Two wolf articles, both published in the American EarthFirst! magazine in 2001:

These articles were written with specific events in mind, but many permanently useful points are nevertheless to be found here.

Norwegian wolf slaughter, March 2001:

By Per Inge Oestmoen, ALPHA-gruppen, Norway

Very serious and bloody events are playing themselves out in the Norwegian wilderness these days. One of the branches of government, the Department of Nature Management, decided on February 5 to completely eradicate all wolves from the Alvdal, Stor-Elvdal and Rendalen municipalities in the Norwegian Oesterdalen (eastern valley). On February 10, the government-sanctioned, mass execution of innocent wild animals began with 23 heavily armed hunters on snowmobiles. They use these to run down and exhaust the animals, unambiguously demonstrating that the Norwegian government wants to take the lives of these wolves by every means possible-even using aircraft if other methods fail to succeed. The wolves held out without any losses until February 19, when the slaughterers managed to shoot one female.

Canis lupus, or the Norwegian timber wolf, has largely been absent from Norway for 115 years. Before 1875, the wolves were numerous in Norway and Scandinavia, but relentless human persecution, including but not limited to shooting, trapping and poisoning, eventually took its toll, and the wolf population succumbed to this massive war of extermination. By 1980, the species appeared to be recuperating as more and more observations were reported. From that point it took 17 years before the wolf's reappearance resulted in the establishment of several reproducing wolf packs of any significant size. In 1997 the wolf controversy flared up, and it seemed that a slight majority of the population welcomed the animals. However, the enemies of the wolf, chief among them the sheep farmers, soon demanded that the wolves be eradicated from Norwegian soil.

In May 2000, the government adopted a new wolf management policy. The government accepted the sheep farmers' premise that humans and sheep cannot live in the same area as wolves. So they introduced areal zoning as a cornerstone of the management. Because of the zones, wolves are only allowed to live in certain limited areas of southeastern Norway-areas which are mostly urbanized and heavily populated by humans. An exception is some areas in the middle of Norway where enormous coniferous forests stretch themselves eastward into Sweden. There, wolves are allowed to live, but the principle of zoning is, of course, biologically irresponsible as well as wildly unrealistic.

Wolves do not read maps, and moreover zoning runs counter to the needs of this very mobile canine child whose nature it is to roam freely in the forests. Yet, the principle in Norway is that any family packs that establish themselves outside of the management zones will be killed. The Norwegian parliament also adopted another equally unwise management principle: Scandinavia is to harbor at least 8-10 family groups, or a mere 40-80 individuals. This was creatively interpreted by the politically influential enemies of the wolf to mean an upper limit, which was again accepted by the Department. Even so, this number is a far cry from the lower limit indicated by the very skilled and morally upright geneticist Linda Laikre at the University of Stockholm, whose unequivocal position is that there needs to be at least 500 individual wolves in Scandinavia to ensure survivability beyond a short time frame. The Swedish government sides with the sensible judgments of Laikre and her colleagues.

Consequently, there is a wide discrepancy between the Norwegian and the Swedish management goals. In Norway, most scientists who support the wolves are afraid to voice their opinions because they know that it may cost them their job if they do so. The most recent estimates are that no more than 60-80 wolves exist in the two countries. If that situation persists, it will eventually prove a recipe for extinction.

The majority of Norway falls outside the arbitrarily imposed zones, and so does Oesterdalen. It was then determined that 20 wolves, who in January 2001 lived in Oesterdalen, were outside the human-imposed management zone. At the same time, the Department of Nature Management decided that there are "enough" family groups in Scandinavia to permit the killing in Oesterdalen. The government later gave in to heavy pressure from the sheep farmers and some landowners in the area, who feared the possible depletion of their hunting resources (moose), and authorized the initial massacre of one pack of nine wolves in Atndalen. At the same time, they had given signals that a neighboring pack of 10 will be killed later if the local sheep farmers so desire. The perspicacious friends of the wolves immediately saw that this was a scarcely veiled political maneuver designed to calm down those opposed to the mass killing while the government still holds the door open for a complete eradication of all the wolves in the area.

Unfortunately, the combination of the political shenanigans of the sheep farmers, the inability of the Norwegian government to take a stand in favor of the wolves' right to live and the ecologically bankrupt management principles that unfortunately have been introduced, spells the doom for new individuals or packs that will sooner or later repopulate the area in question. In other words, the area in Oesterdalen is virtually set up for repeated, frightful massacres. This sad situation is all the more intolerable as the whole of Oesterdalen is prime wolf country. The landscape is covered by coniferous forest (as is the greater part of the land mass in Norway), and there are large numbers of moose, the main prey source. What is the prospect of these Oesterdalen animals? Are they bound to die? Apparently, unless very strong support can be mobilized nationally and internationally.

It would be of great help if people outside of Norway could protest against the slaughter and also let the Norwegian authorities know that their irresponsible wolf management can not be accepted. For now, the friends of the wolf can try to win time, frustrating the slaughterers by keeping the wolves away from them. This has already happened; without the active presence of numerous environmentalists from Norway and Sweden all the wolves had now been massacred. There is hope that the massive presence of demonstrators might delay the hunt enough to give the wolves a chance to adapt to the situation and flee the area. Since the area is snowy, cross-country skiers accompanied by dog teams on our side have endeavored to stress and frighten the animals in the hope that they will flee to Sweden, like what many Norwegians did when similarly hunted by the German attackers during the Second World War. The Norwegian state has so far managed to kill four wolves as of March 06. The remaining may be gunned down too, but if a sufficient number of people shoulder the responsibility toward our furry brothers and sisters, it is possible to prevent the full massacre until the date when the dirty task must be accomplished- April 6, 2001.

