Response to interpellation 2025/26:131 on wolf hunting 2026
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 KD argues that the government has paved the way to reduce the wolf population by pushing for a changed protection status in the EU's Habitats Directive 1. 2 KD emphasizes that the wolf population has decreased every year through licensed hunting, protection hunting, and updated guidelines 2. 3 KD claims that the wolf population spiraled out of control under S's leadership and that they are now working to reach the goal of 270 individuals 3. 4 KD argues that the government's policy aims to create safety and freedom 4, that it has been urgent to change basic requirements for active management 4 and that there are fewer wolves now than under the Social Democratic-led government 4. 5 S argues that the wolf population is increasing uncontrollably under KD's leadership and that the hunt is cancelled 5. 6 S argues that one year with S's government provided more licenses than four years with KD 6. 7 S considers that the government's policy has led to zero allocated wolves in this year's licensed hunt 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 if I mean that the decision on licensed hunting of 48 wolves lives up to the promise that more than half of the wolf population will be reduced and if I, if that is not the case, intend to take any action within my area of responsibility. Patrik Björck has further asked me what my position is regarding the rules that have been established concerning the wolf hunt. Finally, Patrik Björck has asked me if I intend to take any general measures so that the wolf population will be halved if 48 wolves are not culled during the wolf hunt.
I want to begin by stating that through a number of measures, we have paved the way for our goal of reducing the wolf population. The Government, among other things, purposefully pushed the process for the wolf's protection status to be changed in the EU's Habitats Directive. A change of the wolf's protection status from strictly protected to protected gives us greater room for maneuver so that we can manage the wolf population more purposefully while ensuring the wolf's favorable conservation status.
During 2023, the Government tasked the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency with updating the guidelines for protection hunting of wolves. In the updated guidelines, for example, the level at which protection hunting can be granted for attacks on dogs, sheep, and goats was lowered.
In order to be able to achieve the predator policy goals, it is important that the tools available to prevent serious harm to, for example, domestic animals are designed and function as well as possible to fulfill their purpose.
The Swedish wolf population needs to be reduced to decrease the negative socio-economic effects, while Sweden fulfills its EU legal obligations. The reduction therefore needs to be carried out gradually.
The government has clearly expressed that a first sub-goal in the wolf management is to reduce the population to 270 individuals by the license hunt in 2026. The County Administrative Boards also decided on license hunting for wolves, but the decisions were overturned by the Administrative Court following appeals.
The Administrative Court's judgments were appealed by the county administrative boards. The Court of Appeal has dismissed all appeals, which means that the decision on license hunting remains revoked. The judgments will now be analyzed in the Government Offices and consultations will be conducted with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the relevant county administrative boards to create good conditions for a sustainable and well-functioning wolf management moving forward.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! Peter Kullgren ran for election on a promise to at least halve the wolf population and to increase the hunting. The result of Peter Kullgren's nearly four years in power is that the wolf population is increasing uncontrollably and that the hunting is cancelled. That is where the election promises led.
Mr. Speaker! I wrote this interpellation at the beginning of November. I want the Speaker's Presidency to reflect on that for a bit. Now it is the beginning of February. I wrote it because I felt disappointment over the decision that was taken in November regarding the license hunting of 48 wolves.
Today, when the Minister for Rural Affairs finally – several months later – deigns to come to the Riksdag to answer questions from us members, the hunt is down to zero. Peter Kullgren's failure is so fatal and brutal that it is difficult to imagine how it feels to meet the voters again with that behind him. The result of Peter Kullgren's work is, as stated, an uncontrolled increase in the wolf population and a cancelled hunt.
Mr. Speaker! I must state that it does not only take several months before the minister arrives here, but when the minister finally does, he does not even answer the questions. It is disrespectful towards the Riksdag and the Riksdag's elected members, who represent the people.
I asked whether the decision regarding 48 wolves lives up to the promise to more than halve the wolf population. Not a single nod of agreement was received in response to that question from the Minister for Rural Affairs. I hope that the Minister answers in his next contribution.
It certainly became zero, but the question remains: If it had been a hunt for 48 wolves, would it have meant a halving of the wolf population? Naturally not. One would not even have been close to the target of 270 wolves. The reasonable assessment today is that there are over 500 wolves running in Sweden, following the rejuvenation that occurred after the latest inventory. Since there will be no license hunt for wolves now and a new, second rejuvenation is occurring, perhaps we will have up to 600 wolves running in Sweden's forests soon.
The wolves are causing damage to the rural population, the livestock owners and the hunters and making life harder in the countryside. At the same time, the biodiversity is decreasing because the wolf in this context is a pest.
I also asked what the minister's position was regarding the rules for the wolf hunt. The hunters were extremely upset about the rules for GPS tracking and the like. There was not a single bit of an answer from the Minister for Rural Affairs on that question. Furthermore, I asked if the minister intended to take any general measures to reduce the wolf population. But there was not a single bit of an answer to any of my three important questions.
