som Skandulv har ett stort ansvar för. Liberg vittnade ju i norska domstolar om att vargen inte var utrotningshotad.
Siden 2000 er 1677 store rovdyr registrert drept i Norge. Man må helt tilbake til 1890-årene for å finne et tiår med større dødstall for rovdyr. Lierne og Rendalen er kommunene der flest rovdyr drepes
http://naturvernforbundet.no/naturogmiljo/1677-truede-rovdyr-drept-siden-2000-article22535-1024.html
– Vi har en historisk sjanse til å sikre levedyktige bestander av rovdyrene i Norge, men risikerer nå å skyte bort denne muligheten, sier biolog og fagleder i Norges Naturvernforbund, Arnodd Håpnes.
Utrydningstruede bjørner, gauper, jerver og ulver skytes som aldri før i Norge. En gjennomgang Natur & miljø har gjennomført viser at nesten ni av ti drepte rovdyr er felt med tillatelse fra myndighetene. Av de 1677 rovdyrene som ligger inne i Rovbasen etter 2000 er 86 prosent felt i forbindelse med tillatt jakt.
I tillegg kommer den ulovlige jakten, som det ikke finnes sikre tall for. I en rapport fra Norsk institutt for naturforskning fremgår det at ulovlig jakt er den viktigste dødsårsaken for ulv i Skandinavia. Rovdyrforsker John Odden i Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA) anslår at mellom 5 og 15 prosent av gaupebestanden i Akershus og Østfold felles ulovlig hvert år.
Lierne på kommunetoppen
Lierne, Rendalen og Porsanger troner øverst på listen over kommuner med flest drepte rovdyr, tett fulgt av Målselv, Snåsa, Stor-Elvdal, Saltdal, Sør-Varanger, Nordreisa og Trysil. Vår undersøkelse viser at disse ti kommunene står for nærmere 20 prosent av de drepte rovdyrene. Ser vi på fylkene, drepes det flest rovdyr i Nord-Trøndelag, Hedmark og Nordland.
I løpet av noen få uker denne vinteren ble 134 gauper skutt i kvotejakten. Det tilsvarer nesten en tredel den samlede norske bestanden. Man må helt tilbake til 1877 for å finne tilsvarende fellingstall.
Det dør også rekordmange bjørner i norsk natur. Fra 2007 til 2009 ble mellom 11 og 18 bjørner drept hvert år. Hittil i år er 9 bjørner drept. Ikke siden begynnelsen av forrige århundre har det vært drept flere bjørner i Norge. For ulv må man tilbake til 1940-tallet for å finne en større avskyting enn det siste tiåret, mens man må helt tilbake til 1890-årene for å finne tilsvarende tall for jerv.
Ekstrem risiko for utryddelse
Samtlige fire store rovdyr står som utrydningstruede på den norske rødlisten, men hvor truet de er varierer. Gaupe og jerv ligger begge over bestandsmålet som Stortinget har vedtatt, mens ulv og bjørn ligger under. Verst stilt er ulven. Den er kritisk truet, noe som innebærer en ekstremt høy risiko for at arten skal dø ut i løpet av de tre neste generasjonene, ifølge Norsk Rødliste 2006. Den norske ulvestammen har økt langsomt de siste årene. Det er nå mellom 31 og 37 ulver i Norge. Siden 2000 er det drept 62 ulver i Norge.
Hvordan rovdyrene tåler den betydelige jakten, er det delte meninger om.
– Det har vært en historisk høy beskatning av alle de fire store rovdyrene i Norge, men jeg vil ikke si at bestandene ikke tåler beskatningen. Jerv og gaupe ligger godt over bestandsmålet, og det har også blitt flere ulver og bjørner i Norge de siste årene, sier Morten Kjørstad i Rovdata, Regjeringens nyopprettede senter for kunnskap om norske rovdyr.
– Skytes altfor mye
Fagleder Håpnes i Naturvernforbundet er ikke helt enig.
