An interview

1. What do you think are the major problems with wolf management as it stands? (The examples are from Scandinavia, but the whole problem complex is universally applicable)

Oestmoen: A significant part of the problem is that large predators have been largely absent throughout most of the 20th century. Thus, a portion of people has come to consider a predator-free existence as a natural condition and wolves have accordingly become viewed as an "anachronism of nature" in some quarters. This view is scientifically untenable and ecologically irresponsible, as explained elsewhere in these two of our articles:

http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/artikler/why_wolves.htm
http://www.alpha-gruppen.com/artikler/predation_pressure.htm

It is important to realize that those who believe that wolves and other predators are an anachronism and a destructive element in nature do not form a majority. A growing number of people (particularly those with good biological knowledge), living in both in urban and rural areas realize the value of wolves and increasingly accept their place in the ecosystems. However, those who are against wolves living in the fauna are politically influential by virtue of their being organized in sheep farmers' associations and similar organizations who are mostly connected to predator-unfriendly farmers and landowners who harbor an unsubstantiated fear that wolves will spell the end for the hunting possibilities. The facts demonstrating that wolves have never exterminated their prey, and that ancient farmers were able to protect their animals against livestock depredation by not only wolves but also bears, wolverines and lynx who lived in large numbers all over the country help little when these people have considerable political influence. It should however be pointed out that humans must take responsibility for the safety of the animals which they have domesticated. To demand that wild species bear the brunt through being exterminated or kept from their natural habitats because those practicing animal husbandry wish to let their sheep, cattle, horses or poultry out without proper care and supervision is a glaring example of not fulfilling the encumbent ethical duty which the production and keeping of domestic creatures entails.

Another factor is many peoples' fear of large predators, which is again the result of fear of what has unfortunately become unknown. This fear is also skilfully being played upon by those who make their political career from creating a fear image and have vested interests in battling against large predators, much like what international police forces and content industries do when they use a marginal phenomenon as child pornography as an excuse to introduce massive government and police surveillance on the Internet. Fear is a powerful political weapon used in a wide variety of contexts.

The result of this is a wolf management policy that imposes severe restrictions on wildlife. The official Norwegian policy (as of 2002) was that 80-100 wolves are sufficient, a political standard which is pure biological nonsense and hence irresponsible.

Further; a zoning management is practiced in which packs of wolves are only allowed to form in a geographically limited area of the country. The latest news is that a similar zoning is discussed for bears, wolverines an possibly lynx too. Needless to say, this principle runs absolutely counter to the demands of natural biodiversity, and the bankruptcy of this kind of zoning becomes clear when some envisage that the country be divided into several management zones where different animals are allowed to live according to human political decisions. Even if it were possible to ensure that wild animals stayed within clearly delineated geographical areas, the principle runs counter to that of the natural ecosystem where many species of predators and prey play themselves out against each other to the long-term evolutionary benefit of all involved in a natural, challenging environment.

The fundamental problem is that the long absence of large predators from Norwegian fauna has created a mentality where people have been accustomed to this absence. Although those who support biodiversity and large predators are in the majority, the opponents are lobbying intensely for their interests and have so far managed to drive home a restrictive management policy. It is imperative to realize that this can be changed, but it requires that the friends of biodiversity demand it forcefully and consistently.

Scandinavian wolves in 2002 lived mainly in the border areas in the great conifer belt in the middle eastern parts of Norway and Sweden. According to the latest estimates, there are between 92 and 107 wolves in Scandinavia. Of these, only 11-16 live stationarily in Norway. A number of 60-69 live in Sweden, whereas 21-22 are estimated to wander to and fro between the two countries. There is a small stationary population of wolves in the Oestfold county with at least one established pack. According to the official zoning policy these are allowed to live there, but as could be expected the whole setup predisposes toward a restrictive approach and a mentality where the emphasis is on population control, not the encouragement of biodiversity and Nature's own autonomy which is acutely needed in today's over-populated and over-urbanized world. So we who want a more natural environment have a long and arduous task before us.

