious crime was committed with the help of illegal weapons versus legal weapons, and it is very simple to calculate how many legal weapons are used in serious crime. It takes but one finger on a hand and we have the figure. When it comes to the illegal weapons, there are several thousand, and that is where the real work must be done.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against all reservations.

(Applause)

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

Björn Petersson (S)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with submitted motions from the Riksdag's general motion period concerning hunting and wildlife management. We Social Democrats stand behind all our motions in our committee motion, but for the sake of time, I move for approval of only reservation 14.

Hunting and wildlife management in Sweden are largely organized as a popular movement, and we Social Democrats want to safeguard that. The voluntary efforts and the local and regional wildlife management are invaluable for wildlife management.

Sweden shall be at the forefront when it comes to the ethical and sustainable management of our unique nature and our wildlife populations. For us, it is central to strengthen the many voluntary efforts made to preserve and develop our natural heritage. Hunting and wildlife management are not only traditional activities in Sweden but are also closely linked to our culture and economy.

When it comes to the hunting of predators, we need to create a common ground for the public discussion and strive for solutions that benefit both wildlife and people.

The hunt for moose has historically been a large part of our identity, and this, combined with our growing leisure and tourism industry, shows the economic potential in a well-managed moose population. Furthermore, a healthy moose population contributes to ecological balance and offers climate-smart meat alternatives.

In order for us to truly be able to benefit from this resource, however, the management plans must be robust and adapted to local needs. It is clear that the current moose population is under pressure. Despite its strength and ability to adapt, it has been affected by a number of factors such as heavy culling, competition for grazing with other ungulates, and even climate change which shifts the moose's natural habitat. It is therefore crucial that we adopt a holistic view of the problem and transition to a unified ungulate management.

To achieve a balanced and effective management of the moose population, we want the composition of the moose management areas and the moose management groups to be changed. We propose that hunters and landowners shall be represented in equal numbers under the leadership of an independent chairperson. We believe that by working together, one can ensure that the national symbol, the moose, continues to thrive in the forests while simultaneously preserving the forest's health and productivity.

Madam Speaker! Deliberate overkilling poses a threat to wildlife populations. Not least moose, roe deer, and predators are vulnerable. In the current situation, the penalties are not sufficiently deterrent to ensure that hunting takes place according to the law, and therefore we Social Democrats want sharper penalties for deliberate overkilling of allocated game.

Madam Speaker! Few questions evoke such strong emotions as the wolf issue. Let me therefore state our party's position.

Today there are approximately 375 wolves in Sweden. The investigation that we previously commissioned the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency to carry out shows that the wolf population can be reduced to between 170 and 270 individuals. We support such a reduction and consider it crucial to achieve a long-term, sustainable, and predictable wolf population. At the same time, we need to ensure that the population's conservation status does not deteriorate.

We also consider that the rules for protection hunting of wolves must be streamlined, for example when pets or livestock are threatened. In order to increase predictability in the Swedish wolf management and better design the hunting according to Swedish needs, it is necessary to move the wolf from the category strictly protected in Annex 4 to the category manageable in Annex 5 in the Habitats Directive. Sweden should continue to push for such a regulatory change within the EU.

Madam Speaker! We see a need to reduce the wild boar population. Wildlife causes serious damage to agriculture, which affects the profitability for farmers and Sweden's capacity for self-sufficiency. Furthermore, it is an important measure to reduce the risk of infection in the event of a new outbreak of African swine fever. To detect and address outbreaks of African swine fever, we believe the government needs to promote closer cooperation between the relevant authorities, civil society, and the hunting organizations. The government needs to develop a clear crisis management plan for how the spread of infection should be limited in the event of a potential outbreak of swine fever.

Madam Speaker! I shall say something briefly about one of my heart issues, namely the shrike.

The cormorant's rapid growth in Sweden and Europe poses a challenge. In order to minimize the serious damage caused by the growing cormorant population, the number of cormorants needs to be significantly limited. The previous Social Democratic government therefore tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management with revising the national management plan for the great cormorant. We will continue to pursue this direction both in Sweden and in the EU. For example, we want to introduce licensed hunting of cormorants throughout the country. Another example is that we want to consider oiling of cormorant wings to reduce the cormorant population.

