Hunting and wildlife management

Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the Committee on Environment and Agriculture's report number 10, Hunting and Wildlife Management.

Swedish hunting is fantastic. It is something that as many of our citizens as possible should have the opportunity to experience at some point in their lives. I believe that the vast majority today know someone who is an active hunter.

Swedish hunting has undergone major changes. From previously being a vital activity to obtain food and survive, today it is for many a major leisure interest, for others a job, and for very many a lifestyle.

The demands placed on Sweden's hunters are high. At the same time, the knowledge of safe and ethical hunting, of the management of different species, and of the interactions in nature is extensive. This is due, not least, to the requirement for a hunting license.

During this mandate period, we have seen how the hunters' knowledge has been of concrete benefit to society, not least during the outbreak of African swine fever but also in everyday life through the tracking of injured wildlife. Swedish hunters thus contribute to a large extent both to a functioning hunting management and to society at large when help is needed.

At the same time, we must not turn a blind eye to the fact that today there are organizations doing everything to obstruct Swedish hunting. It concerns mass appeals and activism in various forms. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna want to change the basis for the right to appeal. We cannot have an arrangement where organizations of activists based in Stockholm appeal hunting decisions all over the country even though they themselves are not affected. In that way, it is practically given the possibility to obstruct and steer Swedish hunting and wildlife policy. There are also examples of how environmental organizations receive grants and then use these to counteract agency decisions. We believe that Sverigedemokraterna, this is a completely unreasonable arrangement.

The Sweden Democrats also want the composition of the wildlife management delegations under the county administrative boards to be restored to the original one. The previous composition provided a better balance between politics, different interests, and authorities than the composition that the previous government introduced and which is currently in effect. In addition, the wildlife management delegations need to receive clearer mandates when it comes to protection and license hunting.

Mr. Speaker! When hunting is sabotaged, it is not only an important social interest that is disturbed. It is also about economic values: the hunting itself as well as equipment and investments that are destroyed or lost. We cannot accept that hunters risk being subjected to persecution, threats, or even assault. We cannot accept that hunting towers are destroyed or that activists deliberately try to disturb the hunting and prevent authority decisions regarding protection and license hunting.

That is why the Sweden Democrats want a specific criminal classification for hunting sabotage to be introduced. It would clearly mark that the crime is directed against hunting and against the Swedish hunters who are targeted, but also send a clear signal to law enforcement authorities that it is important to get to the bottom of this.

Mr. Speaker! That Swedish hunting and Swedish fishing are something fantastic that as many people as possible should have a part of is a self-evident starting point for us. It is about the possibility of hunting in our entire country, from the south up to the north.

The Swedish Reindeer Husbandry Act means today that members of samebys are allowed to hunt and fish in the areas that the samebys use above the cultivation limit. A few years ago, the so-called Girjas judgment was issued. It means that the Girjas sameby, as a consequence of historical circumstances, has been granted the exclusive right to grant small game hunting and fishing without the state's consent, and that the state, through the County Administrative Board, may no longer make such grants. Since the judgment, the accessibility to hunting and fishing in the area has significantly deteriorated. Now, five legal processes are ongoing where other samebys hope for the same outcome as in the Girjas case.

For the Sweden Democrats, it is obvious that the Reindeer Husbandry Act needs to be changed. All Swedish citizens should have the same opportunity for hunting and fishing on state land. It is unreasonable that a very small group of Sami village members are granted exclusive rights to large areas of state land when it should instead be accessible to more people.

In summary, the Sweden Democrats want the right of appeal, which determines who has the right to appeal decisions on hunting and protection hunting, to be changed so that only those directly affected can appeal, that the composition of the wildlife management delegations be restored so that the balance between politics, interest organizations and authorities is improved, that a specific criminal classification for hunting sabotage is introduced, and that the reindeer husbandry act be revised so that hunting and fishing on state land is made available on equal terms for all Swedish citizens.

Together, these are four proposals that would make Swedish hunting better and accessible to more people and at the same time strengthen the protection for hunters against activists who attempt to obstruct authority decisions. Swedish hunting is part of our cultural heritage and needs to be defended.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is indeed time today for us to debate hunting and wildlife management, which is always just as exciting in this chamber. I want to begin by moving for the approval of our reservation number 2, which concerns moose management areas.

The need for ethical hunting and responsible wildlife management has perhaps never been greater than today. In a modern society where nature is to be both utilized and preserved, knowledge, respect, and long-term thinking are required. Hunting is not just a leisure activity. It is an important part of our identity and culture, of the management of our wild animals, and of the balance between man and nature.

Ethical hunting is ultimately about respect for the wildlife. It means that hunting is conducted with good knowledge of the species' biology, with the right equipment and in ways that minimize the animals' suffering. The shooter must be well-prepared, be able to abstain when the conditions are not right, and always prioritize the animals' welfare over achievements and trophies. A quick and safe shot, careful tracking management, and responsible handling of the meat are self-evidently fundamental principles of hunting ethics.

Mr. Speaker! Wildlife management is simultaneously a prerequisite for sustainable hunting. It is about creating habitats where both huntable and non-huntable species can live and develop. Through biotope management, feeding when necessary, adapted culling, and cooperation between landowners, hunters, and authorities, we can ensure viable populations in our nature.

In Sweden, we have a long tradition of local management through, for example, moose management areas and wildlife management delegations, where responsibility and decisions are taken close to nature with local knowledge of both the wildlife and the forage availability. We Social Democrats want to strengthen that knowledge and create a more credible management for all ungulates. Both the hunting interest and the forestry services shall be represented, and there shall be an impartially appointed chairperson. This is important to create balance and more local knowledge and science when it comes to which ungulates are present and what potential damages have been caused. It is also very important to look at the forage availability that exists in order to thereby create greater knowledge and understanding for decisions regarding hunting and allocation.

Mr. Speaker! Ethical hunting is also a matter of social responsibility. Wildlife populations that are not managed often risk causing significant damage to forests and agriculture, an increased number of traffic accidents, and imbalances in ecosystems. A well-considered and scientifically based license hunting of all wildlife therefore contributes to both biodiversity and safety in the countryside.

At the same time, the hunt must have a strong popular anchoring. Openness, transparency, and dialogue with the public are crucial to maintaining trust. The Hunter's Corps needs to continue to be a carrier of knowledge, ethics, and responsibility – and stand up against unserious actors who risk undermining that trust.

But with that said, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the importance of managing our predators is part of the same responsibility as all other wildlife management. Species such as wolf, bear, wolverine, and lynx are natural components of the Swedish fauna and have an important role in the ecosystems. At the same time, predator populations also need to be managed in a responsible and long-term manner – just like other wildlife species.

A regulated and ethically conducted hunt for predators is an important tool to reduce conflicts. In areas with dense populations, attacks on domestic animals can increase, hunting dogs can be injured, and people's perceived safety can be affected. For rural residents, reindeer herders, and sheep owners, this is already a concrete everyday reality.

If the management of predators is perceived as unfair or far from people's reality, the trust in the entire wildlife management risks being undermined. Fundamentally, it is about hunting and wildlife care in balance: between use and conservation, between tradition and modern knowledge, and between human and nature. With respect for the wildlife and with long-term perspective as a guiding principle, hunting can continue to be a very important part of a sustainable Swedish landscape.

Mr. Speaker! What we are now seeing more and more often is that the decided hunt on our predator species, just as previous speakers mentioned, is appealed. The hunt is thus suspended, not infrequently at the last moment or even after the hunt has started.

This is an order that cannot continue. Instead, we should be grateful that we have hunters who, year after year, prepare and train both themselves and their dogs to carry out a hunt as good and effective as possible in order to keep even our predator populations at reasonable levels.

To also be able to manage our predators is extremely important to create the necessary balance. If these hunts are to be appealable, our county administrative boards must decide on the hunt in such good time that any potential appeals can be processed before the hunt starts, so that this important hunt actually takes place.

Mr. Speaker! We can observe that the government's high-handedness regarding, among other things, the hunt for our predators, where the highest priority was that the wolf population should be significantly reduced to 170 wolves, has become very flagging, not to say completely crippled.

