Norway to kill 25% of its wolves
 

The Norwegian government has decided to kill five of the country's grey wolves - a quarter of the entire population.

It says the decision is necessary to protect domestic livestock, but one campaign group has condemned the cull.

WWF-Norway says two wolves have been shot already, one of them from a pack which has not been targeted and which it fears may now not manage to survive.

Wolves are protected in Norway, and are listed as critically endangered, and WWF says many people oppose the cull.

The decision to kill five animals out of the 20 remaining in Norway was taken by the nature directorate, which advises the government. WWF-Norway is calling for an immediate halt to the hunt.

Survival 'at risk'

Its head, Rasmus Hansson, said: "If the Norwegian environment minister does not stop this hunt, he will have the dubious honour of allowing the regular hunting of a nationally endangered species.

Two grey wolves WWF-Canon/Chris Martin Bahr
Breeding may be at risk (Image: WWF-Canon/Chris Martin Bahr)
"The culling of 20-30% of a population this size is a serious threat to the survival of this species in Norway.

"This practice is contrary to internationally accepted standards for wildlife management. No other country that I know of has such an aggressive policy towards its wolves."

The Norwegian parliament decided last May the country should sustain at least three family packs of wolves.

Packs can range in size from two adults to 10 or more animals covering several generations. WWF says the current hunt will reduce the number of packs to two at most.

Mr Hansson told the BBC: "One wolf from the pack to be culled was shot on 15 January, and another female from a different pack on 21 January.

"We don't know the exact size of the targeted pack, because we don't know whether it produced any cubs last summer. If it did, they will be left orphaned.

Steady decline

"Now, in all likelihood, by killing the wrong animal they've ruined another pack. The animal was an alpha female, so breeding may be affected and the pack could dissolve."

Grey wolf in snow WWF-Canon/Roger LeGuen
Norway's wolves are now very rare (Image: WWF-Canon/Roger LeGuen)
WWF says there were an estimated 50-80 wolves in the southern part of Norway and Sweden in 2001, consisting of several families.

That year Norway approved the culling of eight out of its 25 wolves, leaving 20 today, because the target was not met.

A recent study of the wider Scandinavian wolf population concluded there were 120 at the most.

Mr Hansson said: "There is a serious risk of genetic degradation in this population because of its small size. A genetically healthy population... should have at least 800 individuals."

He told the BBC: "The cull is meant to protect sheep. Sheep farming occupies 90% of Norway's territory.

"We have 250-300,000 moose and 30,000 reindeer. In that perspective 800 wolves shouldn't be too many, though we've never suggested it - it's just a biological fact."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4194963.stm

I don't particularly care that they are wolves, doing this to any animal is criminal.

Scandinavian Wolves... aren't they a particular breed of wolf? The images of them I have found are very spectacular and definately rare... It's late and I don't know what to do about this right now, (I thought about writing to the EU parliament but then I remembered that Norway is not a member) Might do that anyhow, too late right now and I need to think.

Some would say they howl in rage... I'm too tired for that right now just angry and frustrated that some fellow humans can be so near sighted.

Cheers... maybe if we all think together on this there might be something which we can do. I don't fancy sitting on my backside and watching it happen.

Norvegian Dickheads...more funny shoot to a wolf that buy a Maremman Sheperd. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Does anybody have any idea if / how we could help?

As promised I looked into this problem a little.

It seems like Norwegians do not have a very good track record with wolves, this is not the first time they have done a similar cull, even though there are very few wolves in Norway, and this is without taking into account the effects of poaching (estimated to have killed 120 wolves in Scandinavia in the last 20 years… if you consider that the “stable” population size is around 100 animals that is enormous)

Here a couple of other articles for those who can stomach this sort of thing:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...icle958181.ece
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.ph...6-034037-6898r

This is a very interesting background paper to the whole wolf situation in Norway

http://www.wolfsociety.org.uk/educat.../no-4-2004.htm

So what is the current situation?

Of the five wolves scheduled to be shot, three have already been killed, including the alpha female of a pack that was supposed to be “spared” by the cull. In my opinion there is little that can be done to stop this current hunt, but judging from the past attitude of the Norwegian government it will not be the last one.

So what can be done about it?

Well, unless you want to hop over to Norway and stand between the wolves and the hunters (and there are some people who are doing just that) what you can do is write write and write.

Before you do write anywhere consider this though, if you want to be credible, you will need to be polite, and to the point. Express your concerns and your fears, but avoid anything which could be construed as insulting, no matter how much you feel like strangling the people responsible for this. Unless you remain polite your letter will be disregarded.

First you can write to the Norwegian ambassador in your country, expressing your feelings on this issue. Norway might not have an embassy in your country, in that case just write to the closest one. Here is a list. The point of this would be to let the Norwegians know you are not happy about this.

The next thing you can do is write to the people in your own country expressing your concern, contact environmental agencies, conservation groups, whomever you think might be interested and would need to know about this. Two points to this, on the one hand an informative point to let people who might feel concerned about this know what is happening, and on the other hand to try to see if they can do something. Probably not very much, but a lot of small efforts pay out in the long run.

Finally you can write to your MEP (members of the European Parliament). Even though Norway is not actually a member of the EU, by authorizing these culls of protected species it is in direct violation of the “Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention,1979)” which it ratified in 1989. Under this convention Canis lupus is classed as appendix II species (strictly protected species) meaning that the regulated hunting of wolves is prohibited. Since this document was drawn under the auspices of the Council of Europe (one of the EU organisms) it is appropriate to bring this issue up with your MEP. You can find out who they are and how to contact them here.

Having been nailed to my bed for most of the weekend, I’ve only had time to track this information down and have not yet been able to draft my letters, but should any of you think they might be useful I don’t have a problem sharing them with the forum.