An ecosystem-based management that includes fishing is also necessary for seals. We consider license hunting of grey seals and harp seals to be important tools to enable the recovery of fish stocks. We also want the ban on trade with seal products to be lifted. Since 2022, license hunting of seals has been permitted, which is positive. But as we have heard here earlier today, the EU regulations prohibit trade with seal products, which leads to the seal carcasses not being utilized. To shoot animals but not utilize the body is not ethically justifiable.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say something in connection with the discussions of the past weeks regarding permits to possess weapons. I hear the concern that has been raised in the hunting community, and I take it seriously.

Let me be clear: We Social Democrats distinguish between legal and illegal weapons. We also distinguish between weapons for hunting and weapons for sport shooting. This is a debate about hunting.

I am one of the shooters who thinks the AR-15 is a fantastic weapon. I understand and sympathize with many arguments in the general debate, Madam Speaker, but nevertheless, I stand fully and completely behind my party's view that possession of AR-15 and similar semi-automatic firearms with a military appearance should not be permitted for hunting. Just as I understand the arguments for, I also understand the arguments against. I see the conflict of goals between the hunting community's access to modern weapons and the safety of society. It is my view that in order to safeguard a reasonable regulatory framework for the hunting community, we cannot permit weapons that are sought after by criminals. We cannot permit weapons that risk the public's trust in hunters.

(Applause)

We Social Democrats are happy to help the government find solutions for a tightening of the regulatory framework that increases safety without unnecessarily complicating things for the hunting community.

I move for approval of reservation 14, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

In this speech, Joakim Järrebring, Malin Larsson, Sofia Skönnbrink and Anna-Caren Sätherberg (all S) concurred.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! The debate we have here today is, in many ways, about finding policies that create balance.

I have grown up with hunting and know that it is, in many ways, about responsibility, nature conservation, and precisely balance. Hunting is not just a leisure activity, but it is an important part of our Swedish wildlife management and plays a decisive role for the possibility of keeping the wildlife populations at a balanced level. Hunting is also necessary to protect both domestic animals and the forest, which is a reality that is actually not self-evident for everyone. It is not everyone who understands the importance of hunting.

We live in a country full of nature-loving people. Many of us seek tranquility in nature, because the forest provides a peace that is difficult to find anywhere else – with or without a rifle over the shoulder. Many of us also do what we can to care for and protect our nature, and for many, this is strongly linked to hunting specifically.

For many, hunting is an important part of life and much more than just a leisure interest. It is part of a lifestyle and a management of a life's work. Hunting builds bridges between generations, creates togetherness and is an important part of our common cultural heritage. It is an important part of a living countryside. For me, hunting is also strongly associated with well-stocked freezers and good company over good meals.

Madam Speaker! Hunting is a crucial part of the management of healthy wildlife populations, which is an important part of nature conservation. The contribution that the Swedish hunting corps makes deserves to be highlighted, not least in the time we live in now when hunters are sometimes questioned simply because they own weapons.

Unfortunately, we see how the debate on hunting is often simplified and polarized. Some want to limit hunting without understanding its importance for both nature and the industries that depend on hunting. Others go to the other extreme and suggest overly extensive hunting without considering the long-term consequences for our ecosystem and our society. We must have a policy based on facts, not on emotions or symbolic politics. It is about creating a modern and balanced hunting policy that works for everyone, including hunters, landowners, and livestock owners, as well as for nature.

Hunting is part of the solution to our wildlife management problems, not a problem in itself. With good management, we create an ecosystem in balance.

Hunting legislation must be clear and adapted to today's needs. We need legislation that makes it possible for all actors to work together to ensure long-term sustainability in our wildlife populations.

Madam Speaker! Hunting and wildlife management involve important efforts for biodiversity. It is about keeping the wild boar population in check and managing the moose population so that grazing damage is limited while simultaneously ensuring the population does not become so small that there is no game to hunt. It is about keeping the wildlife populations at a good level, so that traffic accidents do not increase. It is also about providing assistance with searches when an accident has occurred.

Madam Speaker! Hunting shall remain a natural and important part of Sweden's countryside and culture. This is not only a heritage, but we also have a responsibility to manage the nature we have. A policy is needed that benefits both nature and people and that makes hunting and wildlife management work for everyone.

The government does all this. We pursue a balanced policy that is not guided by superficial arguments but by science, responsibility, and respect for the common resources.