– Det skytes altfor mye ulv og bjørn. Ulvebestanden er minimal og befinner seg i en kritisk oppbyggingsfase, og bjørnebestanden ligger langt under det Stortinget har satt som mål. At vi har ulv og bjørn i Norge skyldes at nabolandene våre forvalter disse truede dyrene på en annen måte. Slik kan vi ikke fortsette. Norge er forpliktet til å sikre levedyktige bestander av alle arter, både gjennom internasjonale avtaler og eget lovverk.
Hadde vi satt opp et gjerde på grensen, ville ulven og bjørnen gått utryddelsen i møte her i Norge, sier Håpnes.
Håpnes etterlyser en debatt om arealfordeling mellom rovdyr og sau.
– Sauenæringen må i større grad tilpasse seg til rovdyr i områder der rovdyr har forkjørsrett, sier Håpnes.
– Følelser - ikke fakta
Han får støtte fra rovdyrforsker Odden i NINA.
– Vi kommer ikke til å få noen reell nedgang i tapstallene før vi gjør noe med saueholdet, sier Odden.
– Tap av sau brukes nå som argument for å redusere bestandsmålene for ulv og bjørn. Dette handler lite om fakta og mye om følelser. I Sør-Norge vil ikke en reduksjon av bestandsmålene nødvendigvis føre til reduserte tap av sau. Det er nesten ikke frittgående sau i ulvesonen eller i områdene med binner øst i Hedmark. Sauene som blir tatt av ulv og bjørn befinner seg i hovedsak vest for Glomma. De tas ikke av ynglende binner og tisper, men av unge streifdyr som uansett vil komme, sier Odden.
Tar 1,75 prosent av sauene
Likevel brukes tap av sau som fremste argument for å redusere bestandsmålene for ulv og bjørn. De fem siste årene har ulven og bjørnen tatt henholdsvis 3 og 16 prosent av sauene som er erstattet som tatt av rovdyr. Det slippes cirka 2 millioner sau hvert år på utmarksbeite i Norge. Av dem blir årlig snaue 35 000, eller 1,75 prosent, erstattet som tatt av de fire store rovdyrene. Det finnes ingen systematiske undersøkelser av andre dødsårsaker for sau på utmarksbeite, men man regner med at cirka 100 000 dør av sykdom, giftige planter, kulde og påkjørsler og annet. Det betyr at rovdyrene bare står for en fjerdedel av tapene.
söndag 31 oktober 2010
lördag 30 oktober 2010
Avskaffa ersättning för rovdjursdödade tamdjur
Bra initiativ från "Miljøpartiet De Grønne"
http://www.mdg.no/nyheter/avskaff-erstatning-for-drepte-dyr/
Miljøpartiet De Grønne vil avskaffe erstatning for beitedyr tatt av rovdyr. – Gi heller ekstra støtte til bønder som driver i utsatte områder, sier talsperson Sondre Båtstrand.
I 2011 blir nesten 140 millioner kroner delt ut til bønder som hevder at beitedyr er drept av rovdyr, mens Riksrevisjonen påpeker manglende kontroll. Miljøverndepartementet avviser kontroll på grunn av frykt for konflikt med sauenæringen.
- Det er bekymringsfullt at så store beløp blir delt ut uten noen form for kontroll, og det er ikke så rart at ordningen skaper mistenksomhet. Vi er ikke tjent med å utbetale erstatning når det ikke er dokumentert hva som har skjedd, sier talsperson Sondre Båtstrand, som også er bekymret for rovdyrbestandene i Norge.
Miljøpartiet De Grønne mener dagens rovdyrpolitikk bærer preg av å være et dårlig kompromiss som verken rovdyr, sauer eller bønder er tjent med.
