Time To Boycott Norway?

[Fadcode]

From a purely genetic/evolution point of view 68 individuals is already a ridiculously low number of wolves for a country as big as Norway.
I can only guess at how much damage 68 wolves can do to sheep farms but I have to imagine there has to be a better way to deal with an apex predator than cull 70%.

I thought that this was about Wolves in a remote part of Norway,the wilderness area of the South East, I am sure there are more wolves in the whole of Norway than 68, this area borders Sweden and between the two countries there are about 300 wolves, who can roam between both countries, the reason for this is stated by the Government because of the killing of livestock(sheep etc.) the Government are obliged under an agreement to compensate farmers for their losses from Wolf attacks, now WWF say the loss is minimal, they could only get this information by talking to farmers, and if they concluded that the farmers say losses are minimal, then unless the farmers are making exaggerated claims for losses that are not occurring, their would be no problem with the wolves, and the Government would not get involved, someone here is not being honest, it would be interesting to find out who.
One other point, if we actually ate wolf meat, like we do Alligator, Buffalo, kangaroo, Elk, Moose, Reindeer, Deer, etc, etc, no one would be interested in whether they were culled or not, and that is sad.

 

[Dave]

I thought that this was about Wolves in a remote part of Norway,the wilderness area of the South East, I am sure there are more wolves in the whole of Norway than 68

Well, I wouldnt know, but no, thats not what it says is it? It says;

There are estimated to be about 68 wolves remaining in the wilderness areas of Norway, concentrated in the south-east of the country.

Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

 

[dewi]

There is the solution right there... Dave's argument incorporates his objection to killing a wolf that won't be eaten, and Fadcode, no one would be interested in the cull if we ate them.

So... Wolf burgers. Granted, a population of 68 isn't going to give any sort of quantity to roll out internationally, but maybe a barbecue sort of affair, few beers... and if its popular and there are wolves coming across the Swedish border... it could be an annual event. In honour of the wolves it could be called something funky like The Great Norwegian Wolf Burger Festival. And to ensure inclusive practices, some nice reindeer sausages... maybe some squirrel kebabs?

Dave, I'm useless at answering my phone, mainly because I don't tend to carry it round with me. Its usually on my desk, so if I'm woodworking or leatherworking, cooking, gardening or any number of other 'ings I only find out I've missed a call when I get back to my desk. My other half is booked in I'm afraid, people coming over from America and all sorts... I've have to catch up on the next one.

Just had another genius-level idea with the wolves... round 'em up, shove them over the Swedish border. Deportation, wholesale. No killing needed... but the Norwegians may have to follow the Swedes in building a wall.

 

[Dave]

No problem mate........squirrel?!........

 

[Fadcode]

Good points Dewi, though they would have to be BBQ'd apart, otherwise those wolfburgers would be after the lamb Chops, could get messy.

Makes interesting reading regarding the number of wolves in Europe, and a lot of European countries allow hunting, even some pay you a bounty for killing a Wolf, like in the states Wolves are looked upon as game, not sure if Wolves have predators(other than humans) to worry about, but they tend to roam across borders all over Europe, and there are a vast amount of them, so losing a few, albeit without a feasible reason wont be to detrimental to the whole picture, as long as Norway put up signs at the border warning the wolves to stay away.

 

[sunndog]

The fact there are only 68 wolves in the wild could be the problem, if they haven't been culled for a 100 years, there should be a lot more than 68, weakened breeding usually means disease or lack of food, a lot would depend on the size of the packs,as these are based in an area, could be , over urbanisation,etc, Now I know this is not the fault of the wolves, but at one time or another most animals are culled and most times this helps with the breeding, making the animal stronger, etc, and we probably do cull our sheep by 70% a year, for none other reason than to eat or export them, even Cornwall has a limit on the number of sheep it will support due to most of it being moorland and granite rock. I think the situation needs more investigation before one can decide whether it is fair or not.of course you could always dress the wolves in sheeps clothing, but that would probably get them a bad name.