Madam Speaker! This has come upon me unexpectedly. Many before me have raised this issue here in the rostrum today. The wolf issue is about finding a better balance. Just as important as it is to preserve a viable wolf population is it to give those who live in the countryside and are affected by the damage that the wolf causes the opportunity to work their land, raise their livestock, and hunt in their forest.

The wolf is a part of the Swedish fauna. We shall have a viable wolf population, and we shall manage it wisely, sustainably and in the long term – that is, balanced. This means that it is justified to have license hunting in wolf-dense areas and that the protection hunt needs to be effective.

Here we are taking important steps in the right direction. We are creating better conditions to manage the wolf population in a more predictable and proactive way. This gives us the conditions to pursue a predator policy that is both ecologically and socially sustainable – i.e., a more balanced policy. This is good.

We shall have wolves in Sweden, but the number of wolves shall be reduced. Management must be both ecologically and socially sustainable and at the same time provide room for protection hunting, especially now when we see that the wolf is spreading southward. It is a policy that creates acceptance and a long-term sustainable management – in other words, balance.

Madam Speaker! This is not a simple question. There are those who want to reduce the population to 170 individuals, or even fewer, as quickly as possible – preferably already yesterday. Others want to see far more wolves than we have today.

Reflection, common sense, and balance are required here. If we pursue a policy that results in more wolves, we will, for example, see more attacks on domestic animals and a greater impact on ungulate wildlife, and that is something we do not want. We do not want to create an imbalance. If we instead allow the wolf population to be shot down to an excessively low level, we might face problems when it is no longer possible to grant protection hunts. That is a situation we really do not want to end up in.

Another area where the government is working intensively to find a better balance is the management of seals and cormorants. The seal and cormorant populations are a concern; that is what we agree on in this chamber. The government is now taking important steps to address this. A few weeks ago, the government gave several agencies assignments aimed at improving the conditions for hunting seals and cormorants. This is an important part of the marine environment work that the government is driving forward at full speed. It is important for the fish stocks themselves, but it is also important for coastal fishing and for people who live where seal and cormorant populations are far too large. These populations cause great damage to our marine environment, especially to the fish stocks.

This was a highlight of what we do from the government's side. These are important steps towards a more balanced wildlife management. The bottom line of what I want to say today is that all wildlife needs to be managed with balance.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the committee's report.

(Applause)

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

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Madam Speaker! Swedish hunting is fantastic. I could actually stay there. That Swedish hunting is fantastic well summarizes much of what many in Sweden feel today. I am completely convinced that it is why nearly 90 percent of Swedes see hunting as something good or know that it is good and therefore accept it in the forms we have today.

It is actually not that remarkable. In Sweden, we have practiced hunting for a long time; it is a deeply rooted tradition. Certainly, the way we practice hunting has changed through years and centuries, but through all times, those hunters who have loved the opportunity and the freedom to hunt in Sweden have been with us.

We are good at hunting in Sweden, and we are good at doing it the right way. We have a well-educated and well-motivated hunting community. We also have a hunting community that conducts hunting ethically and correctly. It is not so strange. We want opportunities, we get opportunities, and we behave well in this country. That is something I am proud of.

Hunting is not just a part of life. For many, it is the opportunity to get out into nature, to socialize or to train their hunting dog that constitutes the special thing in life. And certainly, Sweden is a fantastic country to practice hunting in. In few countries do the citizens have as much freedom as our citizens, which likely largely depends on the fact that the hunting community in our country behaves itself and has no connections to crime.

The report we have before us today, which deals specifically with hunting and wildlife management, is a very special report. Many expect that issues regarding weapons will also be largely addressed here, which is not the case. However, for natural reasons, weapon issues are part of hunting and wildlife management.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats believe that things can be done simply. Where possible, we will also work to make things simple. There is no inherent purpose in having regulations, but at the same time, rules are needed to clarify what applies as well as when and how something should be done.

Regulations are sometimes adjusted, and new ones are also added. This is not strange in itself, as society develops and things change. We should have legislation that is clear without going too far. That is actually where we largely find ourselves in Sweden today. In Sweden's Riksdag, as in these matters, thousands of trade-offs need to be made every year regarding what is the right way forward and to handle various important social issues.

A little over two weeks ago, a horrific act was committed in Örebro. Ten people lost their lives as a result of an act of madness. It is honestly difficult to understand how it feels for those who have lost a child, a mother, a father, or a sibling. We are all someone's family. We have different dreams and goals in life. I share the grief that Sweden finds itself in. Horrific crimes – or crimes at all – do not belong in our country, but at the same time, it is something that will never be completely preventable.