Remember, one voice can make a difference in the end.

Sorry for responding that late.

The Norwegian government decission of killing one family group was based on the fact that one of the family groups in a certain area was said to be too much habituaded, that is become too much familiar to humans, livestock and environment and by that lost their natural shyness and became a possible threath to human and livestock including dogs.

During the last 10 years it's reported that wolf has killed approx 110 dogs, some in the backyards of family property.

Four species of the family group was killed, one escaped and a another fifth wolf was killed by mistake. This wolf was shot outside the protected area of her pack. The local authorities are now applying for licence to shoot the remaining member of the pack of five.

yppie ya-hoo! GO ON WITH THE HUNT ! KILL'EM ALL ! Togheter with the wales :twisted: :twisted:

Pardon me?

110? I have an other nice statistics. It is about the topic: Who is more dangerous in Slovakia? :wink:

"There are over 50000 people which go hunting to the forest in Slovakia. In the year 2000 they killed 9 916 deers, 15 751 roe deers, 15 926 wild boars and 13 116 dogs (!). They are also the reason why many people are killed and other tens wounded."

And for the end - another statistics about "Number of animals killed every year by the hunters and wolves in Slovakia". The description under the graph shows as follows (from the left to right): red deers, wild boars, roe deers, hawks, crows, magpies, jays and people (by wolves=0)

http://www.rodina.cz/g/deti/zvire/Vlk_clovek.jpg

And don't forget there are hundreds of wolves in Slovakia!

BTW: We have a lot more than 1000 wolves living in Poland and it doesn't mean they kill 10000 dogs every year... ;) Sure they kill also dogs but to be honest it apply mostly to homeless dogs runnig wild... Because they are easy prey.....

Even so, the nearness of the wolf and the fact that one pack has shown typical lack of shyness has scared people. I do understand that people may fear a wolf crossing their own yard and killing their dogs by their entrance.

Of course these wolves might have be trapped and transfered to other areas, - but protected areas are rare and occupied be other family groups.

I'm not in favor of this killing, and from my point of view it is wrong, - but the resistance against wolves are from certain groups considerable, - and this year a governmental election is taking place...

Sure - but don't you think it is strange that in so huge country like Norway there are only 25 wolves and there are already problems with them? There must be something wrong.... :|

We had also similar cases here and there are some wolves killed which were not affraid of people. But (almost) always people were guilty for it:
- sometimes because they took puppies from the burrows and left them in forest when the wolves were adult
- sometimes there was not enough food in the forest
- sometimes people "domesticated" wolves so they were no more affraid
- but in the most cases the people just say the wolves are dangerous simply because they hate them (don't forget wolves are the biggest competitors for hunters and...poachers and danger for unprotected herd).

The reinforcement of wolves is a bilateral Swedish/Norwegian agreement. The the protected areas are on both sides of the border and the areas are the natural habitat of the wolves. Even so, stray wolves are occationally observed way off the protected area. One or two have been shot, others are killed by train or by cars. ( Even not far from my property stray wolves occationally passes by more than once a year,)

Inside or close to the area are several local comunities and widespread farms. The areas are remote, the kids are bussed to school and have to wait for transportation along the side of the roads- sometimes in temperatures below 20 centigrades and large amount of snow.

(The rest have to wait for tomorrow ;) )

Does it mean that Norwegian authorities and local people expect wolves to obey administrative regulations? :shock: :) And if wolves don't follow the rules they should be exterminated?
Sorry, but I don't follow your line of argument. I understand these have just been unfortunate accidents... which should lead to more intensive/efficient protection of wolves rather than shooting them... :?
There are many more wolves in much more densly populated coutries than Norway. Statistics show that more poeple are shot /wounded accidentaly by hunters than attacked by wolves (almost none). Logical reasoning would lead to an absurd conclusion that hunters should be exterminated? :roll:

'course not
The "Norwegian" wolves are fully protected by law. The only exception is if wolves are *observed* killing livestock. To prevent further loss such wolves might be shot.

By tracking stray wolves it shows that they do not only stay in the wilderness. A map of the route of a stray wolf in the southern part of Norway showed that this individual at a large distance followed county and main roads and even passed very close to housing estates and in the outskirt of comunity centers. The population along the route was advised to show special care for their livestock and pets.

The WWF-Norway and cooperating enviromental organizations are protesting against the killing accusing the Government not to listen to the experts and have brought this sad case to trial. The Minister of Enviroment of Sweden regreted that the Norwegian Minister did not care neither to inform her nor to listen to the experts regarding the matter before the decission of killing was made.

And at least - one of our political parties announced today that in the forthcomming governmental elections the extermination of all Norwegian wolf family groups will be campaigned.

ah OK, nice kind of protection.

I thought that Berlusconi was the worst thing that could happen to a civil country, but there is ever something worser... :roll:

No wonder she was angry :o Especially if you share the wolves with the Swedish

You had better hurry up with the elections :bolt . Otherwise, you may end up with no more wolves to protect :evil:

WOLF SLAUGHTER IN NORWAY YET AGAIN

Petition:
STOP THE EXTERMINATION OF THE WOLF IN NORWAY

Margo's qouted links gives a fairly good summary of the situation.
Due to our experts the Norwegian protected area is large enough housing 3 family groups. Before the killing two groups were living inside the protected area and one group outside the area.

The family group living outside the protected area minus one individual was killed. In addition the female alpha of a family living inside the protected area was killed. This alpha female who carrying a radio collar was killed ouside the protected area. By killing the alpha female this family is broken-up. According to experts this may lead to far more killing of sheep..

In addition the links quoted in Margo's last posting, the Norwegian Alpha-group http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/alpha_purpose.htm is deeply concerned about the situation.