The sheep (lambs) we send to market to be eaten arent 'culled' those are simply being sold. 'Cull' sheep would be one's with problems that make them useless to the flock.....most often also sent to market to be eaten

 

[forrestdweller]

i'm not sure how many sheep and other livestock are killed every year by 68 wolves, but i daresay the number is rather low..... .other european countries actually (try to) reinstall wolf populations and offer compensation to farmers in case of lifestock loss through wolf attack....

i'm certain the number of lifestock and wolves killed by humans is much higher than vice versa -- not to mention: homo "" sapiens"" killed by other homo "" sapiens.... .maybe we should start culling humans?! ( take note: i'm just cynic)

 

[Fadcode]

Norway, which has significantly lower sheep production than Scotland, is home to around 350 lynx, 378 wolverine, 148 bears and 34 wolves living in dedicated 'wildlife' zones.

But sheep losses to predators outside these zones remains high, with 3,895 ewes and 19,671 lambs lost in 2014.

This was the response to plans to introduce Lynx, to Scotland, by Norwegian Farmers.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13719671.Norwegians_warn_of_lynx_danger_to_sheep_herds/

There is always 2 sides to an argument, but no guarantee of who is right.

 

[Leshy]

I'll get my popcorn...as this is a very interesting thread indeed.

I'm trying to get a sense of what the Bushcraft community thinks and feels about this, but I'm surprised at the disparity between opinions.

It's fascinating.

Im still firmly opposed to this cull, regardless of all these facts and figures.

I think there's a better alternative , as suggested in my previous post, especially when you consider the numbers of wolf population in Norway.

But hey, each to their own...

 

[dewi]

There is something wrong with that data though isn't there? It states the number of wolves to be 34, when we know from the other article there are at least 68.

What always intrigues me with these debates is the double standard that certain animals can be killed without a second thought, because they are classified as vermin, yet others are held up as a species we wish to 'save' for future generations. In the middle are the animals we farm for food, which are not classed as vermin, but will be 'saved' for future generations because we farm them.

Logically the answer is to farm the species we want to keep as this removes the double standard and ensures healthy population rates for selected species.

On the subject of compensating farmers for their losses, this doesn't seem like an entirely fair policy. If a mouse finds its way into my materials bin and chews its way through fabric and leather, can I claim compensation as I have suffered a commercial loss due to wildlife interference? That would be an interesting debate topic though, especially if we have any farmers on the forum... should the state pay out for commercial losses due to wildlife interference?

 

[Dave]

The Vermin thing is an odd thing. 60 odd years ago red squirrels were classified as vermin, they are now classified as endangered.
We like to label things, when they are just animals doing as nature intended.
Like everything else it comes down to profits. Money. You've then go to ask, well what is money? Thats a debate for a different forum. And the answers to that are entirely unsatisfactory. And the root cause of much of the worlds misery. More so I think than religious and political dogma.

 

[Fadcode]

maybe the one who seen the 34 had double vision, them stats were from 2014,cant see the wolves doubling in 2 years,
The only compensation is for losses done by the endangered species, probably to stop farmers from shooting them, as they aren't suffering a loss, probably making more of a profit as they don't have to feed them.
I soon learnt not to believe everything you see written down, I don't even believe what I have just written.....lol

 

[Robson Valley]

The limited entry/lottery for wolf hunting licences varies across the country, it won't be an indicriminate shoot.
The description suggests some planning. Whether that's based on fact is anyone's guess, I suppose.
Last year, there were 16 licences issued.

I was expecting them to explain how many wolf packs there are in Norway. They failed.
As you know, the alpha male and female are the sole breeding pair in a pack.
If the total truely is 68 animals, it won't take much to eliminate breeding pairs.
Only then will previous subordinates compete for alpha leadership.

 

[andybysea]

Man tends to eradicate anything that doesn't fit with its agenda, including itself. Im of the mind nature was doing a great job and then we came along and try our best to destroy it.

 

[Dave]

Well said Andy, in total agreement.

