Response to interpellation 2022/23:342 on wolves in the countryside
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
KD considers the wolf population to be too large and creating negative effects for residents and livestock farming 1 2. KD wants to lower the wolf's protection status in the EU to increase the possibility of protection hunting and reduce conflicts 1 3. KD argues that the government is now actively working towards a smaller wolf population 2 3 and wants to review or appoint new investigations regarding protection hunting 4. KD considers that county governors should be given exact instructions on how many wolves may be shot 4 and claims that they have come further in eight months than the previous government 4. S considers the wolf to be a problem and an invasive species that harms animals and nature 5. S demands more action and that hundreds of wolves be shot during the next hunt 6 7. S considers that the Minister for Rural Affairs should use the government's tools to significantly reduce the wolf population 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Patrik Björck has asked me when and how I intend to act in light of the spread of wolves.
I am well aware of the problems the wolf creates in the countryside. It is primarily livestock owners and hunters who are affected, but others in the countryside can also experience having their lives restricted by the expansion of the wolf population. It is therefore very important to have functioning tools to handle situations with, for example, approachable wolves so that serious damage is prevented.
In the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's guidance to the county administrative boards ahead of the winter license hunt, the following was stated: "Based on the development of the wolf population in recent years, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency considers that there may now be room to decide on larger removals during the license hunt for wolves than in previous years."
The County Administrative Boards followed the guidance and decided in September that 75 wolves should be culled during the upcoming license hunt, of which 57 were later culled. This is the largest decided hunting quota for wolves since the license hunt was introduced.
Mr. Speaker! I have recently held a meeting with the county governors in the counties where license hunting was conducted. It was a good meeting in a constructive spirit, and it was particularly interesting to hear the reasoning regarding the reasons why the entire hunting quota was not filled. I have also held a meeting with the county governors in the other counties with a permanent presence of wolves to get their view of how the management functions. These are important pieces of the puzzle in the ongoing work to get a picture of what can and needs to be changed in the management.
In the broader perspective, the government wants to work towards lowering the wolf's protection status by working to have the wolf moved from Annex IV to Annex V in the Habitats Directive. Such a change can increase the possibility of taking measures, for example, protection hunting, in order to reduce conflicts between humans and wolves.
When it comes to the management of wolves, I have the greatest understanding of the negative effects the wolf creates, almost exclusively in the countryside. The wolf must have the conditions to exist in Sweden in the long term, and we have EU legal obligations to fulfill. But I will do everything in my power to reduce the wolf's negative effects, and it needs to be a significantly smaller population than today.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! My interpellation read: "The wolf plague is now spreading rapidly. The anger and frustration is great among those of us who live in the countryside." The Minister for Rural Affairs missed this in his answer.
What is important, I believe, is to understand why the anger and frustration are so great. The urbanization that Swedish society has undergone over a long period makes it very difficult for many people to see and understand this anger. One has difficulty understanding how animals and nature actually function. If one thinks that Djurgården represents living nature or that Slottsskogen is evidence of a forest, then one knows very little about animals and nature.
Mr. Speaker! I will take an example: The rat is an intelligent and social mammal that exists in pretty much all over the world. It is an animal that very many have a relationship with, but very few get upset if one takes the life of a rat. The wolf is an intelligent and social mammal that is spread over in pretty much all over the world. It is an animal that is not even anywhere near being endangered, but for some reason, people get upset if one takes the life of a wolf. It is a bit incomprehensible, because there is no morality that says it would be worse to take the life of a rat than to take the life of a wolf.
It is here it becomes difficult for us who live in the countryside to understand. The rat can be perceived as a pest, and the wolf can be perceived as a pest. That is not strange. That is how we humans have viewed animals and nature and managed this for thousands and tens of thousands of years. But the urbanized human who lives very far from everyday life has acquired some kind of romantic or exotic view of animals and nature, and I believe that is dangerous for Sweden as a society and for Sweden as a country.
I believe one could also argue that the wolf is an invasive animal species. That is something we talk about a lot today – animal species that are not desirable. In my constituency, we have not had wolves for many hundreds of years. That they are there now is only because humans have brought them there. With human help, they have been able to establish themselves, and they cause great damage to animals and nature. The wolf is simply a problem. It is simply a cost. It is very important to remember that. It adds nothing ecologically or socially for us. We have managed without it for many hundreds of years. This is a fact. It is a problem. If, in addition, one thinks that a living countryside and biodiversity are something one wants to work for, then the wolf is a very big problem. But if one does not think that a living countryside and biodiversity are important, then the wolf is a smaller problem. I can understand that. But the wolf is always a problem.