Unfortunately, this is yet another outcome of the appeal hysteria that is now, for some reason, prevailing in the country among several so-called animal rights organizations that the government has failed to manage.

If we are to both in the short and long term come to terms with the predator policy in this country and create an understanding among both farmers, landowners and hunters as well as residents in the countryside, it must lead to a change.

We Social Democrats want to see a significantly more preventive protection hunting regulation where protection hunting can take place on one's own initiative when livestock or pets are directly threatened. One should not have to wait for injuries and deaths to occur – and often repeatedly.

My conviction is that a protectionism that is perceived as fair and protective often leads to a significantly more sensible debate, not least regarding the wolf's existence or non-existence.

Mr. Speaker! We are now seeing increasingly clear signs that climate change is also affecting our wildlife populations. The ever earlier arriving spring affects, in particular, our moose populations in the southern parts of the country. There, both the number of calves and their weight are becoming lower, which leads to us seeing fewer twin calves and more frequently seeing calves that have died of natural causes in the forest.

In addition, there is a fairly strong hunting pressure on a population that is already struggling with several other opponents and difficulties. If we want a viable moose population in the whole country in the future, greater consideration must be taken both of the purely biological conditions and, not least, of how the total ungulate population and the feed availability in the relevant areas look. It is high time that we see the moose as the most important game, as it de facto is, for both the hunters, the citizens, and not least the culture and tourism in our country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to briefly comment on hunting and the possibility and access to nature throughout our country.

The mountain hunting reform – which we implemented about thirty years ago and which enabled all hunters to obtain hunting permits on state land above the cultivation limit – is now increasingly questioned by various Sami villages, not least due to the Girjas judgment. We believe, of course, that we should treat all our inhabitants equally regardless of where they live and reside in our country. The same rules shall apply. Hunting rights shall therefore follow the landowner, which in these cases is the state.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thanks to the Member for one clarification or another regarding where the Social Democrats stand on the issue!

It was mentioned that it was troublesome and not particularly welcome for environmental organizations to appeal hunting. What has happened regarding the wolf hunt is that Sweden, with the Swedish government at the helm, was close to violating EU law.

When it comes to the organizations that ensure that it is reminded that Sweden is a part of the EU, even in these parts, it is very worrying that the Social Democrats think it is bad that appeals are allowed to occur.

My first question is: Do the Social Democrats stand up for the Aarhus Convention and for us being a part of the EU, to begin with? If one does that, one also lands on the fact that we as a nation must follow the laws that we have enacted jointly in the EU.

Therefore, we should be very grateful that environmental organizations actually took the legal route when the government nevertheless pushed on against better judgment.

Mr. Speaker! The second question is whether the Social Democrats think it is good that we conduct license hunting on the lynx, which is perhaps Sweden's most popular animal. Hunting during the mating period violates the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives.

Is it good that one shoots wolverines that have not repeatedly or in escalating cases torn sheep? It is, in that case, some form of collective punishment on a vulnerable animal in Sweden. Do the Social Democrats welcome that hunt?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the questions!

When it comes to the wolf, if we are to start there, we can observe that in this case there are some different authorities and statements that have been made.

I asked Minister for Rural Affairs Kullgren which advisors the government had had since one could make such a decision regarding having so or so many individuals in the license hunt. The answer I received was that it was the same expert agencies that had also advised the county administrative boards to make decisions on the license hunt.

Then it is interpreted in court in a different way than what Sweden's government and its expert agencies have done. Then one has to ask who it is that is right. I do not know who is right in this case.

What I know is that there is a large majority in the Swedish Riksdag for us to have a reduced wolf population. That is what we stand behind. Whether it should then be 170 or 270 individuals, I will leave unsaid. I am no expert in the field. But that we should have a licensed hunt for wolves, I think is obvious. It is also part of the fact that we advocate for a completely different protection hunt, because today's protection hunt is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory when one, as a livestock owner, several times has their animals torn apart and killed without the possibility to protect them. Then we might as well say that we should reduce our own food security in Sweden, because it simply is not possible to have cattle and grazing animals when there are too many wolves.

In that case, I believe it is better to invest in a significantly more humane and legally secure hunting of predators that allows us to protect our livestock and our pets.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Tomas Kronståhl, for the answer, which dealt with somewhat other matters, namely protection hunting. We are in complete agreement there, so those parts are not really much to debate.

What we do not agree on is that we should politically set the reference values. That is where one violates the law. The law says that we shall rely on experts. The member mentioned something that I can agree with: "I am not an expert." But there are expert agencies that we shall use.

I think the question regarding advisors in a way is a bit cute, because this is not about advisors who have told something to politicians, but it is about an election promise. It is an election promise that several representatives have given when they have said: We shall halve the wolf population in Sweden. That it then violates EU law, one has sort of not spoken out loud about. That is where we end up, and it becomes a blunder and a rather spicy situation where the wolf hunt is cancelled despite that we know and have known throughout the entire process that this violates EU laws.

I did not receive an answer to the question that I consider important, and it is probably many who want a clear answer: Do the Social Democrats think it is good that we shoot wolverines, which is a red-listed species?

So, it is not about the protection hunt, because there is actually no debate in this chamber on that. All parties agree that the protection hunt can be justified precisely for the reasons the member mentions, that is, a number of repeated and escalating behaviors such as demolitions and so on.

The wolverine is the most popular animal in Sweden and an animal that very many dream of seeing but have never seen. Wolverines, which do not pose any harm or danger to society or to sheep owners, are now nevertheless to be shot on a large scale in several places in Sweden. It is spoken of that 10–11 percent of the entire wolverine population shall be shot. Do the Social Democrats take a positive stance toward this?

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I actually deliberately saved the lynx issue for this exchange of remarks.

I have had the privilege – and one of the toughest assignments I have had in my life – to sit in the wildlife management board in Kalmar County and have responsibility for the predator issue. All organizations are represented in the wildlife management board. We were then, 20 years ago, to come to a conclusion on how many lynxes we would accept in our county, and the fact is that we reached a unanimous decision after much discussion and a very large amount of fact-finding.

We decided that the number should exceed four lynx families in order to allow license hunting, and that has applied in the county since then. Now we have so many more lynx in our county that we allow license hunting. There is no hunter who shoots a female lynx with a cub; at least it does not happen among ethical hunters. We do not shoot female moose before the calf either.

It is often the same organizations that protect these wolverines. But wolverines do not live on vegetables, they take other prey animals. I happen to live in a fairly wolverine-dense area, and I can say that a good amount of roe deer and a good amount of roe deer fawns go into satisfying these wolverines. If we hunters were not involved in managing the wolverine population, we would soon have no roe deer left, and then surely the same organizations would try to sue us for not having protected those animals.

It is, therefore, a constant balance, just as I said in my speech. It is a matter of managing all wildlife in a wise manner.

(Applause)

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! We discuss hunting, wildlife management and hunters and about predators, ungulates and other things in this chamber, and it is a chamber that in many respects is in agreement on these issues.

I think it has been clear both during the Sweden Democrats' and the Social Democrats' speeches, and it will also be clear in what I am going to say, that there is a very broad range and a great support for what we are actually doing in Sweden, what we want to do and what this chamber decides on time and again.

There are few policy areas where we agree as much as on hunting. It is a strength. It is also a strength that hunting in Sweden enjoys such a high level of trust. We still have trust figures of around 85 percent – so many stand behind Swedish hunting. Those are very high figures.

Nevertheless, this is something that we shall manage and take care of, for it is a constant match to manage this. In the debate, hunting ethics, which animals we should shoot, and so on, have been mentioned. We shoot the calf before the cow, and it is about other such things that are self-evident for a hunter who frequents Swedish nature today.

The hunters were needed, Mr. Speaker. The hunters contribute with wildlife management and traffic search. This winter has been unusually long and harsh. This applies particularly in southern Sweden, where we are not so used to that type of winter. In those cases, it is the hunting corps that steps up and ensures that the wild animals are supplementary fed and ensures that they are doing well. It is the hunting corps that does this; it is no one else.