Terriblle arguments - wolfs are under protection if they live in a special area! If they move 1 m out they should be shot! :evil:
Its not a protection, its a concentration camp!!!

No, - that's not the point.
The Government has declared a protected area for wolf family groups. According to our experts this zone will provide space and prey for 3 family groups - remember : close to this area is pastures for sheep, cows, tame reindeer etc. If the number of wolf family groups exceed the number of 3 (20 individuals) more attacks on livestock may be expected, and the conflict will increase. It may also lead to poaching or poisoning of the wolves.

As said before: the wolves are protected by law, but in order to avoid extraordinary killing of livestock followed by killing of wolves, the number of wolves must bekept in accordance with the recommendations given by the experts.

[quote="perolav"]To avoid any confusion :D

The farmers are paid compensation for livestock killed by wolf but if the wolves are caught in the very act of killing livestock the may be killed.

There is an error in the whole attitude!!! Wolves belong to nature and have the right to live on the Earth, just like people. There is competition among species, but people have brains and should use them to protect environment.
I'm sorry to say this, but if you follow the above line of argument why don't you shoot all your wolves at once, stuff them and show in a museum. Dead wolves don't attact livestock! Maybe this's the ultimate goal of the whole policy ?! :evil:

Surely you government could be more generous towards your lesser brothers, especially that you have so few of them and Norway is not a small or poor country. You may soon end up with plenty of livestock and wolves in museums. Is business all that matters?

I belive this is more a philosophical issue rather than operational (how many wolves, where, why etc.) Some people claim the right to control every bit of land, decide about life and death of each wild animal etc. others feel that humans are just a part of nature and we should try to find best means of coexistance. Everybody can choose between these option now, but if too many chose the first one, our grandchildren will have no such choice... :cry:

From my point of view this is turning the whole matter upside down :)

At first: The historical facts show that the wolves of Norway (except from occationally stray individuals) was exterminated due to severe hunting approx 200 yrs ago. Based on this new farms were established and the farmers could have an income based on farming and harvesting the nature. By late 1960s the Swedish Government allowed family groups of wolves to stay in a protected area and in the late 1970 the Norwegian Government did the same based on the fact that "Swedish" wolves entered the Norwegian side of the border from the protected Swedish area. The resistance against this from farmers and supporting groups was severe as they claimed this as a threath to their income and way of living.

There is no evidence of the origin of the Scandinavian wolves. Those in favor of the wolves says they are individuals hailing from Russia/Finland/Estonia, - the opposite side claims to know they are a part of a Governmental clandestine attempt of reintroducing the wolves into Scandinavian nature by letting wolfs from Swedish Animal Parks or Zoological Gardens enter the nature.

Many of those in disfavour of the wolves on both sides of the Norwegian/Swedish border should like to see the whole pack exterminated. Those in favour would like to see the wolves living free as a part of our nature. And as you say: ".. we should try to find the best means of coexistance". From my point of view this means that as little loss as possible made by wolves should be brought upon livestock, and reduction of life quality of those humans living in or close to the protected areas should be kept as low as possible and close to none. From the farmers point of view this means a number of wolves as close to none as possible, - for the other side this means that the number of wolves should not extend the reccomendations made by our experts.

There is no doubt that the myths of the wolf is determining peoples view of these animals. These are also a used as a weapon in the hands of those disfavouring the wolf. Even if myths and opinions should be fought against by knowledge, thousand years of myths and misunderstanding is not wept away in a few decades.

Partly related to this: Last years banning of the CSV in Norway is a minor result of the Norwegian "battle of the wolf".

Hi all, look I dont live in a country where wolves live so Im not an expert. But is it or isnt it true that wolves have an effect on the enviroment and that removing them could mean disasterous results. Doesnt England have major problems with deer because they no longer have any predators and have reached plague proportions. Then they die from starvation. I know they want to reintroduce because of this but there are no wolves left? No one has a right to upset the whole balance, because there is no way to tell what will happen. perhaps a plague of mice that will kill the live stock? It happened here. And further more, farmers have coexisted with wolves before, how many breeds of dog exist for this reason. The farmers are being lazy and selfish. Besides as we can all see, killing a wolf can make things much worse. just look what will happen now a pack is missing one. We have had problems here with plague animals and any behaviourist will tell you shooting is not the answer. There can be no positive outcome from this, its only a quick fix solution.

I fully agree with your arguments, but for some people "attempts to find the best means of coexistance" means eliminating the weaker part in the conviction that immediate business returns are more important than the fate of the whole species. Unfortunately this policy is carried out without any insight into and reflexion on the long-term effects of the deed. It is sad but humans seem to have problems with learning form their own errors.

I'm sorry, perolav, but nobody will ever convince me, that coexistance=kiling, i.e. death :( Especially of healthy, beautiful and endangered animals. I'm also surprised your judgements rely so much on the opinions of experts. What experts? Authorities always employ specialists to confirm their policies. The smaller any population becomes, the more fragile its fate is. What will your experts say when you kill by mistake all your wolves or they die of infection or exceptionally severe winter conditions? New experts will be hired to criticise the former eggheads? Hasn't common sense always been the best expert?

I'm not an expert, and I don't know if any of us are. It's a fact that for approx 200 yrs the wolf have have not been seen in the Norwegian woods. The farmers and those others living in the area claim that reintroducing the wolf into the fauna has created a new situation. A new carnivore is harvesting the farmers income and is thratening the peoples qualitiy of life.

From the farmes point of view the balance is upset by reintroducing the wolf. The wolf has been absent for approx 200 yrs, and the way of living is quite different nowadays.

What do you mean by lazy and selfish? What do you know about Norwegian farming? What is selfish about caring for ones lifestock?

Regarding the rest of your statement: Yes it is a shame that the Norwegian Government decided to kill the wolves, in particular the Alpha female astray from her pack. The reactions from the great majority is condemning this deed.