Mr. Speaker! I look forward with anticipation to the Minister for Rural Affairs using his time in the speaker's chair to actually answer my three very relevant questions now that he has finally arrived here after several months of delay.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by apologizing for the delay. It is due to the fact that I became ill – it happens to agricultural ministers too – and that it was not possible to have any interpellation debates during the Christmas and New Year holidays.
I move on to the issue at hand. The way the member debates casts a sheen of ridicule over this entire discussion. Everyone who is even slightly engaged or knowledgeable about the wolf policy discussion knows that we have fewer wolves now than during the entire time the Social Democrats ruled this country.
The member's chest tones could make one believe that the Social Democrats were trying to do something about the situation for real, but they did not. When they had the opportunity to influence the reference value in 2019, they chose not to do a damn thing. The wolf pack ran wild in Sweden under Social Democratic leadership. Neither Patrik Björck nor any other Social Democrat can claim anything else, because those statistics are given.
Mr. Speaker! For the member to pull figures out of a hat regarding how many wolves are running around in the Swedish forests is also not worthy of a debate in the Swedish Riksdag. The member must stick to the facts that actually exist. Otherwise, it is impossible to conduct a sane debate and discussion about this. We have official figures in Sweden.
We are one of the countries in the world that has the best grip on our wolves. That is why we have established that the possibility exists to go below the previous reference value of 300 wolves to 270, in a first step, with the goal of ending up as low as possible. The basic prerequisite to get there and for me to be able to keep the promise I gave to many voters about what I will work for was that we changed the reference value. We have done that. The Social Democrats never did.
We saw to it that we got an amendment of first the Bern Convention and thereafter of the Birds and Habitats Directive. The Social Democrats never succeeded in doing that.
Within a government, it is a matter of not choosing to include parties that pursue a completely opposite agenda to the one one proclaims for oneself. That is what the Green Party does – which, judging by everything, is a party the Social Democrats want to govern with again, if given the opportunity. It is quite exciting. We have further interpellation debates here this afternoon. Those who are interested can reflect on how a Social Democrat-led government is to reconcile its wolf policy. If one first listens to MP Patrik Björck and subsequently to MP Rebecka Le Moine, one hears that they do not only come from different ends of our elongated country, but from completely different planets when it comes to the wolf policy.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! I just want, so that we can be sure of the figures, to point out that Peter Kullgren's four years as Minister for Rural Affairs led to 66 decided licenses for wolf hunting. During the last year with a Social Democratic-led government, the number of decisions on license hunting was 75. One year with a Social Democratic government beats four years with Peter Kullgren. Taste those figures, Mr. Speaker!
Since I know that Peter Kullgren does not like to debate wolves with me, I thought it could be interesting to hear how Peter Kullgren responds to a column in the newspaper Svensk Jakt. The headline is "The one who bites off more than they can chew," and the column is about Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren. In Svensk Jakt, they write the following – so it is not I who am writing, Mr. Speaker.
"... since politicians should be judged based on what they deliver in terms of results, not [nota bene!] based on what they promise, one must unfortunately conclude that the suspended wolf hunt is a failure for the government that went to the election in 2022 to reduce the size of the Swedish wolf population."
The column in Svensk Jakt continues: ”Perhaps the eagerness was due to the fact that the current year is the last of the mandate period for the sitting government?” Hopefully that is the case; it seems that at the newspaper Svensk Jakt they know how to vote. This was a reflection from my side. The column continues: ”It is as known that it is an election year, and the government has promised to reduce the wolf population. That the eagerness to fulfill an election promise contributed to stopping the 2026 wolf hunt is a fact that is not without irony."
The proverb 'He who grasps for too much often loses the whole lot' seems applicable here. The decision, in fact, cost a wolf hunt, and there is a risk that it could also lead to the level for favorable conservation status for wolves being permanently set at 300 individuals.
The latter would in that case be a fiasco for the government. Not least for Minister for Rural Affairs Peter Kullgren (KD), who in practice has staked his hunting policy trust capital on solving precisely the wolf issue during the current mandate period.
"There is nothing wrong with the ambition."
I can agree with the columnist on the last point: The ambition is nothing wrong with it. But it is results that count – that one actually delivers on their election promises and lets people in the Swedish countryside have their livestock farming and their hunting, take advantage of our pastures, safeguard biodiversity, strengthen our food production, especially in the state of readiness we have now, and ensure that it is possible to live in the countryside, raise one's sheep and contribute to both food supply and biodiversity. It is this that Peter Kullgren fails to deliver, Mr. Speaker.