- Istedenfor å betale ut erstatning for rovdyrdrepte sauer, burde både bønder og kommuner i områder med bestander av de store rovdyrene få betalt ut et beløp som står i samsvar med antall rovdyr. Myndighetene burde gi belønning for levende rovdyr, ikke erstatning for død sau, avslutter Sondre Båtstrand, Miljøpartiet De Grønne.
http://www.mdg.no/nyheter/avskaff-erstatning-for-drepte-dyr/
Miljøpartiet De Grønne vil avskaffe erstatning for beitedyr tatt av rovdyr. – Gi heller ekstra støtte til bønder som driver i utsatte områder, sier talsperson Sondre Båtstrand.
I 2011 blir nesten 140 millioner kroner delt ut til bønder som hevder at beitedyr er drept av rovdyr, mens Riksrevisjonen påpeker manglende kontroll. Miljøverndepartementet avviser kontroll på grunn av frykt for konflikt med sauenæringen.
- Det er bekymringsfullt at så store beløp blir delt ut uten noen form for kontroll, og det er ikke så rart at ordningen skaper mistenksomhet. Vi er ikke tjent med å utbetale erstatning når det ikke er dokumentert hva som har skjedd, sier talsperson Sondre Båtstrand, som også er bekymret for rovdyrbestandene i Norge.
Miljøpartiet De Grønne mener dagens rovdyrpolitikk bærer preg av å være et dårlig kompromiss som verken rovdyr, sauer eller bønder er tjent med.
- Istedenfor å betale ut erstatning for rovdyrdrepte sauer, burde både bønder og kommuner i områder med bestander av de store rovdyrene få betalt ut et beløp som står i samsvar med antall rovdyr. Myndighetene burde gi belønning for levende rovdyr, ikke erstatning for død sau, avslutter Sondre Båtstrand, Miljøpartiet De Grønne.
torsdag 28 oktober 2010
För allmänheten hemlig jordbruksmyndighet
dödar mer än 4 miljoner vilda djur årligen
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-keefoverring/wildlife-services-sucks_b_774426.html
Wendy Keefover-Ring.WildEarth Guardians Carnivore Protection Director
Posted: October 27, 2010 12:04 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .
Wildlife Services Dodges Disclosure on Animal Killing
"Wildlife Services" is a secretive branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that annually kills millions of animals. Last year, it liquidated more than four million wildlife and pets, while spending $121 million--mostly tax dollars--to do the task. Their efforts purportedly help those in agribusiness, but new government data demonstrate otherwise.
Never heard of "Wildlife Services"? Don't worry, you're not alone. Although this euphemistically named agency has existed since 1885, it purposefully avoids the spotlight, and it revels in its obscurity. As my colleague, Andrew Wetzler, stated: "they're the most important wildlife agency you never heard of."
Agents and contractors employed by Wildlife Services operate on our national forests, wilderness areas, national monuments, and even on private lands. Unaccountable to the public--except those in agribusiness--these agents employ a secret arsenal that would make any mercenary army proud: helicopters, airplanes, guns, poisons, traps, snares, and wildlife-chasing hounds.
Wildlife Services admits in newly-released data that it exterminated 4.1 million animals and destroyed 18,000 more in 2009. This includes 27,314 beavers; 988,577 blackbirds; and 114,522 mammalian carnivores, including 1,775 bobcats, 82,097 coyotes, 480 wolves, 571 river otters, and 443 black bears.
Last month, WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit against Wildlife Services for failing to disclose its 2008 budget expenditures under the Freedom of Information Act. In response, Wildlife Services and its parent agency, the USDA's Animal and Health Inspection Service, claim that the two entities track their expenses using two different databases, but that neither were capable of interacting with the other. Thus, Wildlife Services claims, it does not know how much it spends on its controversial aerial gunning program.
Really?
Wildlife Services cannot judge how many tax dollars it spends shooting coyotes and wolves from helicopters and airplanes? A letter from the government to WildEarth Guardians states: "Wildlife Services does not have a managerial need for financial data at this finite level."
Good to know Wildlife Services does not have that need--but the American public certainly does. Especially when all this killing has no real benefit.