Norway Approves New Wolf Hunt
 

Government officials in Norway have approved a new wolf hunt in Gudbrandsdalen. Norway's current wolf population is estimated at only 10-15 members. The population is so isolated that these wolves derive from only three individuals.

Strong protest is expected from Sweden, where officials there opposed Norway's last wolf hunt, conducted in the country's southeastern district known as Osterdalen, in February and March of 2001. Although Norway and Sweden have a common wolf population numbering approximately 100 animals, authorities in Stockholm maintain that at least 200 wolves - twice the existing amount - are needed to sustain the species in the two countries. Norway's last wolf hunt, conducted from helicopters, eliminated about 10 per cent of the Scandinavian wolf population.

As with Norway's last wolf hunt, it is expected that international environmental officials will join worldwide wildlife campaigners and rally in protest.

In May of 2001 wildlife officials in Finnmark (in northern Norway) decreed the country's few remaining wolves to be a major threat to that area's widespread reindeer herds. The reindeer are an important income source and part of the local Sami (Lappland) lifestyle.

No re-establishment of wolves is being allowed in Finnmark, where local hunters are permitted to track down any wolf families and kill all existing adults as well as newborn pups. A hunt is triggered at the first sign of breeding.

The new, recently approved wolf hunt in Norway is aimed at a lone wolf, known to be stationary in the Gudbrandsdalen area for over a year. This wolf is being blamed for all sheep deaths occurring within the population of more than 2 million free-ranging, unattended sheep. This wolf is also being held responsible for a number of missing goats. It has been documented in having killed only a few sheep which could have been protected by various measures - including guard dogs and electric fences.

Norway's Alpha Association (known there as Alpha-gruppen), an independent nationwide society founded in 1999 for the protection of the wolf within the Norwegian ecosystem, urges all those concerned about the new wolf hunt to express their thoughts via email. The Office of the Directorate may be addressed at [email protected] and The Minister of Environment, Mr. Borge Brende, may be contacted at [email protected]. In statements released by Alpha-gruppen, the association insists that if the currently authorized wolf hunt is not stopped it will result in no less than the total annihilation of the wolf in that country.


http://www.kerwoodwolf.com/NORWAYHUNT.htm


Terrible :evil: :cry:

I know people are cruel, but I didn`t know they are so stupid to claim a lone wolf is attacking 2 milion sheeps and that 10 wolves can be a threat to caribou population.... it makes no sense, it`s just an absurdal lie they invented to justify the mass slaughter of critically endangered species... :evil:

Please sign the petition against the wolf hunts in Norway:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/399085910

I doubt a petition will change the Norwegian Governments point of view, but signing the petition will a least show our disgust.

Per, you`re from Norway, aren`t You? Don`t You know why Norwegian government is doing such things? I heard that in Your country people are afraid of wolves & You have also a very strong ranchers-lobby. Is that true? I am disappointed that a country such as Norway, that should be proud of their wildlife and nature and promote it to tourists around the world is killing the last of their 15 wolves....

Hi, regret this late answer. My soul mate Tonje who is much more fluent in English writing will in a few days post a reply regarding your questions on this forum. So please, stay tuned... :)

But this is the only form of other much longuer countries to show that they find this disgusting.
I find that everybody criticizing this act can change some thing.


The hope is the last how die :wink:

Hello hello
After having lost this list some upgrades ago (I'm a PC nitwit), it is great to be able to respond to it again (thanks dear Per Olav for the "how to" explanation!).

About the wolf situation in Norway. It is actually not so simple. I thought I would go into some detail so you can see some of the issues involved, because not everything can be ascribed to "irrational wolf hatred from the ignorant". Also it would be interesting to see if some of you have any ideas in general because I think wolf issues may arise in Europe also. Did you follow the Tour de France this summer? One of the days they had to move the starting point because French Farmers had a protest rally at the original starting point. They were protesting against wolves - because the wolves were coming back to their region! Sounded dreadfully familiar to me..

I would like to correct some of the facts in the start of the discussion here. A wolfpack was exterminated by hunting with helicopter here several years ago - to massive protests. This year however 5 wolves were shot by giving hunting lisences to hunters. Actually 6 wolves were shot, one was shot by mistake - the alpha bitch in a protected wolf pack in the neigboring region. She had wandered across the border of the "allowed wolf sone" and was promptly shot. Again the hunting was to massive protests - people went to the hunting area following the hunters around, making lots of noise to scare the wolves away or just simply roaming around in the area so that the hunters would be afraid to risk shooting in case they hit a person. The whole place was crawling with people - hunters, protesters, police, the media - but to no avail.

About the wolf thing in Finnmark, I'm a bit at loss - I've not heard of any wolves in Finnmark (which is far far North in Norway). So I am thinking that maybe there has been a confusion of species due to language - that it is wolverine that is meant and not wolf. For many years I myself thought a wolverine was a female wolf, but that is not so! (Ah, the joy of the various languages' idiosyncracies!). The wolverine is the largest member of the family of minks, otters, stoats, matrens, ferrets etc - I think. Wolverines are an issue further North. They do prey on reindeer.

80 % of the Norwegian population want to have the large predators in Norwegian Fauna, that is the lynx, the brown bear, the wolf and the wolverine. Unfortunately the great majority of these 80 % live in the towns and suburbs and not in the rural areas where these predators actually are. People in the rural areas are fervently against (apart from the youngest - they also want to have the predators in our wild life). They say that it is all very well for the town people to be pro the predators, because they don't have to live with them. In my books that is a very valid point - it is so easy to have an opinion of something that does not affect one self!