Then my question to the Minister for Rural Affairs is: Does the Minister for Rural Affairs share my concern regarding this problem, and does the Minister for Rural Affairs view this problem with the same seriousness as I do for animal owners, farm owners, horse owners, dog owners, hunters and rural residents all over Sweden?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by saying that this government, unlike previous governments, has stated goals and ambitions. We believe, like a majority in the Riksdag - and obviously also the member - that the wolf population is too large today. We cannot turn a blind eye to the negative impact the wolf has on residents and not least on animal husbandry. I appreciate the commitment to the issue and can only regret that the member's party chose not to act during their eight years - that is, as many years as I have had months on me in this issue. Had you taken measures earlier, it would have looked different this year. In just the last parliamentary term, the wolf population has increased by 150 individuals.
I have, as I said, been Minister for Rural Affairs for eight months, and I have already started turning over every stone to move forward in this issue. The meetings I had with the County Administrative Governors were an important step in obtaining a good situational picture from those who, in the end, decide on the guidelines, among other things, that we set up. Several County Administrative Governors also highlighted the importance of the so-called rules of thumb. They look at, for example, how many attacks were needed before a protection hunt can be decided. This is something we are going to look into more closely. I have also asked my political staff to review the assignments that are already in place and see if we need to initiate new assignments so that we can reach the point where we can reduce the wolf population. I will get back with updates as we progress through the different steps.
Believe me, it is my ambition that we will achieve the necessary changes shortly, in contrast to previous governments, which at the eleventh hour chose to appoint another investigation instead of acting. We are also reviewing that right now, to see if it should remain as it is or if it should be reformulated to more clearly meet the ambitions the government has.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! I note that the Minister for Rural Affairs does not answer my question on whether he shares my concern and views with the same seriousness what this is causing. It is also quite clear in the interpellation response, where the Minister for Rural Affairs tries to give a slightly more flattering picture of the situation. Furthermore, it becomes a bit comical when the Minister for Rural Affairs tries to shift the blame by pointing to the previous government. When I ask a very concrete question – how and when does the Minister for Rural Affairs intend to act in light of the wolf's spread? – the Minister for Rural Affairs responds by listing everything that the previous government has done, Mr. Speaker. It becomes a bit comical.
Then the Minister for Rural Affairs brings up something that he has actually done, and it is a meeting with the County Administrative Governors. It is a bit funny to read how the County Administrative Governors perceived this meeting: No decision on wolf hunting - on Monday, the County Administrative Governors from the counties that have wolves but no license hunting were in a meeting with Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren to discuss the wolf issue. As a conclusion, it is stated that the meeting did not result in any decisions on wolf hunting and that the minister could not provide any promises from the meeting. It is the County Administrative Governor in Jönköping County - so it is not my constituency, but my neighboring constituency - who gives this description of the active Minister for Rural Affairs. The only thing the Minister for Rural Affairs shows off of what he claims to have done is described by the County Administrative Governors who sat in the meeting as no decisions, no promises, and no actions. It is clear that this creates concern. One must still have some respect for that.
If the Minister for Rural Affairs takes this concern seriously, it is good that the Minister for Rural Affairs wants to review, for example, the protection hunt. I believe that it is one of the absolutely most important parts for managing the concern that the wolf creates. Today, we have instances where the wolf can attack time and again without any protection hunt taking place, and the animal owners feel completely abandoned. It also creates a mistrust towards both democracy and authorities when animal owners are treated in that way.
I was out and spoke with a sheep farmer who was about to let his animals out to pasture. The sheep farmer had asked the authority's representative: What should I do if there is a wolf attack? The authority's representative answered: Well, you just have to bring the sheep in. Then the sheep owner said: Now, the situation is that I am going to let out 900 sheep on large areas all around the district, and there is no possibility in the world for me to bring in all the sheep. No, replied the authority's representative; then you must put up predator-deterring fences. The sheep owner answered: I have three miles of sheep fencing - there is no possibility in the world for me to put up, maintain, and uphold predator-deterring fences. In many of the places where I keep the land open and care for the biodiversity, I also do not have access to electricity. Then the authority representative shook his head a little and said: Then there isn't much you can do. That was the answer the sheep owner received.
This concern is serious, and it must be met with seriousness. Therefore, we want to see much more workshop and a little less empty words in the future.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! Just as I mentioned in my previous contribution, the government will return as soon as possible with information on what concrete measures we will take to address the issues we see with an increased and widespread wolf population.
