Tag: cull

Posted on

Slovakia approves the sale of brown bear meat to the public

Last month, the Slovakian cabinet approved plans to cull around 1 quarter of the bear population in the country (currently at around 1300) after some high profile fatal encounters between humans and bears.

It is unclear what the actual carrying capacity of Slovakia, and indeed this is often the problem. The government decides what the carrying capacity is of the land, they set quotas for hunting them and they reap the money for hunting permits, as well as having to deal with any livestock predation. These different requirements are often lead to different groups having different desires and therefore results can be skewed to support a decision which is not in the best interest of the country or the population.

Having carrying capacity and population size done by truly independent researchers would help with this, but in most countries, this independence is not real, with the government holding the purse strings or similar power over future studies.

A reduction of a quarter, is a large step, will change the population makeup significantly and is likely to greatly disrupt bear tourism to the country.

Tourism revenue for this country has hovered between 1 and 2 billion dollars in recent decades, and while it is hard to pinpoint exactly how much of this is to do with wildlife, and particularly bear tourism, it is thought that a majority do some sort of ecotourism while in the country – therefore care must also be taken to not destroy this important income for the country.

Posted on

EJC has ruled against Austria on wolf hunting

Wolves have only recently returned to Austria, with an estimated 80 wolves spread throughout the country. It is perhaps not surprising therefore, that animal welfare activists, took the government to court, when it set cull numbers at 20, or 25% of the population a year.

The Austrian government had pointed to a condition in the 1992 EU directive on protecting wildlife, which states that wolf hunting to prevent financial damage can only be done if the population is in a favourable conservation status – something certainly not true in Austria. This condition can only apply to a wolf population which is stable.

I would also suggest that plans to kill 25% of the population each year, should also damage this, but this is a discussion for another day – when the population is far larger than it currently is. Other countries like Holland have similar sized wolf populations, and so this ruling could be applied in a variety of places.

Regional governments have absurdly argued that the wolf is no longer endangered in Austria, and that therefore its protection should be reduced. had the government listened would a ruling similar to the USA have come forward? Such that open season could be declared?

It is a good thing that wolves are so good at holding on, as we have spent much of our time attacking.

It is funny to think, that it is estimated our relationship with wolves (in the form of domesticating them as dogs) likely goes back to a similar point to the advent of growing crops, and well before the time that we started to keep livestock.

Given our fondness of dogs has deeper roots than our fear of wolves, it seems odd, that wolf persecution ever really got underway. It is true that wolf populations do need handling, but their existence is more good than bad. Places like the UK where they are missing, show this (when looked at the situation rationally)

Posted on

Badger vaccinating is found to be far more effective than culls

The UK has been culling badgers since 2013, and since then over 230,000, yet a recent study has shown that vaccination is far more successful than culling.

This trial in Cornwall, found that the rate of bTB in the study area fell to zero.

Why is this important? One of the big shames of the British government is the fact that experts have been telling them since the beginning of the cull, that it will not work. This is for a very simple reason. Badgers are required to mingle to breed, and when you cull badgers, while you can largely eliminate them in the centre of your trial area, in the area further out, you merely reduce the numbers.

As a result, young males and females that are looking for a mate are required to roam further in order to find one. As a result, any local concentrations of bTB get spread around, causing the rate of the illness to increase. The study area covered 12 farms, and they vaccinated 265 badgers.

The next step is to fund a study over a far larger area.

It should be noted, that farmers funded the study, and it has been shown that not only are vaccines more effective at eliminating bTB, but also significantly cheaper. Furthermore, they found that more badgers were vaccinated per km than were culled on nearby land – suggesting a far higher reach within the badger population.

Might we finally be at a place, where with bTB outbreaks, we can vaccinate rather than cull the badgers, so as to reduce the spread in cattle (though as I have written before, much of the spread comes from moving cattle around, rather than from the badgers anyway.

In south Africa, the bTB reservoir is found within the wild lion population. Understandably, few people would want these lions to be culled, but the ability to fire vaccine darts at them, might well be feasible in eliminating bTB here as well, where around 54% of lions have been shown to carry the illness. Whether or how fast the vaccine idea will reach South Africa is something that we will have to look out for.

