22 wolves killed in Sweden today

[Kifaru Bwana]

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the explanation. I agree it is an emotive hot topic in Sweden for yonkers years. The divide certainly runs from urban-countryside in attitudes towards wolves. I suppose more public awareness would be key, but what actually is being done by the Nature Conservation Dept. in that respect I do not fully know.

What I would like to know - and to which you did not have an answer - the total no. of wolves at which we can speak of a sustainable viable population. Judging from earlier comments by Jana, I do not think the Swedish population qualifies as sustainable or viable.

Whether this question has been fully addressed by the Nature Conservation Dept. is anybody's guess ....?

Re inbreeding: interesting point. I think some form of genetic management be required ...! Any info on active genetic introductions from nearby Karelian Russia to make the population more viable.

Re subspecies: to what ssp. are the Scandinavian wolves assigned the common northern European one.

Re zoos: I know - Dan - you have an active Scandinavian wolf conservation breeding programme? What is the angle there on the debate and what PA/PR or other role does the programme play for in situ conservation.

Regards,

K.B.
not So from that point of view I re

 

[Monty]

It is interesting how the people who want wolves do not live in areas with them. It is the same in the USA where wolves have been reintroduced.

The US statistics I have seen are,
*Elk and deer herds have reduced by over half
*Fawn survival has gone from 40% to 4% and as a result herds are no longer sustainable
* In many areas no Moose calfs are surviving, and as Moose are more solitary than other deer and not as common many areas now have no Moose left.

Wolves are very efficent preditors and were perscuted for that reason. I am sure bear and Mountain Lions do better without wolves and their numbers are now falling due to the competion in the US.

I think the people who live with the wolves should decide weather they have them or not. For those who want wolves, how much are they prepared to pay those people in compensation as they are the ones who will bear the cost of the wolves.

 

[Dan]

Thanks again for this input from you all! It is so interesting to me, especially since this wolf hunt is still making the head-lines here in Sweden for four days in a row now, not to mention editorials in all the major newspapers and thousands and thousands of posts on various internet sites etc.

@Monty
You describe the dilemmas and the problems connected with this issue very good. I am genuinely surprised by some of the statitistics you present.

@Kifaru Bwana

Re inbreeding. There seems to be a complete consensus about this. Apparently all the 200+ wolfes are the descendants from only three (3) individuals! (Migrated to Sweden from Finland/Russia.)

Re subspieces. Can´t help you here. I have done a few net searches but not found an answer. Your guess appears reasonable.

Re zoos. All the biggest zoos hold wolfes. I cannot say that they are particularily active in the debate. At least not more than for any other species.

Some more information, based on my reading of the newspaper articles these last few days.

Inbreeding is quoted as the major reason for the hunt. The authorities are reasoning that the current stock of wolfes need about 20 new individuals to stay relatively healthy. If no new immigration occurrs from Finland/Russia, more active measures will be considered (i.e. getting wolfes from somewhere else and releasing them in Sweden).

One of our tabloids polled the seven political parties in our parliament about the hunt. Five of them were in favour, the two dissidents were The Green Party and The Left Party.

 

[Jurek7]

Hi,

This is a big topic. Compensating farmers for losses of wolves is well developed. However, farmers also need to modify their behaviour, eg. not leave livestock overnight in forest.

About the argument "let people in countryside decide about wolves" I find totally ridiculous. City people pay too much taxes to support all kinds of inefficent farming, rearing livestock in countryside which would otherwise be left for wolves. City people should stop too - zero taxes going for farming subsidies, donations, handouts, local development in regions where people don't want wolves.

 

[Monty]

Hi,

This is a big topic. Compensating farmers for losses of wolves is well developed. However, farmers also need to modify their behaviour, eg. not leave livestock overnight in forest.

About the argument "let people in countryside decide about wolves" I find totally ridiculous. City people pay too much taxes to support all kinds of inefficent farming, rearing livestock in countryside which would otherwise be left for wolves. City people should stop too - zero taxes going for farming subsidies, donations, handouts, local development in regions where people don't want wolves.

I do not support any subsidies, but where they are used they are subsidising food production. This keeps food prices down. I would be happy for a free market as this would result in higher prices. For that reason I completly disagree with your argument. I am not certain on the specifics of Sweedish agriculture, but still disagree with city people telling those who live in the country they should have wolves. Wolves may be natural but artifically keeping their numbers low may change the natural system for the benefit of those who live there.

A common analogy I have heard from the US is that Polio, TB, and Malaria are also natural, and do very well in our cities, but nobody is calling for them to be released there.

 

[Zambar]

It's the same as shooting dogs, IMO. There's no sport in shooting these complex, family oriented canines.

Completely agree. I'm strongly opposed to hunting for sport myself, having lived next to a wood patrolled by pheasant-breeding farmers who shoot anything that moves. If the wolves were becoming a real danger to humans (which is very unlikely; they're very wary of us) or the numbers were spiralling so OOC that it was damaging the eco-system balance (such as what often happens with deer over here), than I may see a cull as reasonable: but 227 is a healthy balance of wolves for a country as large as Sweden, and there is no excuse for this in my opinion other than a bit of so called 'sport', where people find it 'fun' to actually end lives. It's this sort of thing that has made so many species' extinct in the past.

 

[redpanda]

From what I have read here, it does not appear that wolves are exactly common in Sweden so, as has already been pointed out, there does not seem to be any sort of ecological need for a cull. However, it may help to relieve the pressure a little and perhaps if this hunt (which the government stringently regulate) is allowed, then there will be less farmers who decide to bring it on themselves to dispose of "problem" wolves as they don't think the government are doing anything about it. In this case, I see the cull as a sacrafice of a few for the good of the overall population.

 

[Kifaru Bwana]

I have nothing again sustainable use of natural resources, in this case of wolves. Many different animal species are hunted all over the globe, were hunted and will be hunted. If the official hunting is good managed to keep population at least stabil and illegal hunting is almost non-existent (I suppose so for Sweden), it´s nothing wrong in the principle.

Other question is why the Sweden administrative chose the target population of only 200 individuals? I would say it could be way more? The Slovak example - a country of 1/9 the size of Sweden has a wolf population between 150 (early spring) and ca 300 (autumn, before start of the hunting season). And don´t forget that Slovakia is much more densely populated than Sweden (110/km2 against 20/km2) so that wolves/human conflicts are way more often seen there.

Hi Dan,

The equation is real simple: divide the no. of wolves/km2 by the total available land area from Vaermland-Dalarna up and you get some idea of the no. of wolves. Jana rightly brought up the numbers from Slowakia which seem way more approaching a self-sustaining viable population. As a mean rule a wolf pack requires 150-350km2 of territory (in best prey areas) and over 1,000km2 of territory (in areas with sparse prey populations). Per km2 the density ranges from 0,1 - 9/100 km2.

Jana, can you give an idea of the total occupied wolf habitat in Slowakia?
Dan, what is the total potential wolf habitat vs. the current wolf habitat?



If the genetics are a major issue I cannot understand why no wolves from closely related populations in neighbouring Karelia and European Russia were introduced earlier to augment the genetics of the entire population and make it more viable.


Mind you, I am convinced it can still be done, but it would be a very complex process. One would have to go through the process of breaking up all major 20+ wolf packs individually, select all of one sex/each wolf pack and take out the alpha male or female and carefully introduce the unrelated new one sex pack animals into the remaining parts of those packs. It would create major upheavals for a number of years in the wolf population ...

 

[Dan]

@redpanda
The main official reason given is the one about the inbreeding (which seems to be a fact and a very serious problem, considering that all the 200+ wolfes are the decendants from only three individuals). But then again, to be honest, I do not think that the status of the wolf population is of main concern to the government - they probably worry about the economy, the unemployment and the upcoming national election this year etc.

Many who are opposed to the hunt claim that the hunter lobby in our country is to strong. Hunting is a very popular hobby in the countryside in Sweden.

The debate rages on. Today´s headline is the possibility that in one of the hunting districts it may have been the alpha couple that got killed and that their less than one-year old pups may get a hard time surviving the winter.

@Kifaru Bwana
Some very interesting math there! Actually, the majority of the Swedish wolfes are concentrated in that very area you mention - Värmland and Dalarna and not that much further up into the North. Basically the whole population is concentrated to a rather limited area in the middle of Sweden.

Why are there no wolfes in the North of Sweden? I don´t know. VERY MANY posts on the net discussions suggest that it is because the people in the North take matter into their own hands, and simply kill off any wolf that comes by. True or false, I do not know.

The potential wolf habitat versus the current one? Disregarding the man versus wolf conflict, basically the whole of Sweden! Almost the whole country consists of forest (loaded with all kinds of potential prey animals), with a few exceptions here and there.

 

[redpanda]

@redpanda
The main official reason given is the one about the inbreeding (which seems to be a fact and a very serious problem, considering that all the 200+ wolfes are the decendants from only three individuals). But then again, to be honest, I do not think that the status of the wolf population is of main concern to the government - they probably worry about the economy, the unemployment and the upcoming national election this year etc.

I don't see how killing off less than a tenth of the population is going to help new wolves come in when the country is already very under-populated and it has not yet happened. I would imagine the cull was more an attempt to appease both sides before the up-coming election and, as such, I would be interested to hear the consensus from genuine conservationists on the issue.

 

[chizlit]

Dan,
You seem to have answered my question now about which wolves could be killed or was it just a free for all, the fact that the alpha pair could have been killed tells me that nobody seems to have a good idea of what is being killed, seems like it's just a case of shot what you like, all very sad.
Please keep us informed although like a car crash you don't want to carry on looking, but you just do.

 

[Dan]

@chizlit
Will do! And thanks for your interest!

Today, many commentaries in Sweden actually focus just the very subject that you raise. If this hunt was neccessary, why was it not conducted in a more organised way? Why was not govermentally employed hunters sent out with clear orders on what animals to kill and what animals not to kill? Why create a KILLING-BONANZA for 12000 trigger happy amateurs?

I think these questions are valid. Especially since this topic totally devides Sweden, as I have tried to describe with my posts here at ZooChat.

BTW
As of today, there is still one more unhappy wolf to be killed. The official death toll is 26, so one more has to go....

 

[Jana]

@Kifaru Bwana Slovakian wolves are more or less frequently detected on around 21.000 km2, thats some 40% of the total area of that country. Unfortunately they are under stong pressure from both legal and illegal hunting. The slovakian ministry allowed 140! wolves to be legally killed this winter. Thats way too much, I would say. But the population still manages somehow to survive it, with similar hunting quottas for several subsequent years now.

@Dan What are the official plans for the following years in Sweden - will these 27 wolves be the last killed for some longer period, or will the hunters be allowed to repeat the same each season?

 

[Dan]

@Jana
Good question! From what I understand, a decision has been made to keep the wolves at a maximum number of 210. If this means that a similar hunt will be held each year, I don´t know. I suspect that no decision is taken and that the authorities - at least - will have to ponder this question a bit, given the heated reactions to this year´s hunt.

(To newcomers to this thread: this was the first general wolf hunt in Sweden for about 50 years. The species were generally protected in the year of 1966.)

 

[Dan]

I don't see how killing off less than a tenth of the population is going to help new wolves come in when the country is already very under-populated and it has not yet happened. I would imagine the cull was more an attempt to appease both sides before the up-coming election and, as such, I would be interested to hear the consensus from genuine conservationists on the issue.

I don´t quite understand why you write "both sides", redpanda, as one of the sides is fiercly anti-hunt?

But never mind... and to move on to your question about "the concensus from genuine conservationists in this issue":

Well, I can only give you my own personal reading of the debate, of course. But my honest opinion is that most of what would be considered "genuine conservationists" are highly critical of the hunt as such and the way it was conducted. I do not think that anybody is questioning the inbreeding factor, but certainly many conservationist organisations are arguing that Sweden could hold many more wolves than some 200+ and I also think that the majority of them believe that this particular hunt was a scandal and conducted in a most unappropriate way.

 

[redpanda]

I don´t quite understand why you write "both sides", redpanda, as one of the sides is fiercly anti-hunt?

But never mind... and to move on to your question about "the concensus from genuine conservationists in this issue":

Well, I can only give you my own personal reading of the debate, of course. But my honest opinion is that most of what would be considered "genuine conservationists" are highly critical of the hunt as such and the way it was conducted. I do not think that anybody is questioning the inbreeding factor, but certainly many conservationist organisations are arguing that Sweden could hold many more wolves than some 200+ and I also think that the majority of them believe that this particular hunt was a scandal and conducted in a most unappropriate way.

Thanks Dan, by both sides I meant the moderates. I'm sure there are some who don't believe any wolves should be killed in the same way that there will be others who think they all should be. I may be underestimating the strength of peoples feelings, but by allowing a (reasonably) small number to be shot, neither side has faced too much of loss.

 

[Dan]

Oh, I see. Well... yes, maybe that was the intention. But if so, it did fail.

I have scarcely experienced a more polarized debate in Sweden than this one.

And there are old historical reasons behind this. Sweden was one of the last countries in Europe to be industrialized. Just about every Swede today decends from dirt-poor small-croppers, just a few generations back. Our country is not densly populated and we have a close, traditional relationship with nature, never mind whether we are city-dwellers or farmers in the countryside. What did our former Prime Minister (Social Democrat Göran Persson) do when he stepped down from office? Bought himself some land and became a farmer! Basically every Swede who can afford it has a small "summer cottage" out there in the countryside. Hunting and fishing are very popular hobbies. The annual moose hunt is treated with almost religious respect in some parts of the country. Small enterprises may actually close down for a week, as all the employees want to go out hunting.

In Sweden, no "exclusively private forests or lands" exist, if you understand what I mean? No land owner can prohibit anyone from walking in his forests, collecting mushroom or berrys. Anyone can go anywhere and everywhere, as long as you do not trample down growing crops in the fields or step inside someone´s private garden. From what I have understood, this is not the case in all other countries?

---

Oh well, anyway, I guess that I wrote these words to try to give you a background to the very strong feelings that are aroused in Sweden when it comes to matters such as the recent wolf hunt.

 

[Dan]

Lots of new articles in the Swedish newspapers:

Autopsies have now been made on all the killed wolves. Some additional analysis of the skeletons will be made. Some type of analysis of the teeths will be made in a lab in the US.

No harmful effects by the inbreeding have been found. All of the killed wolves were basically healthy.