I have received several interpellations regarding wolves from individuals from the previous government or from the previous government base, and given the commitment that now suddenly seems to exist there, I wonder why the previous government did nothing other than let the wolf population increase by around 150 wolves during the last mandate period.
The county governor meetings I have had are a step toward arriving at what we should change and what assignments we should give, but also in hearing directly from those who decide on the wolf hunt, as it has been during the winter, and from those who daily handle issues regarding protection hunting.
We would certainly have seen each other in another room if there had been a different message from the landshövdingsmötet, i.e., if I had directly told the authorities exactly how they should conduct wolf hunting. A minister may not do this in Sweden, but on the other hand, we can have a dialogue with our agency officials. We can agree on which assignments the government as a collective wants to place on different agencies and then take it from there.
For eight years, the tone has been completely different than what is heard from the member here today. It is not that I think it is stupid, but it is very good if more of us stand up for and actively work to get a smaller wolf population. I agree with many of the points from the member. We see problems daily, primarily for farmers who keep animals. They have their animals torn apart, and they move their animals closer to the farm center because they no longer dare to have them near the forest. We also see reports all too often of animals that have been torn apart or scared to such an extent that one has to search for cows in the forest for several months.
As I also mentioned earlier, the government wants to work towards lowering the wolf's protection status within the EU by moving it from Annex IV to Annex V in the Birds and Habitats Directive. In the latest published data regarding the status of wolves in Europe, which the member also touched upon, a generally positive trend for the wolf's development in the Union is highlighted. The wolf at the European level is assessed to be viable, and our assessment is therefore that it is reasonable to lower the status at the European level. If we succeed with this, the species will have the same protection according to the Birds and Habitats Directive as, for example, our Swedish seal species and the beaver.
Furthermore, the wolf is already listed in Annex V in a number of Member States, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia and Poland. Parts of the wolf population in Finland, Spain and Greece are also listed in Annex V. The Government considers it not good that the level of protection for wolves differs between Member States in that way. The differences can be questioned between countries and negatively affect the perception of the directive and, in the long run, also negatively affect a long-term sustainable management of wolves.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! There are some things that the Minister for Rural Affairs can take on immediately, and one very important such thing is the protection hunt. At the next hunt, hundreds of wolves definitely need to be shot so that we can reach the democratically established targets. When I last spoke with the case officers, the figures were not finalized, but it is believed that there may be up to 700 individuals in Sweden today. If we are to get down to 170, we need to hunt hundreds of wolves now.
There is one more thing, Mr. Speaker, which I believe is very important. Now, it is a wolf debate, so it might be a bit wrong to use a worn-out expression like the tail wagging the dog. But that is a bit how it feels now – that it is the authorities who are wagging the Minister for Rural Affairs.
I believe it would be good if the Minister for Rural Affairs took their responsibility and actually governed the country, because it is a government's responsibility to do so. If one does this with the tools that exist for governing agencies, there is no risk of ending up in the Committee on the Constitution – I can promise that. That happens when one does it in an incorrect way.
To try to assert here in the parliamentary rostrum that one, as Minister for Rural Affairs, has no responsibility and has no possibility to govern is actually to say something that is not true. So take power over the authorities with the tools that the government has at its disposal! Ensure that we significantly reduce the wolf population!
I want to ask a question. In connection with the recent wolf attacks here in my constituency, no decision was made regarding license hunting. The representative for the authority said that they do not want to disturb the wolf when it has cubs. This is something a sheep owner who has ewes that have lambed should hear—that they do not want to disturb the wolf when it has cubs. The sheep owners find it very difficult when the ewes become anxious when they have lambs. Does the Minister for Rural Affairs understand this?
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for having my words distorted. What you are describing, Patrik Björck, is exactly what I have said we should do. We shall look at which investigations are ongoing and review whether we should change them and which new investigations we should appoint regarding, for example, protection hunting.
That I, in this situation, should tell the county governors exactly what they should do, i.e., give instructions on how many wolves may be shot in Jönköping or whatever it was the member asked for, would be to go beyond my mandate. We shall do this by the book. These are questions that are often inflammatory. We shall do this in a seriously grounded manner so that we can move forward.
For eight years, nothing has happened regarding the management of wolves in this country. I have had eight months, and we have come significantly further than what the Social Democratic-led government managed to achieve during the last two parliamentary terms. But then, it was also a different tune. The Green Party was allowed to have a veto in these matters, and we know what they think.
I want to convey to the member that he can rest assured that we will do what we can to address the problems that the wolf causes and that we will do everything we can to reduce the wolf population.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.