Europe weakens wolf protection
www.euronatur.org
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.

[…]

  • FMT99@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1114·
    2 months ago

    I mean a little girl was bitten quite severely a few weeks ago around here. I’m not saying this is the best choice but it’s also easy to make a glib offhand comment about a complicated situation.

    • PonyOfWar@pawb.socialEnglish
      20·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think a single unprovoked attack this decade and no deaths from wolf attacks in Europe in the 21st century make this a “complicated situation”.

      • pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        104·
        2 months ago

        This isn’t about humans but about farmers. Someone I know just recently told me that they lost a few sheep to a wolf attack. Of course they wanted to be refunded, but the officials who checked if he’s eligible for a refund found one short area where his fence was 2 cm too low, therefore he didn’t get anything. He sold his remaining animals and stopped, just like a few of his colleagues who’d stopped before already.

        This decision isn’t because of wolves but because the system didn’t work.

        • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          112·
          2 months ago

          I mean, the current level of cattle breeding is not compatible with long term survival of human beings, so the system is not working regardless of wolves.

          • pumpkinseedoil@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            61·
            2 months ago

            I assume you’re hinting mass producing farms, those aren’t affected by wolves anyway (and cattle isn’t, it’s more about smaller animals like sheep). The ones who are affected are the ones who don’t have as many animals but let them be outside.

            To prevent being affected by wolves they could of course keep their sheep indoors, but then they aren’t getting organic meat certificates anymore leading to less money, requiring them to keep much more sheep. Which is not what should be encouraged.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 months ago

          Isn’t that kind of on him? If he didn’t meet the minimum requirements, what’s the controversy? Yes the govt could have made an exception, but then the next person who’s 3 cm short points to him as an example, and there we go.

            • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
              51·
              2 months ago

              That’s in the context you replied to, see the comment of FTM99. If you want to say something in this branch of conversations but without the things implied by the previous messages, you need to specify that.

              • Visstix@lemmy.worldEnglish
                14·
                2 months ago

                Your hyperbolic comment about banning dogs didn’t make any sense in context to the previous comment.

                • Eheran@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  01·
                  2 months ago

                  At this point I am not sure what to answer. The context is that there was an attack so that kind of makes killing them okay. I asked if we then apply the same logic to dogs, which kill lots(!) of people every year compared to a single case in >20 years for wolves.

                  • Visstix@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    2 months ago

                    And nobody is talking about banning all wolves, so that dog comment was just nonsense, it’s about the protected status of wolves. They also aren’t shooting wolves if they bite people cause they are protected. They are killing dogs if they attack people. So your whole banning dogs comment was just nonsense for no reason.