2. Do you agree with the current policies being utilized now in Norway and Sweden?

Oestmoen: Personally I have no particular comments to the Swedish policy in 2002, as it is much more sound and above all more in harmony with the needs of wildlife than is the Norwegian management policy.

3. How could management be improved? What would
improve conservation and reduce existing conflicts with human interests?

Oestmoen: We first need to ask what the ultimate goal of wildlife management should be. Is it the conservation of a species, is it a conservation of a species with the aim to ensure short-term viability of the population (say 50-200 years), is it the conservation of the species for an unlimited time? Although the last goal is the most environmentally sound, ultimately they all have a wrong focus. What we should do, is to allow Nature to rule herself. That means that humans need to understand that it is the totality of the ecosystems, with all their subtle mechanisms, that has to be respected and supported. If we view this from a perspective of several hundred and thousands of years, which we ought to do since what decisions we make today will have influence in the future, we will see that an ecosystem where natural predator-prey interactions are allowed to occur undisturbed will result in a more intense ecosystem with healthier and more capable animals. This is the main reason why it is necessary to protect these mechanisms.

As for the reduction of conflicts, the first task is a thorough education, which I will say more about later on. When we talk about conflicts, it is of cardinal importance to understand that when people react negatively to the presence of wolves (and other predators) it is not necessarily because they create problems that are impossible to solve. Rather, it is because these people perceive the problems to be more than what they want to live with. In other words; peoples' tolerance is determined by their values, their philosophical standing and their feelings. So people have to learn that an environment cleansed of predators is unnatural, and so is a condition in which one does not have to defend and/or protect one's animals against predators. There are only two solutions that can bring the conflicts around wolves and other predators to an end. These are 1) complete extermination of all predators in the environment and 2) that people learn to understand and to value a natural environment and its challenges. If we want to protect Nature and its integrity as well as our own long-term future, only option 2) is available to us. The key to the solution is part educational, part philosophical, part psychological. People have to understand Nature's mechanisms and to appreciate them instead of putting themselves in the place of rulers over the biosphere and its constituents.

4. How do you view the situation in Sweden when compared to Norway? Do you think what they do in Sweden affects what occurs in Norway?

Oestmoen: To the first question I would say that at the time of this writing the situation looks much more favorable in Sweden. The Swedish Ministry of environment has a considerably more wolf-friendly approach which also extends to all "cumbersome" predators. They start from the premise that a natural environment must be allowed to maintain itself. The main reason for the difference between Norway and Sweden in this respect is the Norwegian sheep farmers' political power, which evidently has put constraints to how environment friendly Norwegian politicians have been able to be. In Sweden there is simply more room for a predator friendly management. To the second question: No doubt, because a sizable wolf population in Sweden means that many individuals will migrate to Norway's forests and establish packs there. Politically the sheep farmers and other opponents of wolves wield so much political power in Norway that Swedish policies are unlikely to alter Norwegian management policy to any significant degree. The only thing that can remedy the situation is that the supporters of biodiversity become strong and numerous within Norway.

5. What sort of goals should Norwegian management authorities set in terms of numbers of individuals and annual reproductions of wolves?

Oestmoen: Firstly; management goals, in order to be biologically responsible and take into consideration the needs of wild animals, must be based on biology, not on human political or short-term economic considerations. Secondly; I believe that it is a blind alley to concentrate on numbers. An emphasis on numbers easily lead to low and rather rigid minimum standards for population sizes that are defined after what human common consensus finds "acceptable." On the other hand, if numbers for wolf packs and annual reproductions were set more according to a natural state of wildlife, it might frighten people who think that "oh, this is too many wolves, we cannot live with that." That might backfire, so it will probably not be the best strategy either. Judging from this situation, the best approach seems to be to rely on a long-term education of people.