(Update: This massacre was carried out, and as the month of March drew to a close nine individual wolves had been killed by government decree.)

New wolf report from Norway, June 2001:

By Per Inge Oestmoen, ALPHA-gruppen, Norway

The Norwegian government accomplished their short-term goal of killing an entire wolf pack in Oesterdalen. The last two wolves in the Atndal pack were shot from a helicopter at the end of March. While being unfavorable in itself, the loss of nine wolves of an already precariously small population will accelerate the decline in genetic variation. The brutality of this action is bound to backfire on those responsible, as there are strong indications that the Norwegian public is becoming increasingly aware of the issue.

The cornerstone of the Norwegian government's management strategy is the zoning out of wolves from most of the country's land mass, most of which is excellent wolf habitat. The ramifications of this strategy are well known among wolf biologists. The establishment of new packs as a result of dispersed individuals migrating far away from their original home range is an important element in their utilizing the existing genetic variability and its natural protection against inbreeding.

It is not easy to determine the precise time frame for when the detrimental effects of the zoning will become noticeable if the zoning is continued in its present form. Suffice to say that the very principle disrupts the normal dynamics of wolf societies and undeniably contributes negatively to the Scandinavian wolf's predicament, hence it is unacceptable from a biological viewpoint. To deny the wolf its rightful place in nature is very evil. The positive effects of predation pressure upon the prey populations were established long ago. Alertness, fleetness, strength, endurance and superior senses of wild animals are a direct result of the presence of powerful environmental pressures, especially natural predation. In addition, the ungulate population will naturally be less healthy unless wolves are present to constantly select the strongest animals for survival. The Norwegian zoning policy hinders these mechanisms by effectively preventing the wolves from filling their role in the ecosystem since they are not allowed to establish packs in the country save for within a ridiculously small area located in the extreme southeast of Norway.

The most serious effect of the Norwegian zoning principle may be its psychological influence on people. By making the de facto exclusion of wolves from most of the country a cornerstone in their management policy, the government implicitly hammers home the message that the wolf is by definition a "problem" that has to be limited. Here the department officials argue that the zoning is necessary to avoid conflicts and that it is also a prerequisite to acceptance of wolves in Norway. This reasoning is doubtful to say the least, since the limitation of wolves' living areas can no more be expected to lead to greater acceptance of wolves than the principle of Apartheid contributed to the increased acceptance of and respect for black people in South Africa. There is another parallel: Like the former Apartheid, the wolf zone model in Norway is a result of hatred and prejudice. The worst thing that can happen is that the present zone principle continues to be adhered to. This is because people will become accustomed to the thought that wolves must not be allowed a free existence. Thus, unless the friends of the wolf manage to bring about an abandonment of the concept of severe limitation of the wolves' areas, the Norwegian wolf management zones are likely to serve a very negative educational function. As long as the current Norwegian management model persists, the wolf is prevented from being a natural element in the fauna.

It seems that the government's aim is to pay lip service to protection of the wolf, while avoiding the accompanying responsibility for accepting the wolves' natural right to form and sustain a viable population. The present management strategy has been likened to a sort of "wilderness zoo" in which a small population is maintained and assisted by the regular artificial introduction of genetically-foreign wolves into the small population of animals whose genetic variability would otherwise rapidly dwindle and become too small for survival.

What can people in Norway and abroad do about this? Several strategies will have to be used. The informative line has to be accompanied by direct and spectacular actions that can catch people's attention, since the majority of people seem to be undecided and cling to what they believe is a "neutral" attitude. Since Norway is an attractive country for tourists from around the world, it certainly would have an effect if the government sees that their wolf management principles will reflect badly upon the country abroad. I therefore call upon you all to bring out the message about what our management authorities are doing. At the same time, there are people inside Norway who are preparing for the upcoming fight to prevent the slaughter of the remaining wolf pack in Oesterdalen, a slaughter that the sheep farmers have already been promised.

What kind of "action" is advisable in this context? We can only answer for ourselves: We who have chosen to work in the ALPHA-gruppen refrain from violent action, and believe that just being there to provide information about the situation and the consequences of unfortunate decisions is a very valuable thing to do. We also give advice about herding techniques that can help farmers to live with the wolves by avoiding excessive livestock depredations. As most are aware of, much of the cause of the conflict lies here, so this is important.

(Update comment: At the time of this writing, it is clear that the Norwegian Department for Nature Management has decided to follow a similar policy with respect to other predators too. The fundamental approach, sadly lacking in ecological responsibility, is that predators are a problem that must be "managed" and "controlled" by humans. An observation: The ubiquitous collaring and registration of the animals' whereabouts and movements in nature may serve some useful porposes and be sensible when the collection of research data is the aim. However, there is no doubt that a main impulse behind the urge to monitor the animals in Nature is the human propensity towards seeking control, control and further control.)

Interestingly, this remarkably strong craving towards control also reflects itself in policies within human societies, where government and police agencies in many countries tend to attempt to establish laws that legitimize extensive surveillance and monitoring of the population, in particular peoples' electronic communication and their movements on the internet. The specious excuse is to "prevent crime"; the real reason is the intrinsically totalitarian desire to obtain full control over everything. Hence we are talking about very disturbing tendencies that encompass much more than just wolves and their realm. Free, uncontrolled movement and activities seem to be considered intolerable by certain currents and forces in human society. There are sound reasons why we may consider a lessening of that control impulse a prerequisite to the development of the full potential and the attainment of an optimum quality of life for both wolves and humans.