When the wolf came back to Norway, people living in the wolf areas had no idea what that implied for their way of life. The wolf may be an efficient predator, but it certainly has no idea of humane euthanasia. Its slaughter of sheep isn't really slaughter - it is maiming. When the wolves attack sheep, they don't eat them - just rip out their innards, sometimes eating their udders, and just leave them. Many of the sheep survive but with severe suffering, and all have to be put down afterwards. The same goes for dogs. The wolves kill dogs,in general by slitting their abdomens (as with the sheep). This is of course terribly shocking. I have yet to see a picture of a wolfkilled dog that hasn't been killed by disembowling.

We have a house in a region where the wolf came back 8 - 10 years ago. In the garden to one of our neighbors there is a pathetic little grave. That is the grave of the hunting hound Lucy, the last dog to be killed by wolf here (all in all 7 dogs were killed before they realized that wolf and dog just didn't work). She was attacked appr 800 m from her house. Everyone around heard her screams, and the owner met her trying to crawl home. She was dragging her entrails after her, so he simply shot her to put her out of her misery. Since then no one here lets their dogs off leash(a part from us, but that depends on breed of dog - if it stays close to you or roams around. We are however definitely risking our dogs when we let them go, even though they in general never venture far way from us).

So that is one anti-wolf factor. The emotions involved in having a beloved dog killed in that manner. It takes time to accept that where the dogs previously could enjoy running free in the forest, far from people and cars or anyone getting annoyed by loose dogs, it is advisable and safest to keep dogs on leash.

The second anti-wolf factor is the sheep farmers. Having sheep is a way to make a living, it is a job. In Norway the traditional practise is to let the sheep go free in the forests and mountains for summer grazing. They are not guarded in any way, because there have not been predators here in Norway the last hundred - hundred and fifty years! We have severe rules for keeping dogs on leash in sheep districts. A loose dog can actually be shot on sight in sheep areas! From an animal welfare point of view this is a terrible practise (appr 130 000 sheep die each year from injuries, disease, accidents - and predators - but only a very low number can be associated with the wolf).

However, the sheep farmers economy depends on that way of keeping sheep. They can not afford to use shepherds, they can not afford to move the sheep each day between grazing area and safe pens during night because such moving causes the sheep to loose slaughter weight. The sheep breed itself is ill equipped to handle predator attacks, both physically and behaviorwise, eg they have low herding instinct and spread out over large areas (due to the meager grazing), they do not herd together and defend themselves when attacked but just run in wild panic.

The sheep farmer can not make another type of living of his land, because in those regions there is not soil or weather suited for growing things or really for keeping other livestock. This is also the preferred habitat for wolf. So when the wolves move in, sheep farming is actually impossible as it is done today. One could of course say, OK the sheep farmers need to move and get work another place. That is not simple. They can not sell their farms (that also icludes forests for timber) freely, because farms are regulated here in Norway. They can only sell their farm to someone who will continue with the farming/forestry, and they can only sell at a ridiculously low price. All their capital is sunk in the farm, so they are actually destitute if they give up the farm. As for getting work elsewhere. there is very little work to be got in these districts, they would have to move to the towns and work can be hard to come by.

So of course the sheep farmers fight against wolves (and actually bears, lynx and wolverines, but little attention is paid to these species by the media or rest of the public). They are fighting for their livelihood and that is understandable.

The third factor is wolf habituation, i.e. that they become less and less shy of human activity. Some farmers have tried keeping their sheep close to the house, but the wolves will still come and kill the sheep. Wolves have been known to come into the yard and kill the dog. In one instance a wolf pack killed 18 sheep only some hundred meters from the local school - during daytime. People have been told that wolves fear humans more than anything and will stay away from people - but of course that is a truth with modifications - the wolf is extremely intelligent and finds out that it can get at easy meals even in the vicinity of humans because the humans are not really that dangerous... When the wolves then behave in such a way, people become distrustful of the experts and fear for their children. They can see no reason why the wolf wouldn't one day try to kill a child. And one does not under any circumstance put one's child at risk. So far nothing is being done to fight the habituation effect, i.e. teaching the wolves to be scared of humans and their living quarters.

I personally fault the Norwegian authorities and the politicians. Norway has promised internationally to protect the wolf - and that I think is just a great scam! The politicians have found out a "great way" to keep both wolves and sheep farmers without having to solve the sheep farmers' issues - or actually giving much thought to formal procedures to reduce problems like habituation. They have determined regions in Norway that are to be "wolf sones" where the wolf is protected. In these regions people are not encouraged to keep sheep - for instance they are not recompensated for sheep killed by wolf as they are other places. In principle the wolf is protected in all of Norway, but people can apply for dispensation outside the predefined wolf sones. That is what happened in the last wolf hunt. The 5 wolves were living outside the wolf sone wherefore the authorities allowed the hunting! So the wolf is protected in Norway on paper- but in reality not!

You can send protest mails to the Minister of Environment here in Norway (don't know yet who that will be, we had election last Monday with a change of government) til kingdom come, but I don't think that will help at all. They are very used to it, having recieved such mails in enormous quantities for many years.. International pressure from other countries themselves, i.e. formal protests and threats of consequences in commerce, is the only thing that will help at the moment I think.

I find Norway's attitude in the wolf issue both shameful and disgusting. In the early seventies Norway was one of the countries that insisted that India protect its tigers. At that time I think tigers killed appr 1100 people in India, but Norway was adamnant that the tiger should be protected
anyway. The wolves here kill no one, and yet we don't really protect them - just pretend to. It would be better that Norway came straight out with a honest "No, we can't/don't really want to protect the wolf" and take the international consequences or really did protect the wolves.