When the wildlife populations are too large locally, it is the hunting community that can help to reduce them. This applies when, for example, wild boar or roe deer have become too numerous. In those cases, it is the hunters who help.

We know what it is like during a search for missing persons. The hunters line up time after time, all year round, at all hours of the day with trained dogs and with great knowledge. This is a service that the hunters provide for Sweden and Swedish society. One might simply expect that it should happen, but it is not that simple. We must be the ones who stand up and say that this is something good and fantastic that the hunters do. So yes, the hunters are needed, and we need to be careful with the Swedish hunting corps.

The question of the predators has been raised in the debate. There is also a great consensus on how we want to manage the predators in Sweden, namely with license hunting. We also want to see that the predators are managed in a legally secure and long-term way, because we know that it is with legal certainty and long-term perspective that we build up the Swedish wildlife populations. That is how we have actually managed the Swedish wildlife populations.

We can go all the way back to the founding year of the Swedish Hunters' Association in 1830, when the hunters came together and decided to manage the Swedish wildlife. And how do we manage it? Yes, through hunting. That is when there is an acceptance, and the hunters come together and help each other. It doesn't matter whether it is ungulate wildlife or predator wildlife; the acceptance grows when there is a unified organization and a predictability in the management.

It is therefore concerning when we see how it is done. This chamber decides how the administration shall look, and our authorities are involved. We have wildlife management delegations out in the counties that set goals for how large the predator populations should be regionally, because that is how we want it. We want to manage it regionally.

Employees at the county administrative boards carry out the inventory together with the hunting corps and produce the results. Then a decision is made on how large the removals shall be, and we prepare for license hunting, regardless of whether it is wolf or lynx.

Then it is appealed, and so it comes to a halt – a standstill for that which a large part of Sweden's democracy has decided we should do.

This is unfortunate. It puts a spoke in the wheels of the successful Swedish wildlife management that has been built up over a long period. In terms of predator management, Sweden is perhaps among the absolute best in Europe. It is going well for the large Swedish predators, and that is because we have good control. Then we shall also manage with hunting.

It was spoken earlier here about threats and hate against hunters, hunting and so on. We know, for example, that our Minister for Rural Affairs was subjected to threats at his residence by organizations that are opposed to the Swedish democratic decisions on hunting.

I am myself a hunting leader on my own land, Mr. Speaker, and I now ask all visiting hunters to check the hunting towers before they climb up into them. Most often, the legs on the hunting towers are now sawed off. We have not been affected ourselves, but I know very many who have been. It is life-threatening. Hunters with weapons go up into a tower, and then the legs are sawed off by people who do not like that we hunt in Sweden. We can never accept this – never!

This is also something that a large part of this chamber emphasizes: In Sweden, we hunt under organized forms, with license hunting and with protected hunting when necessary.

Mr. Speaker! Hunting in the Swedish mountains has been a contentious issue for a long time. I sat myself together with the Christian Democrats' Kjell-Arne Ottosson in the wilderness committee that was disbanded a few years ago. It was probably luck that it was disbanded, and we both were probably strong reasons for this. With the basis and the directives it had, this committee could not land correctly. Already the debate here has shown that there is a large majority for something other than what that investigation actually led to.

I remember it very well: Kjell-Arne Ottosson and I were against the directives from the very beginning. We wanted something completely different, and we were quite clear when the partial consideration was being written that we wanted to have a reservation. It pleased me that the Sweden Democrats also, after some pressure, were part of that reservation. It was thanks to this that we could then lay the investigation to rest.

We have now begun to look at directives for a new investigation, an investigation that can shed light on what the Social Democrats spoke about here: all Swedes' right to hunting and fishing on state land above the cultivation limit. That is where we want a new investigation to go, and that investigation is underway.

Mr. Speaker! Right now, a review of the hunting seasons is underway – how long we shall hunt the game during the year and so on. There are a number of proposals regarding extended periods for roe deer hunting and the use of dogs during the hunt, and also extended hunting seasons for moose. I believe that it would be directly unfortunate. We already have generous hunting seasons in Sweden today, and we should be able to manage the populations within those hunting seasons. We should not conduct hunting on the wild animals for longer periods, especially not with dogs. They need to have their recovery before the time when they are to have their young. I hope that we can land this hunting season proposal in the best way possible so that we can continue to enjoy hunting together.

It is precisely what we do: We hunt together – men and women, across party lines, high and low, rich and poor. Everyone gathers and comes together for a common purpose. We use our hunting dogs together, talk, lie, and eat good food, and the moose trophies become larger and larger the longer the evening goes on. This is exactly how it has been with hunting, and this is how it shall continue to be.

Mr. Speaker! Just so that no one forgets: Hunting is a nature experience and provides good food, but it cannot be glossed over that it is also fun when it bangs.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Widegren, for a speech that was inspiring in many ways! There was very much wisdom that we agree on.

Now, however, my thought was that we should debate the moose a bit. We all know that it has had a hard time for a while and is now on its way to being red-listed. We had an expert with us in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture who could then state that the conditions for the moose look quite different across our entire country, but that the hunting pressure, on the other hand, is approximately the same, that is to say, heavy, across the whole country.

For about 20 years now, there has been a very large focus on grazing damage – not least on pine, Mr. Speaker. In that regard, we have been quite much in the hands of the forest industries. They have something they call Äbin, where they investigate how much damage is allowed on the pine. One can question the measurement method itself, but it is a fact that the focus has only been on moose despite the fact that we in southern and central Sweden have very much other hoofed wildlife that also likes pine.

My question to Member Widegren is then whether the Moderaterna can influence the government to review the decision-making basis for the County Administrative Board when it comes to the allocation of moose. Perhaps we can change it so that instead of, as we do today, shooting calves and cows, we actually try to preserve and increase the population a bit.

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question. We could debate the moose for an entire afternoon. I believe, however, that the Moderaterna and Socialdemokraterna agree on very much.

Hunting pressure has been high for a while, absolutely. However, we now see that the trend is turning for the moose. Nevertheless, it has decreased over time, which means it could be relevant for red-listing. It is then incredibly important that one does not panic. A red-listing of the moose population actually implies a decline of 15 percent, so it is not the end of the world. However, we can clearly see that we have fewer moose.

The moose is absolutely our highest and noblest game, and moose hunting is a Swedish tradition. We should therefore give it a little more love than we do. I think a first step was when we in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture, during the research day, had an entire morning about the moose. It was a very important and good first step. We also thank Tomas Kronståhl for the support in that.

Regarding Äbin, I also think it is a blunt tool. I want to clarify that Äbin is not the forest companies' tool but the Swedish Forest Agency's tool, but it is blunt. Just as I said during the committee time, an elk cow with a calf can completely suddenly decide to park in a pine plantation. I had exactly such a case at home this year. It causes enormous damage. If such a plantation then falls into one of the Äbin squares, it will of course result in catastrophic inventory results. So it is not that easy.

I would very much like to see us start reviewing the tools regarding Äbin. I do not believe it is a sustainable tool moving forward, especially not when we in the southern part of the country have such broad stocks of roe deer.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank John Widegren for the answer. It still sounds hopeful that we might be able to review this. I feel that it would be very wise to look at the whole when it comes to the damages. Perhaps we should also factor in what the value of the moose is where it actually exists. We know, at least in our neighboring countries Germany and Denmark, that they have a great fondness for seeing real moose, and if they get to see moose in reality, perhaps they can avoid wearing signs with moose on them. It is actually much better.

Finally, I have a question. I must praise Member Widegren for the advancement of the hunting corps, which truly does an enormous job. I remember when I started hunting. Back then, we received no compensation at all for the search for hit wildlife; instead, it was a completely voluntary night work that landowners and hunting enthusiasts had to do. It was less fun at times, I can say, but it has become better. Today, one receives compensation, and it is significantly more professional.