 

[dewi]

maybe the one who seen the 34 had double vision, them stats were from 2014,cant see the wolves doubling in 2 years,
The only compensation is for losses done by the endangered species, probably to stop farmers from shooting them, as they aren't suffering a loss, probably making more of a profit as they don't have to feed them.
I soon learnt not to believe everything you see written down, I don't even believe what I have just written.....lol

The mouse is an endangered species as well.... https://ptes.org/get-informed/facts-figures/harvest-mouse/ and if said mouse had a munch on my materials bin, technically I'd suffer a loss... so if the mouse is to blame, is it right that I claim?

 

[dewi]

Man tends to eradicate anything that doesn't fit with its agenda, including itself. Im of the mind nature was doing a great job and then we came along and try our best to destroy it.

And there was I thinking the human race came from nature.

It is all very well saying nature does a great job and we come along destroying it, but effectively its our house. We manipulate the Earth to suit our own needs, and frankly if any other species were capable of developing complex tools, language/communication and building on the scale humans have throughout history, those species would dominate the planet as we do.

I'd love a world where we could live in relative harmony with nature, but the electricity we use has to come from somewhere. We've developed a complex living arrangement reliant on technology, transport and, obviously, a financial system. Gradually we're getting better at working with nature rather than against it, but blimey, its less than 2000 years since we were living in mud huts and hunting with spears... for that matter, some places in the UK didn't get electricity until around 30 years ago. We're at the tail end of an industrial age moving gradually towards a technological age, moving from dirty greasy machines to cleaner (dare I say greener) machines... given that it took until 1935 to develop soft toilet roll and considering solar cells were invented in the late 19th century, its taken over a 100 years to see any real benefit from them.

You're right we eradicate anything that doesn't fit our agenda, but then nobody would argue about eradicating Yersinia Pestis... the majority would kill (or attempt to kill) an animal if it attacked a loved one. More than 99.9% of all species that have ever lived have been made extinct, and to quote the late George Carlin... we didn't kill them all. Nature has killed off more species than we could ever conceive of and will more than likely have a good pop at the human race a few more times before we're done... so whilst it might not be cause for celebration that the Norwegians plan to kill 47.6 wolves out of the 68 currently residing there, worse things have literally happened at sea.

 

[Tengu]

I cant get over that mental picture of Alan Turing.

 

[Corso]

Man tends to eradicate anything that doesn't fit with its agenda, including itself. Im of the mind nature was doing a great job and then we came along and try our best to destroy it.

Don't worry we'll be killed off soon enough....

 

[KenThis]

Just some thoughts.

Norway is a relatively rich country with a populace of relatively intelligent ecologically conscious people.
There are approximately 5.5million living in Norway with a relatively low population density of only 35persquaremile (213th) in the world. They also have the 4th largest GDP of any country approximately $70,000 per person.

If a country like that wishes to eradicate their apex predators and we let it happen, then how hypocritical is it for us to get involved in conservation of any animals anywhere.
Can we really expect much poorer less developed countries to protect elephants, tigers, rhinos, dolphins, whales etc. when we in the developed world place such low value on our own wildlife? Should we attempt any form of sustainability at all regarding what we fish/hunt, should we not try to protect vulnerable ecosystems?
In fact should we get involved in relief aid for fellow humans who are victims of plague/famine natural disasters?

I personally think we all have a moral duty to be the change that we wish to see in the world. It may seem to be of little benefit individually but I still think we need to stand up for what we believe in and try to make a difference. The natural world is a finite resource, and it's cliched but we really do only have one planet.

I might sound hypocritical sat at my computer with my electricity etc. but I still do what I can every day. It's probably not enough and no doubt I could do more but it's a start.

Sometimes in these debates the question is framed very black and white "Wolves vs Sheep Farmers", as if all those advocating for wolves are simultaneously against sheep farmers or vice versa. This is hardly ever the case, usually we want a compromise a properly managed system where both the wolves are able to maintain a small healthy wild population and the sheep farmers are adequately protected and where necessary compensated. How else could it be? I'm not an idiot, if it's a straight choice between a farmer allowing wolves to hnt his herd or providing for his family there are going to be a lot of wolf skin rugs.. But surely it need never be such a cut and dry choice.