However, I am actutally a bit optimistic regarding the wolf. In time I think things will be done. As mentioned above, the young people in the rural areas are pro wolf and they are the next generation farmers. They will probably not insist on the previous way of life, seeing other possibilities. If the authorities make those feasible, for instance by changing the economic legislation for farmers, that antiwolf argument can be buried. Also every time there is a new wolf hunt, the protests are still more vigorous and more serious. Last time the Swedish authorities protested, next time perhaps even more countries will protest! Sooner or later the authorities will knacker down and make the legislation necessary for the protection of wolf, also in such a way that people are not made destitute or fear for their children's lives.

Well, this is my point of view (and a lengthy one at that..). I should add this may not be Per Olav's point of view (I don't know) and perhaps I have some of the facts wrong (everything written out of memory) so I hope Per Olav will correct any mistakes!

regards
Tonje

Thank you, Tonje, for this well written analysis of the Norwegian "wolf situation" which in every way correspond with my point of view :)

So, dear members of this list, any comments ;)

Norway approves new wolf hunt
 

Hi Tonje,

thanks a lot for telling us about the situation in Norway. It`s very interesting.

We all have to learn that animals adjust to new circumstances. In Germany racoons, foxes and wild boars "conquer" the villages and cities.

regards
Angelika

Hello Tonje,

there are several European countries with wild wolfes coming back to areas that have been wolf-free for a very long time. We had several sheep killlings here in Germany. Luckily our goverment is (or at least was regarding the votings today) strict in protecting endangered species. Looking back at succesfull wolfprotecting campains in USA and Slowakia lifestock guarding dogs have been introduced to the shepherds and sheeps in our country together with electrical fencing ( in Slowakia and USA they used only the dogs). The results have always been extremly good. Dogs and fences are paid by wolfprotection associations. The wolf is quite accepted in this regions now and the people living in this area have realised that wolfes are very good for touristik puposes. In Slowakia the livestock guarding dogs have been as succesfull. They have been introduced (and in the beginning been paid) by a German association and the shepherds and ranchers are quite happy with the effect, we talked to one of them two years ago and the killings by wolfes and bears went down from about 50 per year to about 2. Lifestock guarding dogs help with bears too so they should work with wolferines. Ray Coppinger who started the projects and research on it in USA was very succesfull too, his experiences have been the reason ist was tried in Europe.
We had dogs and sheeps been killed in Bavaria where we lived till some days ago, actually one of our own sheeps was killed next to our house. What irritates me very much in your description is the way those animals have been killed in Norway. It may be that a dog being attacked by a pack is hurt that way but normal prey is usually killed by one bite in the throat. If a pack is going for them every wolf has its part in catching and therefore biting the animal but the killing is done by biting the throat. The guts are pulled out when the animal is dead. One point you look at if you want to know if a dog or a wolf has killed the animal is looking for the killing method. The way animals have been killed in Norway is typical for feral dogs not wolfs. When Erik Zimen started his Italian research project they found out that very many animals that were reported as wolfkills by farmers hat been killed by everything else, including dogs, but not wolfes.

If your protection societies need contacts to Ray Coppinger or other associations for lifestock guarding projects we can help you with that.

Regards Ina

Hi Ina.

I do think Tonje has expressed both sides of the Norwegian "wolf problem" in a very objective way. Picts from sheep slaughters show killings in the way Tonje describes and there is no doubt that this is beeing done by wolf or wolves.

I have, by the way, challenged one of Norways most reputed wolf behaviourists, Mr Runar Naess to join our litte discussion. Hopefully we soon will meet him on this forum :)

First of all, thanks to Perolav for assuring that we have a variety of opinions about this situation expressed on the forum.

Thanks also to Tonje for her careful analysis of the situation in Norway. As in every issue there are two sides in this argument. Perhaps the one thing that I still wonder about is who actually authorizes these wolf hunts. I have the feeling that the local as opposed to the national authorities organizes them. Local politicians will be looking to cater to the local people, that is the farmers, rather than to the majority opinion in the country.

I would dare to look at the behaviour of the wolf a little more carefully… and to think that men ought to learn better how to live with this predator.

You point out the fact that wolves kill in a savage way that often results in the maiming of the sheep. Disembowelment is not a pretty thing. However, from the point of view of the wolf it is efficient.

It has been observed in the wild, that wolves may on occasion kill more prey than they can comfortably feed on in a given moment. Some have seen this behaviour as showing that the wolf is a vicious and wasteful predator – this however is not the case, the wolves will inerrably return to the kill and feed again till the prey is consumed. Unfortunately farmers never give the wolves this chance, thus the wolves come, kill a sheep, the farmer retrieves the carcass and when he returns the wolf kills again, a wasteful exercise both for man and wolf.

Then there are the ways in which one can protect a flock from sheep. One rather interesting technique is the use of so called livestock guarding dogs (LGD). This has been tried in Norway though interestingly the main problem were bears, lynx, foxes and wolverines, not wolves.

I have always found the argument of farmers fighting for their livelihood against the wolves to be not quite correct, at least in areas (such as most of Norway) where farmers are compensated for wolf kills. Of course, there may be kills which cannot be clearly established as wolf kills and there may be some loss of revenue to the farmer because of this, but there is bound to be a loss of animals in any such exploitation, be it to predators, accidents or disease.

Unfortunately the problem of predation by the wolf is not the issue here. If predation was the real issue, then you would be hearing of great programs to manage bear and lynx populations which seem to be the true predators on the Norwegian herds, with wolves representing only a small fractions of the kills caused by other predators.

The issue here is the legend of the wolf, the primeval fear that seems to have been burned into the collective psyche or mankind. It is not merely a coincidence that Norway is the home of many legends, one of which is that of Fenris, chained forever by Gleipnir but only after having severed the hand of Tyr… Forever the symbol of evil vanquished at a great price. That is the reason why logic and arguments do not really work against fear. Logically one cannot expect the wolf population of Norway to pose any real threat to herding activities on a national scale (though admittedly individual herds may be affected – hence the importance of the compensation regime by the government) But that simply is not the point here.