I wanted to emphasize the hunting corps in Västmanland – and it was certainly so for all of Sweden – during the African swine fever. We handled the swine fever in an exemplary manner. My conviction is, Mr. Speaker, that it was thanks to the Swedish hunting corps that we succeeded in curbing the swine fever. It could have become a devastating story for Sweden if we had not addressed the problem so quickly and resolutely.

I have been informed that the hunters have paid out money for their work there but have not received any compensation. I think that is crazy. Can we not ensure that they at least get compensation for expenses?

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

John Widegren (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the reasoning, Tomas Kronståhl.

Let me conclude the first part we were on. I absolutely think that one needs to review the inventory methods for forest damage from wildlife. But I am also concerned about those who want to introduce a clearer multi-year management at the public level. At one point in time, we gave away the management of the moose to the public. We don't really decide over that ourselves anymore. But the rest of the wildlife, we hunters, users, and owners can manage ourselves without interference from the public. I want that to remain. I believe we can do it ourselves without the county administrative boards' management plans and so on.

Then there was the swine flu, or African swine fever as it is also called. We understood that it would eventually come to Sweden. It did. Never has any country handled it as quickly and as well as we actually did. I agree with Tomas Kronståhl that it was largely due to the work that the Swedish hunting corps did so quickly at an early stage.

It is no coincidence that other countries ask Sweden: How did you do it, and how did you get the hunting corps to engage so much? They want Sweden as an example of how new outbreaks can be managed at a European level. That is good.

Regarding the economic parts, I have a very boring answer. I am not sufficiently enthusiastic about the whole thing. I think it is reasonable that if the hunting corps has had expenses that they do not normally have, they should also receive compensation. But I am not enthusiastic about how the matter looks, rather it lies somewhere with the government. In that case, I think the government should answer that question.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! The preventive work to reduce the risks of attacks on domestic animals by predators is very important. Attacks from predators cause great suffering for those affected and can affect the economic conditions for the individual to engage in domestic animal husbandry.

Mr. Speaker! Strengthened preventive work against predator attacks also improves the acceptance of our predators. They also have great importance for the functioning of ecosystems.

We in Vänsterpartiet want the government to return with proposals for measures to strengthen the preventive work against predator damage and also measures to reduce the illegal hunting of predators.

Furthermore, we believe that the only reasonable approach when we manage our predators is that science and researchers, not politicians, assess how large the populations of our predators need to be to have a favorable conservation status in the long term. We therefore believe that relevant actors should be involved in a long-term strategy for predator management that ensures a favorable conservation status for our large predators.

Mr. Speaker! The Government should also come forward with proposals for measures that strengthen the possibility for wolf individuals from the Finnish-Russian population to migrate into Sweden and contribute to an increased genetic variation in our wolf population.

Despite the wolf being classified as critically endangered in Sweden due to a small population with a high degree of inbreeding, the license hunt allows for the hunting of wolf individuals that have not caused damage. The hunt can also result in individuals that are genetically important for the limited population being killed.

We in the Left Party consider that it is not compatible with sustainable management to allow license hunting of wolves, and we want it to cease. The only hunting that should be possible on wolves is protection hunting, which we, on the other hand, consider to be a very important tool to safeguard for livestock owners and for general acceptance. With removed license hunting, the conditions for necessary protection hunting can instead be strengthened.

Mr. Speaker! Despite the fact that lynx as a species is classified as vulnerable in the Swedish red list, licensed hunting of the species is conducted, in addition to illegal hunting. Both the Predator Society and the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation have turned to the European Commission because they believe that the population-limiting licensed hunting of lynx lacks support in the Birds and Habitats Directives.

We share the organizations' view that the license hunt on wolverines is inappropriate, and we welcome that the EU Commission has been approached to examine the issue. We believe that protection hunting of wolverines as well as protection hunting of other predators is an important tool that should remain available for livestock owners. But we see no reason for a large number of wolverines to be randomly killed in hunts with roaming dogs. Instead, the preventive work against predator damage should be strengthened and the compensation improved in the event of loss of livestock. We believe that the license hunt on wolverines should cease.

I move for approval of reservation 5 in the committee report.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The member raised the issue of protection hunting of predators in his speech. Is it not defensive with protection hunting of predators? When one comes out into the enclosure where a flock of dead lambs lies, can one under those circumstances even talk about protection hunting and animal welfare?

My perception is that license hunting is the only way forward if one is to be able to manage predators at all. Protection hunting is good, and that possibility should exist, but it cannot be the main way forward. All other measures we have to manage predators become complex. They are not sufficient to achieve success, to get more food according to the food strategy. We must be able to see several things at once. Just the predators are central here.

Does the member not agree that we also must have a license hunt to manage the predators so that they do not cause the painful injuries that domestic animals can suffer today?

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question.

As the member mentions, it is incredibly sad, sorrowful and not good at all when domestic animals – sheep and lambs, I assume the member is referring to – are exposed. The problem is when the predators are threatened. Licensed hunting of predators reduces the possibilities for a well-developed and good protection hunt that can take place quickly.

One also needs to work preventatively. If one has domestic animals, one must also be able to receive grants and help, for example when it comes to fences. We have also budgeted for labor costs to set up fences. There also needs to be a good and well-functioning protection hunt. And the compensation one can receive for killed domestic animals needs to be improved. I believe in that method.

We need to have a favorable conservation status for the predators. In that case, the license hunting becomes a problem.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Does the member not see that there is a connection between the fact that we have a 30 percent self-sufficiency in lamb in Sweden and that the predator policy is not working? We must see that connection.

Compensation is one thing, but we cannot get new lamb producers to establish themselves where there are wolves. I see it very clearly in my home county, Jönköpings län. There we have wolves both in the south and north where it is natural to bring in lamb producers, but we are not getting new lamb producers because of the lack of a well-functioning policy on the predator side.

Based on how the wolf behaves in reality, we must have license hunting, even if the wolves are few. I believe that what the member states does not work in practice, and I want to assert that this is supported by how it looks in reality; we have a self-sufficiency rate of 30 percent.

If the member sees anything else we can do to increase self-sufficiency to 50–60 percent, I would be grateful to hear it.

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! Now, it is not the case that the wolf is tearing up domestic animals everywhere in Sweden. The member mentions Jönköping County as an example, and in Central Sweden, there are problems.

I believe, however, that the member is not considering that the protection search must be improved. I do not think it can be said that we have learned a lesson when things can still be done to improve the preventive work and ensure that the protection search can function more smoothly and faster.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Several of those who have stood in this speaker's chair before me today have truly sung the praises of hunting. I could absolutely use my allotted minutes to do that as well. Hunting means incredibly much to very many, even for Swedish society. This time, however, I shall not do more than that, but I intend to use my time to address the reservations in this report.

I want to begin by moving for the rejection of the reservations and for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report. The reason we move for the rejection of the reservations is that, in the vast majority of cases, work is already being done. We are therefore not opposed to the intentions in the reservations. But work is already underway.

When it comes, however, to some other reservations, we move for their rejection because we truly mean that they are wrong.

There is a reservation regarding the review of hunting legislation and wildlife management. On January 15 this year, the Hunting Legislation Inquiry submitted its final report A new wildlife management legislation. In the report, it is proposed that a new wildlife management act and a new wildlife management ordinance with a clearer structure and more modern provisions shall replace the current hunting act and hunting ordinance.

The investigation proposes that wildlife management shall aim to preserve and promote native wildlife species, promote a sustainable use of wildlife as a resource, and limit the damage and inconveniences caused by wildlife. We are therefore addressing what is stated in the motion regarding specifically wildlife damage. For that reason, we are therefore voting no to the reservation. It is not because the issue of wildlife damage is not important.

The report has been sent out for consultation, and the consultation period applies until May 15. After that, the government can act and submit a proposition.

Another reservation, which has also been up for some debate here, concerns the management of moose. Just as it states in the report, it is extremely important that we have a viable moose population. At the same time, the damages to agriculture and forestry must be manageable.

Moose management must be long-term and locally anchored based on the prevailing conditions. We see really large differences in the country regarding how many moose there are in the wilderness areas. And the causes are somewhat different depending on where in the country one is located. Therefore, the local perspective is very important.

The moose is our Swedish national symbol, and it is certainly worth preserving. We also heard this at our research day a week ago, which several of you have already been inside for. There, the moose was the focus for the committee.

Parts of what is addressed in the motions are also taken up in the previously mentioned investigation. There, the work shall proceed. If the administration is to function well, it depends on cooperation between different interest organizations, not on a war of positions. We shall also remember that most hunters are also landowners, and they want a good and huntable moose population on their lands.

Mr. Speaker! I move on to the management of wild boar. There is a reservation that a reduced wild boar population is desired. I do not see any major differences there either. However, there have been some challenges. The previous government gave a mandate in 2020 to get more wild boar meat onto the market. It took until October 2024 before it became a reality. It was not because the previous red-green and then the red government pulled back, and not because the current government pulled back. It was several agencies that clashed with each other, and progress was not made.

After that, we have seen repeated fundamental collisions in the wild boar issue. It is clear in the food strategy that the Swedish Food Agency has been given a mandate so that more wild boar meat will reach the market. But time and again, it runs into obstacles.

In February this year, the government decided on an amendment to the hunting ordinance which means that the opportunities to conduct culling of wild boar are expanded. That is good. Everything we can help with is good. There are already many aids. But the most important thing is to get more meat onto the market, so that hunters get a market for the wild boar they shoot. That is the absolute best way to increase the culling and thereby reduce the wild boar population.

I move on to the management of predators. I had actually intended to request a reply to Kajsa Fredholm's speech. But it was so short that I did not have time to press the button while I was sitting and loading, Mr. Speaker.

I note, however, that both Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet have reservations on the issue. Kajsa Fredholm pointed out that preventive work must be carried out. The most important preventive work that can be done is to have a well-functioning license hunt for these species.

It is also about taking action against the illegal hunting, which one is outraged by. Now we have ended up in a situation where both wolf hunting and lynx hunting are being stopped. This, if anything, Mr. Speaker, breeds and fosters illegal hunting. Stopped license hunts are therefore leading in the exact opposite direction.

Both bear and lynx, wolf and wolverine are above favorable conservation status in Sweden. That we are not to manage those populations points rather towards some kind of astonishing ignorance or that ideology is more important than ecology.

Mr. Speaker! During the autumn and winter, we have also seen that associations located far from the affected area have appealed. Even associations from other countries have appealed the hunt. Therefore, it is extremely important for the Christian Democrats to change the right of appeal.

The implementation of the Aarhus Convention has gone far too far in Sweden. The Aarhus Convention must be re-implemented and at a minimum level. It is those who are directly affected who should have the opportunity to appeal, not an organization from even another country.

Mr. Speaker! The Government has done a job at the EU level. Changes have been made to the Bern Convention and to the Birds and Habitats Directives. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency has been given a mandate regarding management measures, including money in the budget.

But to correct what was said in a previous exchange, where I myself could not request a reply, the EU Commission has not anywhere established that Sweden is violating the directive, nor has the European Court of Justice. No new infringement proceedings have been initiated. The previous infringement proceedings have been concluded. The EU Commission has asked questions, but it has not been said that Sweden has violated the directive. There is some kind of misunderstanding here, Mr. Speaker.

Regarding the management of cormorants, I can only stand behind the intentions regarding increased cormorant hunting. In the so-called marine environment bill, which we adopted in the autumn of 2024, the government made the assessment that the management of predators such as seals and cormorants should be included in an ecosystem-based marine management governed by all three sustainability dimensions. Sweden should therefore continue to work towards ensuring that general hunting of cormorants is introduced and that the damage caused by cormorants is reduced. The Riksdag stood fully behind this. Further assignments have been given on that front regarding both seals and cormorants, even though this reservation concerns specifically cormorants. I hope that we will reach the goal there.

I note that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, so I shall move towards the conclusion and cut a little.

I want to end hunting and fishing on reindeer grazing lands. There, Mr. Speaker, a new investigation shall be appointed. In a reservation from Miljöpartiet, it is written: "The proposers assume that the government, based on both the Girjas judgment and the Renmark Committee's partial opinion, in the preparation of a new investigation, will create conditions for a long-term orientation regarding the Sami's right to land and water, as well as to hunting and fishing."

This is a total miss. What Sami rights? Not all Sami have that right today. There are others who have lived up north just as long – Kvens, Lantalaiset, Tornedalingar. They have no right. Other Swedes should have an equally large right to hunt on state lands. Directives for a new investigation are being prepared now, an investigation that has the chance to hold all the way because it takes into account everyone who lives in Sweden, not just a minority of a minority of a minority, as the Miljöpartiet wishes with its motion.

(Applause)

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for your speech!

I thought I would continue a bit regarding the moose population. I strongly protect my moose, which I think I see far too rarely.

We had, as you said, Fredrik Widemo from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences at our committee meeting. It was a very interesting presentation. We can state that the moose has huge problems in large parts of our country. Kjell-Arne exemplary asked the last question there, whether Fredrik could summarize in five points or so what was most important to save the moose population. He then said that it would be good with a co-management when it comes to the ungulates.

Let me be clear here, Mr. Speaker. I do not in any way wish for the state to take over responsibility for more wildlife species than it is responsible for today. What I consider important is that instead of moose management areas, we look at ungulate management areas as a whole and take into account the wildlife we actually have. It looks different across the country.

I think this is extremely important. If we are to keep the local and regional management of our wildlife, we must constantly upgrade and renew ourselves and take in new knowledge. I believe it is extremely important that we actually include all the ungulate species that we have.

My question regarding this is whether Member Ottosson can consider reviewing this – to actually include all species of antlered game in a future management plan.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

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

Yes, I can absolutely do that, but it helps little. It is better to get the government to do it; then there will be more power behind it. That is perhaps what Tomas Kronståhl is actually pointing towards.

Just as Tomas Kronståhl says, there is no doubt that it looks very different depending on where we are in the country. We really have different types of problems, if we even have a problem with game damage. Some of us live in such game-poor parts of the country that it is now a very big deal when one gets to see a moose. That was not the case in Värmland 30 years ago. Just as Thomas Kronståhl says, it is very important to see this as a whole, given that we now see that the different ungulate populations are increasing in larger parts of our country.

It is very pleasant to hear a Social Democrat highlight local and regional administration and say that it is not the state that should be responsible for the administration. It warms my heart, Mr. Kronståhl, and I truly hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can continue to have local and regional administration. I cannot see that we actually have any kind of political differences between us on this issue.

I also, as I have said, truly see the value of us getting a management where we see all ungulate species, precisely in order to be able to counter extensive game damage. I was on a game damage safari in Sörmland last autumn, and it was very clear there that decisive action really needs to be taken. Those who produce our food have almost no possibilities left to do so.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne Ottosson, for the answer! I can feel that there is hope that in the future we will achieve a management of our ungulate wildlife that I believe will benefit both local management and forest production in a wise way.

I do, however, have another question that I also feel strongly about and that I feel we are losing our grip on. Veterinary costs have completely run amok in this country. We have prices that are 36 times higher than in, for example, Spain. The veterinarians may be as skilled as they want to be, but it is completely unthinkable that we are so much better at taking care of our pets in Sweden than they are in Spain.

Even worse is the situation we are now in, where more and more veterinarians choose to work at large animal hospitals and elsewhere. We see that we actually need to keep emergency veterinarians in the countryside. Then this investigation will come with the proposal that the state shall no longer be responsible for emergency care for our domestic animals and companion animals during on-call hours and weekends.

Then I am thinking, not least of the hunting corps, Mr. Speaker, who usually hunt on weekends. We hunt wild boar and all kinds of game, and not infrequently acute accidents occur. The cost has become so great that the hunting clubs now have to set aside a fund where they take the deductible and help out. But it is even worse if there is no veterinarian to get hold of on weekends and evenings.

My question is whether Member Ottosson thinks it is reasonable for the state – now the state is coming in; now I am a true socialist again! – in such a situation to back away from its responsibility when it comes to veterinary emergency care in this country.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The stripes are still in.