The reason my tone in the debate becomes high is that when I visit my neighbors, I see how their sheep lie torn in the pasture and how one destroys the life's work of the rural population when one reduces the possibility of living in the countryside and contributing with biologically sustainable agriculture, farming and animal husbandry. When this is eroded, perhaps I raise the tone a little, Mr. Speaker. I must apologize for that, but I believe it is necessary. Peter Kullgren has, in fact, not delivered anything.
It can only be stated that the measures that Peter Kullgren says he has taken have led to a license allocation for zero wolves in 2026. This leads to the wolf population increasing uncontrollably under Peter Kullgren's leadership. And we can note, Mr. Speaker, that Peter Kullgren still has not made any attempt to answer a single one of my three questions.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! I believe that I am answering questions all the time. Regardless of what I answer, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that Patrik Björck will take it in. Furthermore, the debate is somewhat overrated.
But it is simply a matter of stating the facts. What was the reason that the previous government prepared a decision? We executed it – or the county administrative boards do. How could it be that we then had a hunt of 75 individuals? Yes, it was because the wolf population had grown so uncontrollably, well above the then-current reference value which was 300 individuals. It was a completely logical consequence of having allowed the wolf population to grow uncontrollably.
Since I took office, the wolf population has decreased every year through the license hunting decisions and protection hunting decisions that have been made and through the updates of protection hunting guidelines that have occurred. We have had and have a high ambition regarding reducing the wolf population. Therefore, we have done everything and taken all the steps one needs to take to at least be able to envision that one could reach what this chamber has decided, i.e., a wolf population of between 170 and 270 wolves.
A very fundamental prerequisite is that we ourselves report a reference value that lies within that interval. That is what Sweden's government has now done.
We do indeed have a dialogue with the commission. We have received a letter from a commission member and are currently preparing the response to this now. We are going to clarify and demonstrate why we have concluded that we can have a reference value of 170 wolves.
This must not be confused with the decision on the wolf hunt. There, we pointed out that in a first step we wanted to go down to the level of 270. It is about the fact that in the report that Naturvårdsverket has prepared, it is clearly described which measures we need to take so as not to miss our EU legal obligations. Therefore, in the state budgets, we have prioritized quite large resources to strengthen the management of wolves – all so that we can achieve a smaller wolf population.
Patrik Björck (S)
Mr. Speaker! We are talking a bit about what kind of company we keep. Peter Kullgren's government appointed Commissioner Jessika Roswall. Jessika Roswall, who is therefore an EU commissioner and appointed on Peter Kullgren's mandate, has received a question from the Greens in the European Parliament about how she views wolf hunting. According to the EU commissioner appointed by Peter Kullgren, the administration shall proceed based on a precautionary principle. If there is any uncertainty at all, hunting shall not be allowed. This is, therefore, what Peter Kullgren's government is pushing in Brussels, via the commissioner appointed by Peter Kullgren's government. It is clear that Peter Kullgren has a bit to think about.
We have discussed the wolf issue many times, Peter Kullgren and I. I know that Peter Kullgren is not so fond of discussing it. If it were only about theory, ambitions and will, Peter Kullgren and I could certainly reach an agreement. But it is exactly as the columnist in Svensk Jakt says: It doesn't matter if the result becomes zero. It is only results that count.
The last time we discussed this issue, in May last year, Peter Kullgren said: ”We have, as said … lowered the wolf's protection status at the EU level. The processes for adjusting the reference value and the new minimum levels are in full swing and should be completed well in time. […] All this together shall lead to a more efficient hunt, now and in the future, which takes us closer to our goal of a reduced wolf population.”
This is what Peter Kullgren promised here in this chamber in May 2025: that his measures would take us closer to the goal of a reduced wolf population. We see the result now. Zero allocated wolves in this year's license hunt is the result of Peter Kullgren's policy. Now Peter Kullgren can say what he wants in his closing remarks, but it is zero allocated wolves.
Landsbygdsministern Peter Kullgren (KD)
Mr. Speaker! As said: The government's policy aims to create security and freedom for everyone who lives and resides in Sweden. But we live in a time when the wolf is creeping ever closer and affecting people's security and everyday lives. It is precisely for that reason it has been urgent for us to change all the basic requirements that exist so that we can conduct an active administration. We will analyze the judgments that have now arrived and then try to move forward. But the government's goals remain firm.
No government in our state places itself above the courts. Something else that is important to point out, even though I perhaps did not think it would be necessary, is that the government's representation in the EU machinery in Brussels goes through the Council of Ministers and not through the Commission. The Commission is its own collegium and its own institution in Brussels. To try to assert that the government rules the Commission is to be a bit too misleading. I am completely convinced that Patrik Björck also knows this, but he chooses the narrative that fits the agenda.
I can state that we have fewer wolves now than we ever had under the Social Democratic-led government. I believe those who are watching the debate and are interested in this specific issue are quite happy that the Social Democrats and the Green Party did not get to continue governing, because then nothing would have happened regarding either the reference value or an amended Birds and Habitats Directive.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.