How does one reverse this trend? Well not in one or two years, this is the work of generations, and I find it very encouraging that Tonje pointed out that the younger generations, even in the countryside tend to be more in favour of protecting the wolf.

Unfortunately, that sort of timescale is simply not available. With a very small population the Scandinavian wolf is perilously close to extinction, Only a few hundred individuals remain, mainly in Sweden.

So what can be done? Certainly there is pressure which is mounting in Norway to protect the wolves, in fact the government has been taken to court over the killing of six wolves earlier this year. Expressions of concern to Norwegian authorities (be they to the various Norwegian public officials, or to the Norwegian embassies in our various countries) are unlikely to have a major effect.

Perhaps more effective would be the drawing of international censure upon Norway. After all many other countries in Europe are going on with wolf conservation programs, including Sweden. These countries do so often with less resources than Norway, it would be perhaps adequate to remind the Norwegian authorities of their responsibility under the various international agreements which they have signed, which include the protection of the wolf.

I would recommend writing to the members of the European parliament about this issue – you may be surprised how effective this can be. You can find out how to do this here: www.europarl.eu.int

Carnivores and sheep farming in Norway
 

Be my guest: 116 pages :)

http://www.rosa.no/OP%20443%20Linnel...20measures.pdf

Hello again,

This is very interesting! Keep the ideas coming!

As for guard dogs, that has been tried here in Norway in a project that ran for 3 years or so (as far as I remember). Per Olav refers to a rather extensive report (which I admittedly have not read.. 116 pages.. a bit daunting). One should probably take this official report as the formal documentation of the testing. I have however read several summaries, both from the "dog side" and from the "farmer side" - and these summaries do differ a bit regarding the success rate. It all depends on what one regards as success.

The guard dog project was primarily a test for protection of sheep against attacks from brown bear. It was run in Lierne where there are a relatively high number of brown bears that had a tendency to attack sheep. Like the wolves, the bears would go into an extensive "kill and maim orgie" when coming across "flocks"/collections of these sheep that are so terribly easy prey, they would take out them all! Also wolverines have displayed this behavior when the prey is easy and the number in excess. (And perhaps we humans are a bit like that too - when faced with a valuable resource easy to get at and present in excessive amounts..)

The outcome of the project was a bit varied. As far as I remember, a couple of the dogs started to feed themselves - on sheep (! Probably poor basic training). When kept in herds together with the guard dogs (remember this type of sheep has a severely reduced herding instinct), the sheep tended to get very stressed and lost weight. The same also happens when they are herded by shepherds between grazing areas and holding pens for the night - they get stressed and loose weight.

The guard dogs did reduce bear attacks, when the sheep were kept fenced in and herded. When not herded, the sheep spread out and the guard dogs lost their efficiency because of course they could not be several places at once. There was also concern about having the guard dogs roaming free together with the sheep with respect to public safety. In Norway anyone is allowed to walk anywhere, land owners can not deny you right of access so there are hikers, tourists, hunters, people with dogs etc walking around in the same regions. Apparently some of the guard dogs took their job seriously and could be "unpleasant" to people walking by, especially if they had dogs.

Another use of the guard dogs was to take them to areas which had been recently attacked, they were used to stop further attacks from the bear in the area. This was also relatively efficient.

In conclusion guard dogs could be efficient against brown bears (and thought to be efficient against wolves also) but not when the sheep are kept as they are here in Norway. I believe we are the only country that just let the sheep go loose without supervision of any kind and where the public is actually required to help keep the sheep safe! It is very rare to have sheep fenced in - there are not enough pastures for that - and it is of course much cheaper to just let the sheep wander off and fend for themselves in the mountains and forests. Then they are collected in autumn and taken back to the farms and kept indoors during the winter. Sweden forinstance, who has managed to protect their wolves - also there to massive protests - have not have had to contend with that way of sheep farming.

There has also been done tests with fencing for those cases where there are pastures to graze the sheep. I don't know if there are several types of wolf safe fences, but here in Norway the ones tested did not keep the wolves out. Farmers were also told to "hang objects" in the fences and
surrounding trees (like scarecrows for birds). However the only way for such new objects to be effective, they have to be changed around/ exchanged every few days otherwise they loose their novelty and the wolves ignore them. The farmers say that is too much work in the long run. Also there is a side effect that the wolves are actually trained in overcoming fear of new things in their environment faster!

Some effort has also been done in checking out other sheep breeds. The sheep breed used here is a type that is extremely disease resistant, extremely cheap to feed during winter, has a high yield of meat compared to feed and quality of feed put in, and the lack of herding instinct means they can thrive on poor grazing grounds as they spread out in their search for food. Other sheep breeds can not measure up to those requirements. There is a very primitive sheep breed that actually can defend itself against wolves. They have horns and a strong herding instinct. When faced with danger they bunch together in a circle with the lambs in the middle, just like the musk ox does. In addition they are very swift and nimble and very hardy. High hopes were attached to this breed. However they do not yield enough meat. In addition they are very shy creatures, more wild than tame, and therefore difficult to handle. Just collecting them in the autumn would be near impossible. (How I know this? I used to subscribe to the Farmer Union's magazine that reported agricultural research results, gave recommendations, discussed legislations and prices etc.)

The whole issue here is actually economy. Norway is a high cost country and agriculture is heavily subsidized otherwise the price of agricultural products would be absurdly high (this is one of the reasons Norway isn't a member of the European Union, the subzidation would be severely limited compared to what it is today). Still most of the Norwegian public is very much against this, so the farmers have to meet hard demands to "profit" and quality. Sheep farming is marginal, any loss of slaughter weight and the farmer goes broke. Their economy depends on the sheep being so cheap to keep.