Now Tomas Kronståhl is actually asking the question to the wrong person. I would advise Tomas Kronståhl to instead, at an appropriate time, have a cup of coffee with my colleague Magnus Oscarsson, who has exactly these questions on his desk. They are not on my desk, so I admit directly that I am not well-versed in them.

In that regard, I can absolutely agree with Tomas Kronståhl regarding the importance and value of having veterinarians all over the country and having veterinarians who work when they are actually needed. I do not know what the situation looks like on that front right now.

I visited SLU's facility in Ultuna a few years ago and spoke about, among other things, exactly this with veterinarians and about the problem of getting enough veterinary students. I can quote them regarding the challenge: It is no problem to get veterinarians who want to put bandages on a hamster, but it is damn near impossible to get hold of veterinarians who want to euthanize a cow.

This says something. I do not know if we still have the challenge that it is difficult to fill the positions, but that is step one. The profession must be made more attractive so that we get more people who want to work as veterinarians.

But it is of course important that we get veterinarians all around the country and that they are not concentrated around the large cities. I have a friend whose dog was bitten by a viper. He had to get in the car and drive from Värmland to Gothenburg. That was the closest there was. That one should have to drive three and a half hours one way is not sustainable, in many aspects.

I can only agree with Tomas Kronståhl that the issue is very important, but I cannot give any answer because I do not work with the issue as such. I do not have the expertise there.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to problematize a bit regarding the management of wild boar. What the member before me is stating is that wild boar should be a part of the food strategy. So it is, in principle, as the government stimulates and gives assignments to the authorities that wild boar should be a part of the food strategy.

There is a reason why we have succeeded twice in eradicating wild boar. They have created quite a lot of problems within agriculture and caused a lot of damage. Does the member not see the risk of damage?

If the authorities were to succeed in their mission, so that we get more wild boar, I want to assert that there is a risk that the damages will increase significantly. What holds this back today is the price: One gets 75 kronor per kilo for beef but only a fraction of that when selling wild boar.

But if one were to succeed with this, the number of wild boar will therefore increase, and then the damage will increase. Is one prepared to handle the increased risk of damage? Did one even consider that parameter when this assignment was given?

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Anders Karlsson, for the question! I do not know if I quite buy Anders Karlsson's reasoning. Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly in my speech – is that possibly where the basic problem lies?

What it is about is, just as I mentioned in my speech, that we are to get more meat on the market and in that way get the hunters to go out and shoot more. That is the challenge. As a hunter, one must take care of what one has shot. That is hunting ethics. Hunting ethics, several of my colleagues have touched upon previously.

Even though wild boar are seen by many as a pest, it is still food. It is good food, and we must take care of the good food.

It is about us getting the opportunity to shoot more wild boar. It is not so that the population will increase, but to bring down the population, to get more people to go out and hunt. That is where we must get the chain started, so that it becomes easy to find outlets for the meat and so that it gets out onto the market. It should go to our schools, nursing homes, and so on. Then we get the incentives to shoot down the population.

This is the basis of this part of the food strategy. It is about reducing the stem and getting the food out. In that way, we can manage this and reduce the stem, which I believe Anders Karlsson is also looking for. But it is possible that some kind of misunderstanding has occurred.

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I believe the member can be calm. It is not a misunderstanding, but rather it is like a step further. If one succeeds in getting wild boar meat onto the market, it will also stimulate more wild boar, because then one gets a functioning chain with slaughterhouses and perhaps also better prices on wild boar.

Just as the member says, it is a very good food source. That is not the problem. The problem is that wild boar cause very great damage to agriculture. Someone pays for the majority of the wild boar's feed, and that is the farmer. On the other hand, the income comes from somewhere else, unless it is the same landowner who has both the domestic animals and the wild boar.

There is, therefore, a problem that I think is not included in the reasoning regarding stimulating this. Then the next step becomes a problem. It is this that I want the member to reflect upon.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I can only agree with what Anders Karlsson says about it being the farmer who pays the cost. There is no doubt about that. Then it is important that the farmer, if he is not a hunter himself, lets in other, often younger, hunters who think it is fun to be out in the evenings and nights and hunt wild boar, precisely to reduce the population.

I can, in a sense, understand Anders Karlsson's reasoning. But at the same time, I do not understand what path he wants us to take. We must find some form of outlet for the meat if we are to get more people to shoot wild boar. That is at least the logic in my world. If it becomes easier to get an outlet and perhaps better prices, we will automatically get a higher cull, because then it yields more and turnover can be achieved.

I note that in our western neighboring country, which is not so far from where I live, they have instead introduced bounty money on wild boar. There are quite a few stories about how wild boar are transported there. They are transported there from Sweden because one gets quite good pay. It turns out, therefore, that this is completely the wrong way to go.

The important thing is that we can shoot the boar and get out the first-class meat. As we have said, we already have so many aids in the wild boar hunt: technical aids, protection hunting, and everything. The part that remains is precisely the market. I believe that both Anders Karlsson and the undersigned believe in that.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the contribution! It is very clarifying.

The member mentioned the concept of favorable conservation status. He presented some kind of reasoning that as long as the species is above favorable conservation status, it can also be managed and have active hunting and license hunting. Then I just wonder: Does favorable conservation status mean anything for the member, the Christian Democrats, and the government in cases where the population is below that limit? I have not been able to note that regarding the wolf specifically, which does not have a favorable conservation status.

In the reasoning and the argumentation, it sounded as if favorable conservation status is some kind of core concept that we must hold above before we allow trophy hunting. The member may be welcome to answer whether that concept means anything when it comes to, for example, the wolf.

The second thing I want to take the opportunity to ask about concerns everyone having an equal right when it comes to the administration and the hunting policy. In that case, I wonder: Whose right is being taken into account in this? It is about 3 percent of the Swedish people who are hunters. Most are not.

If we ask the Swedish people what they think about lynx and wolves, it appears that 80 percent of the Swedish people think it is good that there are lynx and that 69 percent of the Swedish people think it is good that there are wolves in Sweden. Is their will something we should weigh in? Is it something we should take into account and that the government considers important? One speaks in broad terms about everyone's right to decide and have an opinion.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Rebecka Le Moine, for the questions!

Let me start with the last one. It is very simple: It is decisions in Sweden's Riksdag that shall decide. It is democracy that shall decide this. We have clear decisions in Sweden's Riksdag, and then it is this that shall apply.

Now I come to the first question. It is clear that favorable conservation status means something. Otherwise, we would not have that concept.

All Swedish predator populations are above favorable conservation status. In that case, it is our position that hunting can be permitted on those species. One can then have a management.

This regarding favorable conservation status exists as a protection downwards – it shall not fall below this. It is the basis of it all. We have made a decision in the Swedish Riksdag that we shall reduce the wolf population – if we are now talking about the wolf. And this regarding favorable conservation status is a political decision.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I think it becomes very clear when this matter of favorable conservation status is referred to as politics. I would then like to urge and encourage people to actually read the Birds and Habitats Directive and the Species Protection Ordinance in Sweden, because it is not, in fact, politics. There are strict requirements where consideration is also given to genetics, the degree of isolation, and the possibility of migrating in the landscape. With regard to those criteria, Sweden's wolf population does not achieve a favorable conservation status.

Again: Now we are at assessments made by expert agencies such as the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. This is, therefore, not something that is up for discussion. It is not about opinions here, but it is about: What do the ecological models say? What does the law say?

I want to say something regarding the law. Whose opinion should count, considering that a large majority of the Swedish people are very positive about us having lynx and wolves in Sweden? I am referred back to the Riksdag. I then want to point out that we have the Aarhus Convention to take into account. It enables environmental movements and organizations to appeal when the government, against better judgment, is about to break EU laws.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to take the opportunity to ask about what was mentioned in the post regarding neighbors. There is some hint that the closer one is to the decision itself, the greater the opportunity one has to have an opinion. What do the member and the government think about the fact that hundreds of foreign hunters are coming to shoot our equivalent to the tiger, namely the lynx, which is Sweden's most popular and beloved animal? It means that hundreds of foreign hunters will then in some way have more rights than the majority of the Swedish people when it comes to this.

