Europe weakens wolf protection in "major blow to science and biodiversity after vote by EU member states", environmental advocacy says
Europe weakens wolf protection in "major blow to science and biodiversity after vote by EU member states", environmental advocacy says
The plans to speed up the shooting of wolves in the EU have cleared a crucial hurdle. The representatives of the 27 states voted in favour of lowering the protected status of the animals and thus simplifying hunting.
A majority of EU Member States agreed to adopt the European Commission's proposal to downgrade the protection status of the wolf under the Bern Convention. This shift opens the door to wolf culling as a false solution to livestock depredation, which runs counter to Europe’s commitment to safeguard and restore biodiversity. The decision which cannot be scientifically justified went through after Germany changed its position from abstention to support.
With this decision, Member States have chosen to ignore the call of over 300 civil society organisations, among others EuroNatur, and more than 300,000 people urging them to follow scientific recommendations and step up efforts to foster coexistence with large carnivores through preventive measures.
[...]
Wolves are strictly protected under both the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive, serving as a keystone species vital for healthy ecosystems and biodiversity across Europe. Weakening their protection will hinder the ongoing recovery of wolf populations.
‘The EU's decision will not only destabilise the still fragile wolf populations in large parts of Europe, but also undermine the significant progress made towards a coexistence of humans and wolves,’ says Antje Henkelmann, project manager and wolf expert at EuroNatur. ‘Only efficient herd protection can prevent livestock kills. Instead, the EU is focussing on symbolic but inefficient culls. With her turnaround, the Federal Environment Minister is not only weakening wolf protection, but also giving in to populist demands that are of little use to livestock farmers,’’ says the biologist.
[...]
You're viewing a single thread.
Let's not forget that livestock farmers can get financial compensation in case their animals really got killed by wolves.
So what's the fucking problem?
Yes, and according to an EU report in 2023, only 0.065% of the bloc's sheep population had been killed by wolves and there had been no reports of fatal wolf attacks on humans for 40 years. Source (you need to scroll down to the end of the article for these numbers).
My in laws are shepherds. The situation isn't as easy as you'd think. When some or their sheep were killed, they were denied compensation for a variety of bureaucratic reasons. Much worse than the uncompensated loss of some sheep was that the flock afterwards rejected the pasture, refusing to be led onto it again. Now they have a pasture they can only use to produce hay, which isn't what they need, and need to rent additional space to let their sheep graze on, which they if course aren't compensated for either. I can understand their anger, with the country not providing any compensation whatsoever (which people assume it does) and generally feeling left alone with a problem that they wouldn't even have if it wasn't for rather abstract environmental reasons.
I understand that. Thanks for this insight! This again underlines the importance to improve the bureaucratic process of getting compensation and other forms of aids in order to protect the herds.
But surely killing wolves is not the way to go here instead.
Although this might get me downvoted, but killing wolves does solve that problem, so for farmers this is a way to go here and simply dismissing their pov doesn't make it easier to convince them otherwise. There haven't been wolves in central Europe for decades, so the environment seems to be able to deal with some more deer. I get the environmental reasons, but it's not like the whole system immediately collapses without wolves. For farmers, this introduces a long solved problem because some city dwelling greens want to get their karma balanced without paying for it while they (the farmers) then have to deal with the consequences. Just providing money doesn't address a lot of issues, as I explained above, and even if it did, it's you, the farmer, who is knee deep in the insides of your gutted animal to clean up the mess, just to then end up in an annoying, overly complex bureaucratic process that may or may not result in some money being thrown at you by loafers wearing hipsters that think that this makes everything right. It doesn't. My in-laws raised rejected or orphaned lambs with baby bottles in their living room. Do they later kill these sheep for a living? Yes. But they also seriously attempt to previously have them live a fulfilled and peaceful life, so having their whole flock panicking around a handful of violently gutted mother sheep while essentially being denied both, fair compensation and empathy for their situation does make them understandably bitter. And, to be honest, I'm pretty on board with the idea that wild wolves should fear proximity to humans and their herds, so shooting wolves that think that sheep or cows are an easier prey than deer isn't such a one sided terrible idea as it is often made out to be here.
Hunters wouldn't have to hunt for deer and boar anymore, because they're taking the place of wolfs, lynx and bears.
So they shoot the wolfs and can continue to hunt.
In the netherlands we got a letter warning us not to go into the forest with dogs or small children since the wolves are attacking them. There's not enough space here for them to safely roam unfortunately.
Wolves, in general, don't approach humans and don't attack them as long as not provoked. Such behaviour as what has happened in the netherlands is rather unusual. However, in principle learning how to coexist, involving how to responsibly manage pets and children, and how to handle areas where larger wolve populations reside, is better than to kill them in terms of benefits for the ecosystem as well as wildlife protection.
You asked what the problem was. I gave you a problem here.
I see. Thank you.
Do you feel like that's the most significant reason for why popularity about the idea of returning wolf populations are decreasing in the netherlands?
From my point of view (Germany) it feels like it's mostly livestock farmers who are complaining and propagating populistic and scientifically incorrect nonsense about wolves.
Such events only highlight the importance of what scientists and wildlife / environmental protection organisations are demanding and what I've summarized before.
I don't mind wolves, it's cool that they are here. Would love to see one. I just think that there are only a few places here where they could live properly. We are very densely populated. I'm getting a lot of downvotes in this thread cause it sounds like I don't want wolves here or something. I couldn't care less about cattle. I just think that culling is sometimes needed if it gets out of hand.
If it gets out of hand and there is no better way, sure. I guess there's a lot of checkboxes to be checked before this is the only viable alternative.
OP provides a fact followed by an uncontroversial opinion.
Lemmy: FUCK YOU! I don't want your facts! angrily mashes downvote
Lemmy in a nutshell. I swear to god you people are fucking children.
Yeah it's really frustrating sometimes..
Like one dude mentions that a girl got bitten here. Then some moron comments about "hurdur ban all dogs then too". So wolves have dragged a dog on a leash into the forest, bitten another dog, pushed over a girl, bitten another girl all in the span of 2 months maybe. And the government couldn't do anything to the wolves cause it's protected. Dogs get killed if they bite someone. But yeah sure let's upvote hyperbolic nonsense and people asking for sources instead of people saying there are problems with wolves and the sources. Fucking hell it still annoys me.