Why we have agriculture at all? Originally because in case of a war situation one wants Norway to be selfsustained in food production. Never mind that I don't think Norway could do that. Modern agriculture is heavily dependent of eg. oil to run the machines, artificial fertilizer because the grain types that have high yield also require much nourishment and supplemented nourishment for the cows, not to talk about the transport necessary. People generally don't know how deep this dependance is. We have ecological agriculture here, no artificial ingredients in anything. To my amusement, milk is defined "ecological" when produced from cows that have max 30 % pellets (industrial produced) in their diet, not 0 %. Our cows can not live on pure ecological feed - they must be supplemented with the pellets or they die from malnourishment! That is what requirements to an enormous milk production pr animal does to an organism. Sorry - a digression!

So to protect the wolf, Norway will have to do radical changes in sheep farming. This means changing the legislations and changing the economical subsidy rules. There would be massive protests - and a lot of schooling for the farmers - their previous knowledge would be worthless - and of course that will be hard to take for many of them. There are some ideas for alternative sheep farming and other income resources for the farmers, i.e. "wolf safaries" and game hunting (we have tons of moose and even license hunting for wolf if there were enough of them) for tourists. Another idea is having the Ministry of Environment paying sheep farmers with shepherds (and other breeds of sheep) for "landscape conservation". The sheep have had an important job in keeping the landscape open by eating brush and keeping the forest tracks and meadows open. The forest reclaims everything very quickly
when the sheep are not there. By focusing away from maximum yield of meat to lowest possible price, sheep farming could still be a way of making a living.

Much more attention should be paid to the habituation problem. Norway is supposedly lots of nature and wilderness, but actually only 5 % of Southern Norway is true wilderness. Everywhere else there are people, albeit spread out but they do live there. "Mock hunts" a couple of times each year, more efficient "wolf scary devises" etc. Also people should be educated in what to expect before the wolves arrive in their region. Information in beforehand is essential - and no covering up of the more unfortunate (from a human point of view) sides of the wolf. Here people had to find out for themselves that eg wolves kill dogs, and that there is such a thing as habituation. In the beginning there was too much "wolf romantism" - the beautiful, intelligent noble carnivore with a heart warming family life! Wolves are wolves and should be allowed to be wolves without ascribing them "Disney properties". The people who experienced loosing their dogs, the little girl who was waiting for the school bus in the country side and discovered there was a wolf waiting there too (! No, she wasn't harmed - but it scared the people in the area), the farmers who have all their sheep wiped out the 3rd year in a row - these are things that are not very romantic, only upsetting, and worst of all, could be avoided if people had known better in beforehand.

Norway is one of the richest countries in the world, this is well within the country's capacity. There are also some other issues concerning the wolves, but these are of much lesser concern than the sheep and the habituation problems.

Regards Tonje

Please help the norwegian wolves
 

Dear Friends,
> I have just read and signed the petition:
> Protect the Wolves of Norway
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/399085910
> Please help by signing this petition to save the Wolves of Norway. It takes 30 seconds and will really help. Please follow this link:
> The system centralizes signature collection to provide consolidated, useful reports for petition authors and targets. Please forward this email to others you believe share your concern. To view additional petitions, please click here:
> http://www.thePetitionSite.com
> Thank you
>
>
> Total Signatures: 5,140
> The most recent signatures* as of 4:58 PM PST Dec 05, 2005
>
> # 5,140 12/05/05 4:35 PM Sean Noyes, ME, us
> # 5,139 12/05/05 2:48 PM Edith Soltesz, NU, at
> # 5,138 12/05/05 1:28 PM Monica Solheim, NU, no
> # 5,137 12/05/05 11:46 AM Rolf Bjerkøy, NU, no
> # 5,136 12/05/05 11:23 AM Carrie Wolf, HI, us
> # 5,135 12/05/05 10:16 AM Birgitte Lepsøe, NU, no
> # 5,134 12/05/05 7:20 AM CATERINA TREVISAN, NU, it
> # 5,133 12/05/05 6:55 AM Bendik Bakken, NU, no
> # 5,132 12/05/05 6:49 AM Anonymous, NU, no
> # 5,131 12/05/05 2:40 AM Ann Kristin Simonsen, NU, no
> # 5,130 12/05/05 2:08 AM Kayla May, CA, us
> # 5,129 12/05/05 1:41 AM Lyn Hawkey, NA, gb
> # 5,128 12/04/05 11:45 PM Jan Guttulsrud, NU, no
> # 5,127 12/04/05 5:46 PM Hege Næss, NU, no
> # 5,126 12/04/05 5:42 PM Therese Simonsen Rye, NA, no
> # 5,125 12/04/05 1:34 PM Elin Hansen, NU, no
> # 5,124 12/04/05 12:48 PM Line Nordheim, NA, no
> # 5,123 12/04/05 12:37 PM Glen Miller, PA, us
> # 5,122 12/04/05 12:35 PM Linda Dahlum, NA, no
> # 5,121 12/04/05 12:03 PM Kelly Chatman, OH, us
> # 5,120 12/04/05 11:23 AM Renate Skophamar, NA, no
> # 5,119 12/04/05 11:02 AM Heather Deantonio, HI, us
> # 5,118 12/04/05 9:52 AM Einar Bendiktsen, NU, no
> # 5,117 12/04/05 9:38 AM Anonymous, IN, us
> # 5,116 12/04/05 7:29 AM Maxine Ross, NU, gb
>
> To add your name to this petition go to:
>
> http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/399085910
>
> *Signers may choose to hide their identity to the public. Such names will appear as "Anonymous" on the PetitionSite.com and advocacy emails similar to this. (The signature number above may not match the number assigned to your signature on the first page of the petition.) To view additional petitions, please click here:
> http://www.thePetitionSite.com