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

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I maintain that if we have strains that are above a favorable conservation status and that are manageable, we shall manage them. It is that simple.

Regarding the lynx specifically, there is a favorable conservation status of 870 individuals. At the latest inventory, there were approximately 1,400 individuals. This means that it is almost double the favorable conservation status. Thus, we can have hunting of lynx. The hunting that was now supposed to have started concerned only just over 100 lynx, so it would in no way have affected the future of the lynx population. It had not jeopardized the favorable conservation status.

The important thing is that the decisions we make here in the Swedish Riksdag have an impact. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we get what Rebecka Le Moine often stands and speaks about here in the speaker's chairs, namely illegal hunting. When people feel that we have democratically made decisions that others appeal and try to stop, including organizations that do not even exist within the country, it unfortunately fosters things that are not positive. I do not stand behind illegal hunting anywhere for even a second at all. It does not belong in Swedish hunting. But unfortunately, that is the result when we receive these appeals.

For our part, it is now very important to review the right to speak. It doesn't matter whether it is about predator hunting or whether it is about logging or whatever it is. We see activists who in many more places come forward and try to stop what we have decided in the Swedish Riksdag, such as things that thus follow Sweden's laws and regulations. This concerns me much more, Mr. Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Anders Karlsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating the committee report MJU10 Hunting and wildlife management. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1, Review of the hunting legislation and wildlife management.

Centerpartiet wants, under this point, a portal paragraph to reduce wildlife damage in agriculture and forestry and also to reduce the number of traffic accidents involving wildlife. We want that specification. Otherwise, we want to promote wildlife as a resource.

There is much that is good in the government's proposal. The part concerning the confidentiality for the hunters and also the systematization for incorporating the EU decisions into our Swedish regulatory framework is excellent.

Mr. Speaker! I will now return to the management of moose. It may feel a bit like a repetition now towards the end of the debate, but I cannot help but bring this up.

We received a very good lecture on our research day about why the number of moose is decreasing in Sweden. What we took away was that the number is not only decreasing in Sweden. It is decreasing in large parts of the world. The moose are moving further north. It has been observed that this is due to rising temperatures. Then one can reflect a bit on how the government handles climate issues. They are not reaching their climate goals. In some way, the sitting government is left with the problem that the moose population is decreasing, given that the survival of the moose population is so dependent on the temperature.

The moose population is not decreasing as much in the north. The fact that it was red-listed is actually due to the fact that it has decreased by an average of 15 percent since EU accession. We have then had a shift of the moose to northern Sweden. Exactly the same thing is seen in Canada, where the moose are heading towards Alaska, so to speak.

This is not the only reason why the moose population is decreasing. It is also about access to food. We received that the calves have a growth of one kilogram per day. That is as much as our cattle have under good conditions. For it to be one kilogram per day for the calves, the right food is required at the right time.

One can look at the management today. We have, among other things, moose management groups, where the chairman, who is a landowner, has a casting vote. I fundamentally think it is a good arrangement, but the problems that can arise relate somewhat to large landowners and small landowners. In many smaller areas in southern Sweden, the landowner and the person who conducts the hunting are the same person. That is not how it looks everywhere. Therefore, the problems can look a bit different in different parts of the country. But the basis, that one has a bit more to say when one owns something, I think is reasonable in relation to other interests.

Mr. Speaker! We have also discussed the management of wild boar. My basic position regarding wild boar is, in fact, that the population should be kept at a low level and the feeding at a low level. Those two things are very much interconnected.

Just as has been stated here in the chamber today, there are many technical aids to reduce the populations. We have also received these in many places, though not everywhere. Where we cannot reduce the populations, this often becomes a plague, even if it looks a bit different. In the Småland highlands, where I come from, wild boar and stones are not a good combination. The stones that many times come up during harvest and cause great damage to the baling machines are a misery. A perhaps even greater problem is the soil mixture in silage which causes problems, for example mastitis. It is also not possible to distinguish it from healthy feed, and this occurs sporadically.

I believe, despite everything, that the wild boar issue is manageable, because we have received so many tools. It is just a matter of not stimulating more wild boars, because then we will also get more problems.

Predator management involves a completely different type of problem when one has domestic animals. Even though our cattle today have never seen a wolf in their entire lives, their genetics mean that they behave in a certain way when they notice a wolf. It is a type of flight behavior, because they are very afraid of the wolf. It is quite exciting to see this, but it creates very large problems. Wolves can wander over very large distances. They can move across an entire county in a relatively short time, and when they move through the county, they pounce on many domestic animals along the way. Getting these domestic animals out on roads and in the forest involves problems; that cannot be avoided. A strong limitation of the wolf population is therefore a way forward. That is what we largely agree on in the Riksdag – not everyone, but we have in any case a majority for this. On the other hand, we have not seen any effect of it.

I am quite skeptical about wildlife-deterring fences and such. Not even the county administrative boards have managed to keep watch over wild boar within fences; that is why we have wild boar today. Should every individual farmer then have to keep track of their predator-deterring fences over time? It is enough for the first storm to blow them down. Much of the grazing land also lies in the middle of forest land. It is about very many miles of fencing, which also makes it harder for the public to enter the forest. It is something we rarely hear, but which I think we should take with us.

On the other hand, perhaps the technology is with us. We have heard of virtual fences, and I would like to see attempts at putting collars on our wolves. Then they can be directed to a large geographical area where they can roam quite freely and live in a natural way. We would then also have some control over where they are in relation to our domestic animals. This should be possible, and it would be interesting to proceed with that. I must admit that I have not anchored this very strongly in my party, but I see it as an opportunity for a future discussion.

Mr. Speaker! I see that I have exceeded my speaking time slightly, but I must mention something about the seam.

The cormorant is important, and we are probably in agreement that we must reduce the management of the cormorant. One problem is that we say we are to be adaptive and be active and do things in time. But we are not. It takes too long. Today's small-scale fishers have switched to fishing equipment with trawls even on the small eight-meter boats just because they do not want to suffer damage from cormorants and seals. When we then make decisions, we should not believe that they go back to how it was before. Therefore, we must be much faster than we have historically been when we handle decisions regarding management.

I also share the view that we must have a rethink in the Renmark Committee. If you go in and look at clips from SVT, you can see a segment from 1961 where it is said that this is a difficult issue and that it has been for a long time. Now it is 2026, and we are still not finished. But the more one looks at the issue, the more obvious it is that we must include more interests. Now we perhaps see the result of the Girjas judgment, and more is required for everyone to be satisfied with management and influence even in the north. This we must do together with the Sámi and other interests.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 7.

It has been a quite interesting and in many parts clarifying debate. For those who perhaps have not watched the entire debate, I thought I would summarize it and thereby also challenge my colleagues if it is the case that I have misunderstood something.

What is heard from all parties except Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet is that they want to encourage more hunting. More meat should come out. They are positive towards the license hunting of lynx. They are critical of environmental organizations' opportunity to appeal. Overall, this is a very worrying development. They also stand firm on the position that political goals take precedence over and override EU legislation – they say that we have made decisions to shoot down and halve the wolf population despite it violating the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives.

In that way, it is clarifying, and if I have now misunderstood something, you are welcome to request a reply.

Mr. Speaker! It is easy to get a different picture when listening to this debate, but lynxes are very popular animals if you ask the Swedish people. In the opinion polls that are continuously conducted by SLU, 80 percent of the Swedish people are positive about there being lynxes in Sweden. 69 percent are positive about there being wolves in Sweden.

From the Kristdemokraterna side, it has been mentioned that there has been no decision in the EU Court or similar. But the EU Commission has written a critical letter, which has caused some to perhaps look a bit startled and react to the fact that what we are doing regarding wolf management and the political goal of halving and reducing the wolf population to 170 individuals very clearly contradicts the Habitats Directive. If favorable conservation status means anything, one simply must pull some kind of emergency brake.