What we must teach people, is not only the inherent qualities of the wolf and what this myth-surrounded animal actually is and is not. We have to teach people about the qualities and principles of the ecosystems on which our own existence is inextricably and inescapably based. That means, we need to not only conserve one species or more, we need to adjust to and harmonize with the natural properties and principles of wildlife, we need to conserve and restore large natural habitats and ecological systems that humans have irresponsibly tampered with. As one will understand, this issue is about vastly more than just wolves. It is about humans' relationship to Nature and ultimately to ourselves.

That is not to say that humans should not participate in the ecosystem, for example by their hunting. Biologically there is no problem with hunting animals as long as they exist in sufficiently large numbers, and as long as the purpose of the hunting is the harvest in Nature instead of exterminating species that are considered "cumbersome" for humans. This way, humans would take part in the great interplay just like other animals. So humans are - and should be - part of the whole picture, absolutely.

Among the things that people need to learn is that wolves and other predators are very intelligent opportunists. Wolves will always prey upon livestock, given the chance. Wolves will always kill dogs and cats, whenever these animals are not protected. This is something people must learn to accept. Humans can no longer re-structure Earth to be a cultivated garden for humans alone, if we are to plan a sustainable future for ourselves and other life forms on the planet.

Regarding more specific wolf management goals, the emphasis should be on the concept of a natural environment. If the underlying premise is that an environment that is as natural as possible is desirable, then much will follow from there. What is clear, is that the goals that were politically established in 2001, with 8-10 family groups in Scandinavia as a "sufficient" number for a viable population, is way too low. One aspect is the short-term and long-term survivability. Another and more important aspect is the long-term evolutionary capacity of the population of the species in question, which is the wolf in this particular context. If a population of any species is to maintain a long-term survivability with an optimal evolutionary potential for adaptation to its environment, then the population has to be so large that the breeding stock maintains its genetic variation over an indefinite period of time. That means that human management whereby the numbers of individuals is kept very low, perhaps only some few hundred individuals, is not biologically acceptable. The number has to be large enough that the genetic variation in the population is maintained in the long run by the natural rate of mutations combined with natural selection.

This means that the total population needs to be much larger than a few hundred individuals. Unfortunately, it is never possible to establish a definite number and say that "here we have a long-term sustainable population." A determining factor is the genetic exchange through migration from neighboring populations. A relatively small local population might theoretically be viable if there is sufficient gene flow from other populations. If such is not the case, then the population is genetically isolated. When that is the situation, the population size of course has to be much larger. It may be mentioned that between 1846 and 1860, 3900 wolves were killed by humans in Norway alone. In Sweden, where there is even more coniferous forest areas, even more wolves were killed during the same period. The Swedish 'Predator Report' (Rovdjursutredningen) from 1999 described how 6790 wolves were killed by humans in Sweden between 1827 and 1839. It is likely that not all of these were wolves, and there may have been some instances of bounties being claimed twice for the same carcass, but nevertheless the killing was enormous in scale. So when the official Norwegian management policy implied that 8-10 packs or 70-100 individuals is "enough" for the whole of Scandinavia, it was both a tragedy and a comedy at the same time.

Here some will predictably suggest that humans manage this by artificially bringing in "new blood" in order to keep the population going. This is not at all recommendable, because any human intervention will over time alter the natural mechanisms and their ability to function independent on human management. In this context it may also be mentioned that the same also applies to suggestions that wild animals are given contraception to keep their numbers down. As this will reduce the number of individuals that can participate in the natural selection processes this scenario would alter the evolution of these animals in a way not beneficial to wildlife.

6. Has the issue been more ingrained with political concerns rather than biological matters?

Oestmoen: As elaborated upon in the above, most definitely. What is politically feasible at the moment has been allowed to dictate long-term policy. We ought to build a more responsible approach for the coming decades, centuries and millennia. It all boils down to human non-acceptance or preferably acceptance of wildlife and the challenges it presents to us. A responsible approach is to meet the challenge, rather than to strive to eliminate it to the detriment of a larger scheme of things that encompasses immensely much more than the human realm. Humans must appreciate that they are but one species among countless others on Earth, and that the planet does belong to all its inhabitants.