After the act of madness in Örebro, many questions are naturally being raised. Some have chosen to speculate, some have chosen to spread audio clips where the content cannot be verified, and others have chosen to already state the motive behind this incident in advance. As a Member of Parliament, I do not intend to contribute to the speculation. We have police and prosecutors working to investigate crimes, and the important thing now is that they are allowed to continue their important work so that we as a society can receive the answers that are possible.

I feel an enormous gratitude to everyone who today tried to save and protect lives. Regardless of whether it was students, school staff, emergency services, or fellow citizens, the entire country feels this gratitude.

Why do I then mention the act of madness in Örebro in a debate about hunting and wildlife management? Well, because I am one of those who believe that we need a sane debate on this issue, and based on tragic events, certain questions sometimes come into focus. I understand and respect that the event evokes feelings of concern and even anger. But we need a sane debate.

As I mentioned earlier, changes in legislation often occur; it is nothing new. And just as otherwise, one is also looking at a change now. The weapons investigation that is on the table is a product from the previous government and was started before the 2022 election and completed in the spring of 2024. There is no finished legislative proposal yet regarding which adjustments could be relevant. There has been talk about a return to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines from 2023. A solid piece of work needs to be done in that case. My hope is that we get legislation that is as optimally designed as possible, with well-balanced regulations, which do not result in the proportion of the population that engages in wildlife management in Sweden decreasing. That is not what we want to achieve, and that is not what we shall achieve.

It is also important to point out that the weapons investigation mentioned in the public debate distinguishes between hunting and sport shooting. It is therefore important not to mix things up in the debate, because it easily leads to misunderstandings about what the investigation has proposed and what will potentially become law or not.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats want the influence of farmers and hunters to increase, among other things regarding the regional management plans. We also want to facilitate management so that the management areas for moose and roe deer are identical. This is needed not least since we have seen a sharply decreased moose population while the population of, for example, roe deer has grown and spread to new parts of Sweden.

We also want to see a maximum level for the bear population so that it does not grow too large. Furthermore, the culling needs to increase in the counties where the concentration of bears is highest.

In order to reduce the high concentration of wolves and enable more active management, the wolf population must eventually reach the lower limit for the minimum viable population, which is approximately 170 individuals. That the wolf's protection status is now about to be changed is expected to enable Sweden to reach this goal.

The Sweden Democrats also want license hunting for cormorants to be introduced in Sweden. Today, there is already the possibility of protection hunting, but it is often not sufficient. License hunting is something the EU previously blocked, but thanks to a joint initiative from countries around the Baltic Sea, the question of changing, among other things, the Birds Directive is now back on the EU's table. Even if it takes time, it would be a big step in the right direction to be able to counteract all the problems that the cormorant creates. That is known at least by me, who am from Gävleborg County, where the cormorant causes great damage in Gävle but above all in Söderhamn Municipality and the archipelago.

At the same time as we have active management in Sweden and various forms of protection hunting, we see that agency decisions regarding this are repeatedly appealed, that hunting sabotage occurs in the form of harassment and threats, that hunting towers are destroyed, and that activists act to disrupt the hunting. It is therefore the Sweden Democrats' firm opinion that the right of appeal, that is, who has the right to appeal agency decisions, shall be changed and that a new criminal classification for hunting sabotage shall be introduced. It is needed so that hunters can hunt without risk of threats but also so that the processes surrounding agency decisions shall become better.

Furthermore, the composition of the wildlife management delegations should be changed. One should return to the previous design so that the balance between politics, different interests, and authorities is better reflected than in the current composition. Therefore, I move for approval of the Sverigedemokraternas reservation 7 in the report.

Madam Speaker! Finally, a few words on the gratitude we as a society should feel towards our hunters, not least because they contribute to good and ethical hunting, active management, and socially beneficial protection hunting. Furthermore, they search for animals in cases such as traffic accidents and act quickly so that injured animals do not have to suffer more than necessary. Our hunters sit ready to turn out day and night, summer and winter, to help society when it is needed most. Therefore, Sweden needs a skilled and geographically dispersed corps of hunters.

We shall safeguard a responsible hunting policy in Sweden that contributes to maintaining the great trust that Swedish hunting and our hunters enjoy from the public, while at the same time the hunters' important role in our society is respected.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We are now debating hunting and wildlife management, and I move for the approval of reservation 19 under point 14 regarding the hunting of seals.

Today we have heard that new hunting legislation is underway. This is something that the Center Party is driving and fully stands behind. We see a need for new hunting legislation, not least because of what has happened with the EU legislation and its implementation. This must happen in a way that Sweden considers correct. Some parts are good while others are not good at all. When it comes to, for example, the approval of traps for wild boar, an approval for the whole of the EU should suffice, but that is not where we are today.

It is important that the hunting legislation holds fast to this with local decisions. Local decisions are a Swedish tradition that must leave clear marks both in the future at the Swedish level and in the EU.

Today's management and management plan via the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency works well in many cases but slightly less well in some cases. We have a long tradition of moose management. A discussion has emerged regarding, among other things, damage to forests. At the same time, we see a decreasing population. However, it does not look the same across the entire country. In some areas, the number of moose is approximately the same as before. It is therefore important with a local anchoring when it comes to moose management to understand how the population is changing. Where there are fewer moose, the forest owners and the hunters may have a consensus and want pine so that the moose can get food. That is not the case between large forestry companies and hunters. There, the goal conflict is quite clear.

The part that has improved and where I see a major change in the decisions is the wild boar hunting. A bit further back in time, there were no wild boars out in the fields. Actually, it is a matter of a lack of supervision of fences by the County Administrative Board that caused wild boars to get out into all the land.

There was a large increase in the wild boar population in Sweden, but now the population has been lowered to a significantly better level. We have discussed why we have succeeded, and it is because the tools have become more numerous. Not least, it has improved with weapons with night sights so that one can hunt at the time of day when the wild boars are active. That is something of great importance. Furthermore, one has been more restrictive with feeding. Just in terms of feeding, there is more to be done, for example by being more restrictive with baiting. Then it is easier to keep them in check.

Something new that has emerged is that the fallow deer graze and graze on the same fodder that is intended for the cattle. It cannot be compared with the wild boar. They destroy the fodder, and it can create problems in the next stage, for example, mastitis in the cows, stones that destroy machines, and so on.

A greater concern is the wolf issue, and it has been discussed several times today. The wolf is and will be a problem even in the future, regardless of the number. The problem with the wolf is that even a small population has a pattern of repelling livestock, and they move over large areas. A single animal can cause great havoc where there is livestock.

There has been a great focus on the number of wolves. I believe there would be a little less focus on the number if we could move wolves to other wolf populations in the country. Where there is livestock, it is not appropriate to have wolves, and then we must allow a completely different way to manage the wolf. Therefore, I become frustrated that we, as this year, do not achieve the number of wolves that should be culled. Here, wolves remain despite that we know what damage an individual can do.

I believe we can find a solution. But the regulations are now such that wolves are to be evenly distributed across the country, and that represents the greatest limitation to achieving a sustainable wolf management. If we could succeed in getting through that the presence of livestock means that wolves are not allowed to any significant extent, it would be easier to make progress. Centerpartiet wants to see a license hunt for wolves or that wolves that are not shot are moved to areas where there are wolves so that the number of areas decreases.

The question of seals and cormorants is also important. It is not the same type of users who are affected, but here it is fishermen who are affected. We have listened to what the problem with seals and cormorants is for the fishermen, and we have previously touched upon that it is possible to use other methods for fishing when there are seals and cormorants. But the method that the fishermen have switched to, not least fishermen on the eastern side, is small-scale trawling. The reason is that it does not work when the pressure from seals and cormorants increases.

There are ways forward to get the problem in order, and it is incredibly important to produce something that works. One of the individually most important issues to handle is to address the sale and joint. We do not have much time. Especially when it comes to other decisions that go against the fish, this issue can become the nail in the coffin, and then we will not get them back and can therefore not succeed with a self-sufficiency level at the level that is needed for Sweden.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anders Karlsson for the speech. There was much in the speech that I can absolutely stand behind, but I nevertheless want to ask a question about one thing.

The Chairman took up the wolf issue and pointed out that we should limit where the wolf is allowed to be. I note that reindeer husbandry takes place on half of Sweden's area, and there is no wolf population there. The wolf does not thrive there.

Then there should be no wolves where there is livestock. Then there won't be many areas left where wolves can exist. They can be at my home, Elin Nilsson's, Sofia Skönnbrink's, and a few others in this building. Is it the Center Party's opinion that the wolf population should be concentrated to the part of Svealand where we are located, with broken landscape, forests and lakes but not so much livestock? Should the wolf be concentrated to the farmers and agricultural producers who are there? Then they can just close and shut down.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I solemnly declare that there is also livestock in the areas from which the member and the other mentioned members here in the chamber come. One way is to limit wolves in the areas where there is livestock.

On the maps, it is obvious which areas they are. I share the member's view that there are not many areas left where wolves fit into the Swedish landscape. It is a problem.

170 wolves are not many individuals. To manage 170 individuals in the remaining landscape is absolutely possible. I absolutely think that one should investigate the possibility of managing them.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Anders Karlsson for the answer.

I am still concerned by the answer. 170 wolves is not that many, says Anders Karlsson. Thanks to the wolf hunting in my part of the world in recent years, the concentration of wolves has decreased, but Värmland has still been affected by a quarter of Scandinavia's total wolf population. There has truly been a pressure in my county, and we have seen how the wolves have spread further east towards Örebro. This also applies further up towards Gävleborg. It is there, in Central Sweden, that we have concentrations – enormous concentrations considering how many wolves we have of Scandinavia's total wolf population.

If we concentrate these 170 wolves, or however many we manage to get down to, in this area, it will mean the final blow for our farmers. It will mean that we can shut down everything related to hunting. It will affect those who live and work in the countryside. One cannot continue with one's life and one's hobby as before.

I am very questioning regarding precisely this that the wolf population is to be concentrated to these three areas. I am afraid, Madam Speaker, that we will then have enormous problems within those areas instead. We will, therefore, not reach the core. The important thing is to reduce the number of individuals and not least to remove the harmful ones.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! I hear what Member Kjell-Arne is highlighting here and what he is afraid of.

I do not personally believe that this needs to become a concern. At the same time, I see the problems that the member is speaking about.

Let us look at this and investigate this part! How could this look? There is a problem, as we have touched upon, if we reduce the number very low. But if we hunt the wolf, it gets a different behavior, which does not work.

In the Baltics, which have significantly more wolves, there is license hunting. There, they also have significantly fewer problems than we have today in Sweden.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I also reacted to what Member Karlsson said here in his speech.

I also live in a very wolf-dense county, Örebro län. Kjell-Arne and I, and also Sofia Skönnbrink, live there, which is perhaps where it is densest and has been over time. Does the member mean that Örebro and Värmland should bear the entire wolf population alone?

Isn't it better, if we now reduce the population slightly, hunt more frequently and change the behavior of the wolf so that it becomes more shy, that the wolf is allowed to spread across Sweden and that we have better tools for protection hunting? Or should we who live in Örebro län and in Värmlands län bear all this responsibility, which actually is national?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Elin, for your question!

No, that is not my intention at all. I envision that when we reduce the wolf population in total, the pressure overall will be less. It is not certain that we will get this migration southward as the member describes to take place.

On the other hand, perhaps one could look a bit more at the wolf population and not just look nationally. We have wolves today in Norway, in Finland, and in Sweden. The wolf is not always sure which country it is in, so perhaps one could look a bit more at the whole. That is what is done in Europe when it is seen that the numbers have become too large in certain areas.

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

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Karlsson for the answer, even though I am not satisfied with it.

What I hear is that we are to reduce the wolf population so that the wolves that exist can stay in Örebro and Värmland. Is it not better for the population to spread out, also southward, so that we get a reduced impact across Sweden? It is actually a shared responsibility.

We must find balance in the wolf management, and it is not balance that most of the wolf individuals are located in such a limited area in Sweden. We actually need to share that responsibility.

The government also needs to take responsibility – which it does – for improved opportunities for license hunting and protection hunting and at the same time ensure that one can be able to put up predator-deterring fences and such. But is the responsibility not shared?

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We do not actually have different opinions on this. I am not saying that the area that Member Elin comes from should bear a greater burden. What I am saying is that we should have a minimum of wolves where we have very dense reindeer husbandry, because they simply do not work well together.

Predator-deterrent fences can work a bit in the beginning. But if the County Administrative Board could not manage to keep the wild boar on the correct side, I am not sure that we will manage to do this with predator-deterrent fences on these large areas when the maintenance is to be handled over time.

Let us look at this and find areas where we could have the wolves! But I actually do not see it as a good measure to have them evenly distributed across the country.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

Hunting and wildlife management

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