Mr. Speaker! The license hunt for lynx has been taken to court. After following the debate here and also outside, I cannot help but reflect on my time in India and Cambodia, where we worked very much with tigers. The lynx, which we have in Sweden, is thus Europe's iconic predator. Very many Swedes dream of seeing it. Perhaps most have not done so, but it still means something. It is one of the most beloved animals in Sweden.

Depending on how you look at it, the conservation status is favorable according to the EU's Birds and Habitats Directives. But we also have the red list in Sweden, where the lynx's status is classified as vulnerable. We also have different obligations in the Birds and Habitats Directive regarding how and when hunting can be conducted, and right now is a sensitive period for the lynx because it is their mating period.

In a debate between me and the Social Democrats, it was incorrectly stated that pregnant females are not shot, but in autopsies it has been possible to show that it happens. In 2022–2024, five pregnant females were shot during the lynx hunt.

If we may have lost some respect for the lynx, we must nevertheless remember that they are our equivalent to tigers.

The licensing hunt is not carried out because the wolverines are dangerous to us. They are very shy, rarely show themselves and pose no danger to society, and there is a protection hunt to be able to shoot down those individuals that have an escalating behavior and that, for example, repeatedly attack sheep.

It is sometimes mentioned that license hunting exists to increase acceptance. For whom? Studies show that the risk of illegal hunting increases when legal hunting is introduced for endangered animals. This is incredibly worrying. One would wish that illegal hunting were something that all parties took up and that united us, but instead, a common denominator is that lynxes should be shot. I would have wished for a greater mobilization around illegal hunting. Vänsterpartiet is an exception because they protect the lynxes and are against license hunting on them.

According to the legislation, license hunting should be the absolute last tool among a multitude of different tools. But in the Swedish administration, they go directly to license hunting. Miljöpartiet is strongly critical of this, and I cannot understand those who justify this hunt – a hunt that hundreds of foreign hunters are both invited to and register for. I cannot understand it in any other way than that it is about pure and simple trophy hunting.

Mr. Speaker! The first thing that happens when a wolverine is shot is that it is skinned and the hide is kept. Then the body is sent to the State Veterinary Institute for autopsy, and in some cases, they have thus found cubs in the wolverine's uterus. If one as a hunter wants to keep the skull, one can pay an extra fee for it. I have asked, and a majority of all hunters do so.

At the same time, the lynx is on the CITES list of species that one is not allowed to trade. This has been established so that there are no economic incentives driving a market that leads a species down a steep precipice to the brink of extinction.

I mean that this is a loophole in our legislation. We say no to trading with these skins and skulls, but as a foreign hunter, one can purchase a hunting trip and thereby also retain both skins and skulls.

Mr. Speaker! Illegal hunting is, as said, an issue I would have wished for greater support for, perhaps with equally strong condemnations as we have heard regarding the activists who sabotage hunting. I think we can have two thoughts in our heads at the same time.

We are talking about a serious hunting crime that hits our predators hard. We can also see that the national parks have been emptied of predators due to widespread illegal hunting. It is shocking that the areas that have been designated to be protected have become places where illegal hunting dominates so strongly and is so normalized that there will soon be no predators left there.

There are alarming studies showing that hunters choose not to report misfired or illegally shot animals because they think it is better to handle it internally. Society needs to take decisive action against this for it to have any effect. If one does not risk discovery and there are no convictions, there is a high risk that predators and other animals will fall victim to illegal hunting.

Mr. Speaker! We in Miljöpartiet want to try to be constructive and work with preventive measures. According to Naturvårdsverket, predator-deterrent fences are the most effective measure to prevent damage to enclosed domestic animals. According to Viltskadecenter, correctly erected fences can reduce attacks by 80–90 percent. I cannot understand why one chooses to turn a blind eye to this fact. If one truly wants to protect Sweden's farmers and enable coexistence, that is where the measures should be implemented.

(Applause)

In this speech, Katarina Luhr (MP) agreed.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Rebecka Le Moine for her views, even though I do not share them.

It is quite clearly noticeable when hunters and those who claim to protect the animals speak, because it does not always align. You are wrong, Rebecka Le Moine, because I never said that a hunter does not shoot a pregnant female animal. We simply cannot see that. I said that we never shoot a female animal that has live young with it – just as we do not shoot a cow with calves or a doe with a fawn. It is hunting ethics.

Regarding the license hunt for wolverines, as I described earlier, very careful investigations have been carried out. Unfortunately, the inventory of wolverines in Sweden is very complicated, and the authorities themselves have stated that there are probably significantly more animals than the inventory has shown. To have a license hunt for wolverines under these circumstances is therefore neither wrong nor ethically insane.

If the hunting association did not try to keep the lynx population at a reasonable level, those who today protest against these hunts would protest against the fact that Sweden might no longer have any deer. In just 14 days, I have seen eight half-eaten carcasses of deer and deer fawns, and it is not a beautiful sight.

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Hunting ethics were mentioned. Does the member mean that it is good hunting ethics to hunt wolverines during their most sensitive period, the mating period? If that is good hunting ethics, I am terrified.

I interpret the Social Democrats as follows: If one can kill, then one shall kill. I cannot understand why one chooses to create such a harsh world. As long as a species is not exterminated, it shall be shot. What is that view on animals? I do not share this view. Where is the limit if the criterion is that they may be killed as long as they do not disappear completely?

This killing of wolverines is so incredibly unnecessary and lacks acceptance among the Swedish people. One invites hundreds of foreign hunters who shoot wolverines away from the Swedish fauna – wolverines that many Swedes dream of seeing. Whose interests are being protected then? It is not the interests of the Swedish people.

Mr. Speaker! I am a conservation biologist. Nature is life and death, eating and being eaten. One may think whatever one wants as a human about the view of that, but that is how nature works. I do not think we should play God and judge what is good and evil in this. If we have ecosystems in balance, they require their top predators. There we really do not need to be involved and manage, shoot and kill just because we can.

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

Tomas Kronståhl (S)

Mr. Speaker! What Member Rebecka Le Moine is saying is actually that Miljöpartiet is completely against hunting. That is the result of the reasoning she is now presenting.

We do not need to call it killing animals, instead we can say that we preserve other animal species. That is exactly what we do. There are no predators that do not live on other animals. I do not think they eat them alive, but it is about the fact that they, in turn, actually kill animals.

When it comes to inviting or people coming from outside to hunt, one must have a special license to be allowed to hunt predators in Sweden. I, for example, am not allowed to hunt predators, because I do not have such a license. The hunting right belongs to the landowner, and the landowner has the right to invite hunters, just as we are invited to Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Finland to hunt in different places.

There is nothing unethical about keeping a hide after a hunt finished, just as little as it is unethical to eat the meat after a successful hunt. It is also old hunting tradition. The hunter keeps the horn and the tongue and previously also the liver. After Chernobyl, the liver disappeared, but the tongue and the horn are still the hunter's. It is hunting tradition.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is so clearly noticeable when someone without hunting experience is involved in the discussion and believes they are protecting a game species that would take a completely dominant position on the market if we did not manage it. In that case, it would instead be the deer that are protected – I know that.

(Applause)

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

Rebecka Le Moine (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Let me ask the member: How many of the lynxes are being eaten? How many of the wolves are being eaten? I hope the member does not believe that hunting moose and hunting lynxes is the same thing. Naturally, there is a difference if there is a reason, such as being able to fill your freezer and contribute to food production through hunting wild boar or moose, whose meat can be utilized as a resource.

The wildlife hunting is merely a trophy hunt. I hope that can sink in, because what the Social Democrats are backing is a trophy hunt that is condemned in the CITES convention. It is quite significant that the Social Democrats are betraying the intention of that convention, which they are now doing from the rostrum.

Then I would like to encourage the member to look around a bit and see what it looks like in Spain, Portugal, Romania, Italy, and so on. According to the reasoning the member put forward, there would be no prey animals there – none at all – because there are no wild animals or prey animals if there are top predators. But the truth is that there are prey animals.

The chairman argued that there will not be any wild animals if we are to have lynxes, but it is not that simple. There are plenty of prey animals in all the countries that have thousands of top predators. Nor is it an argument that can be proven.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 11 March.)

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