Posted on

Montana (and many other states) cannot be trusted to maintain sensible populations of grizzly bears or wolves, so why do they have control?

In 2020, Trump gave responsibility for managing wildlife populations back to the states. Now one might argue that this is the right thing to do, after all it is democracy, but is it?

Wolves are a natural part of the ecosystem in Montana, with a stronghold in the Rockies, but this was a population that lost its protection under Trump

Many of the states in the USA are horrifically gerrymandered, with some having a small minority overruling the great majority. There are many intentional ways that this is done (republicans have been very good at it over time – there are been 2 times in recent years where democrats got more votes but lost.

Continue reading “Montana (and many other states) cannot be trusted to maintain sensible populations of grizzly bears or wolves, so why do they have control?”
Posted on

Norway continues to ignore science, but the wolf cull has been halted (for now)

Norway is a large country with only 5.4 million population. One would think therefore, that there would be plenty of space for healthy populations of wildlife. Indeed, one would be correct.

However, they draw the line at wolves.

At the start of the year, there was roughly 80 wolves in Norway. It seems foolish to need to say this, but this is not many for a country of this size. Similarly bears only number around 14, and lynx 350. With huge populations of musk ox deer elk and many other herbivores. This is clearly not enough predators.

Unfortunately this is not a view held by Norway.

51 wolves out of the population of 80 were due to be killed. This is clearly not a scientific cull, but one to placate hunters and farmers.

25 of the animals were due to be killed within four packs that live in the “Wolf zone” an area specifically set aside to protect predators. It is these wolves who have been given a stay of execution – conservationists argued that it is absurd to have an area set aside for nature, and to kill such a large proportion of a species that lives within it.

Conservation groups are taking the Nordic countries to court over their extreme hostile environment that they have for wolves. On Friday, Finland suspended licences to kill 3 packs of wolves specifically because of EU legistlation.

It is not wise to cull entire populations. Importantly, significant numbers of tourists visiting the Nordic region come for the wildlife. In other words, these animals are worth far more alive than dead.

Posted on

Government in USA killed a pack of wolves despite it having been adopted by a school

The US department of Agriculture wildlife service branch has killed 8 pops from a wolf pack in Idaho, this despite the pack having been tracked by a school for 18 years.

Wolves are an essential part of Idaho’s ecosystem, yet they are being removed anyway after they have returned
Continue reading “Government in USA killed a pack of wolves despite it having been adopted by a school”
Posted on

1 in 3 of the wolves living in Wisconsin were killed after they lost protection

More than 2000 hunt licences were given out in Wisconsin for the first season of wolf hunting.

They had an aim to kill 119 wolves, yet within 3 days they had shot or traped 218 wolves and so the season was brought to an early close. Added to these official numbers it is thought that Poachers killed around 100 more wolves within the state.

The alarming thing is that these illegal hunting numbers will works out on the assumption of extreme conservative estimates.

This only happened after the trump administration declare the wolf no longer endangered – ignoring virtually all science (they still occupy a very small portion of the range that they once had in the USA). Furthermore, the States department of national resources initially banned the hunt, and it only went ahead when a pro hunting group sud and a judge ordered the ban illegal.

Alarmingly this is not the worst case. Idaho’s new rule allows up to 90% of the world’s population to be killed. In no one’s books does this constitute a rational or long-term decision.

Bizarrely in Wisconsin the current rules state that a hunt must occur each year regardless of whether it is scientifically justified. It should not be controversial to suggest that hunting quotas be based in science and not written by those who benefits from more of the animals being killed, but unfortunately in the USA, this is often how it happens.

I would hope that president Biden looks at this ridiculous decision made by trump on the way out of the door, and put in clear scientific requirements before the wolf is pushed back towards the brink of extinction. It is in the interests of those who enjoy hunting, that the hunt is sustainable, as without, the hunt will cease again in just a few years.

Posted on

The UK has had much positive impact on conservation around the world, so why keep culling badgers despite the evidence?

Research done in the UK though not published (despite being completed 2 years ago) clearly shows that badgers are highly unlikely to infect cattle.

A highly popular species the government continues to blame them for a disease which at best they are a small factor in
Continue reading “The UK has had much positive impact on conservation around the world, so why keep culling badgers despite the evidence?”
See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers