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.

[…]

  • PonyOfWar
    link
    fedilink
    English
    63
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This is still all about Ursula von der Leyen’s personal vendetta after her pony died, isn’t it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      312 days ago

      And the farmers and cattle breeders wanting the EU to fight and not fight climate change and the destruction of the ecosystems that support them all at once, preferably in a way that maximizes their short term profits.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -52 days 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        24 hours ago

        You’re more likely to die of a wild boar attack or of a cow than a wolf in europe.

      • PonyOfWar
        link
        fedilink
        English
        212 days 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”.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 day 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.

          • AwesomeLowlander
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 hours 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            101 day 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 day 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                3
                edit-2
                1 day 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -419 hours ago

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

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    22 hours 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            110 hours ago

            It’s possible to change the language of the article as I’ve seen. Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read!

            I’m glad the girl has not been severly injured. Of course, such things should not happen. The parents must have been extremely worried about their child, let alone how terrified the child was. I hope it won’t stay traumatised from that.

            Yesterday, I’ve also read on another occasion about the other child being rammed by a wolf. I think it’s possible to educate people in a manner such they can deal with their children and pets responsibly in areas where wolf populations exist. Wolves don’t attack humans without reason. According to the article you’ve linked, a behavioural biologist states that the wolf bit her lightly as a warning to stay away. Of course a 5 year old child doesn’t understand this. But it should be possible in this case to implement precautions for the supervisors. Maybe fence off the school ground, get educated how to handle wolf contacts, install auditive deterrents on a frequency only wolves can hear and so on. This can help to improve a peaceful co-existence between humans and wolves.

            It’s not surprising that incidents like these can tilt the public opinion against wolves. Which is why it’s even more important to highlight other non-lethal alternatives as solutions.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 hours ago

              Yeah 1 girl bitten, 1 girl pushed, 1 dog bitten and 1 dog just dragged away into the forest while leashed. And the government doesn’t know what to do, they don’t want to shoot them. Of course if the population of wolves increases these things will happen more often. That’s why I said we just don’t have the space. This shouldn’t be able to happen if people here don’t even believe it.