Despite tales of wolves lurking in the woods looking for little girls in red hoods or little pigs in straw houses, wolves and other native carnivores kill very few domestic livestock. According to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, less than one percent of the entire cattle inventory, and approximately four percent of the entire sheep inventory is killed by carnivores (and this includes domestic dogs). This is true even where wolves have been restored to the landscape.
Wildlife Services kills our native wildlife. They refuse to disclose how much they spend on their operations. They artfully dodge disclosure, even while in litigation. Time for Congress to step in and engage in oversight. Time for this rogue agency to show some accountability to the public because it spends its money with alacrity for ill purpose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-keefoverring/wildlife-services-sucks_b_774426.html
Wendy Keefover-Ring.WildEarth Guardians Carnivore Protection Director
Posted: October 27, 2010 12:04 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index .
Wildlife Services Dodges Disclosure on Animal Killing
"Wildlife Services" is a secretive branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that annually kills millions of animals. Last year, it liquidated more than four million wildlife and pets, while spending $121 million--mostly tax dollars--to do the task. Their efforts purportedly help those in agribusiness, but new government data demonstrate otherwise.
Never heard of "Wildlife Services"? Don't worry, you're not alone. Although this euphemistically named agency has existed since 1885, it purposefully avoids the spotlight, and it revels in its obscurity. As my colleague, Andrew Wetzler, stated: "they're the most important wildlife agency you never heard of."
Agents and contractors employed by Wildlife Services operate on our national forests, wilderness areas, national monuments, and even on private lands. Unaccountable to the public--except those in agribusiness--these agents employ a secret arsenal that would make any mercenary army proud: helicopters, airplanes, guns, poisons, traps, snares, and wildlife-chasing hounds.
Wildlife Services admits in newly-released data that it exterminated 4.1 million animals and destroyed 18,000 more in 2009. This includes 27,314 beavers; 988,577 blackbirds; and 114,522 mammalian carnivores, including 1,775 bobcats, 82,097 coyotes, 480 wolves, 571 river otters, and 443 black bears.
Last month, WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit against Wildlife Services for failing to disclose its 2008 budget expenditures under the Freedom of Information Act. In response, Wildlife Services and its parent agency, the USDA's Animal and Health Inspection Service, claim that the two entities track their expenses using two different databases, but that neither were capable of interacting with the other. Thus, Wildlife Services claims, it does not know how much it spends on its controversial aerial gunning program.
Really?
Wildlife Services cannot judge how many tax dollars it spends shooting coyotes and wolves from helicopters and airplanes? A letter from the government to WildEarth Guardians states: "Wildlife Services does not have a managerial need for financial data at this finite level."
Good to know Wildlife Services does not have that need--but the American public certainly does. Especially when all this killing has no real benefit.
Despite tales of wolves lurking in the woods looking for little girls in red hoods or little pigs in straw houses, wolves and other native carnivores kill very few domestic livestock. According to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, less than one percent of the entire cattle inventory, and approximately four percent of the entire sheep inventory is killed by carnivores (and this includes domestic dogs). This is true even where wolves have been restored to the landscape.
Wildlife Services kills our native wildlife. They refuse to disclose how much they spend on their operations. They artfully dodge disclosure, even while in litigation. Time for Congress to step in and engage in oversight. Time for this rogue agency to show some accountability to the public because it spends its money with alacrity for ill purpose.
söndag 3 oktober 2010
Vad säger naturvårdsorgaisationerna? Jägare vill ha färre lodjur i Uppsala
Jägare vill ha färre lodjur i Uppsala
Jägareförbundet Mitt, begär i ett öppet brev till landshövding Peter Egardt att länsstyrelsen kontaktar oberoende lodjursforskare och låter dem faktagranska underlaget för beslutet i Viltförvaltningsdelegationen nyligen om miniminivåer för familjegrupper lodjur i Uppsala län.
Läs upp
Skriv ut Skicka Kommentera
Dela Björn Uebel, representant för jägarintresset (Jägareförbundet) reserverade sig mot beslutet om en miniminivå på 20 till 24 familjegrupper lodjur i länet. Med så många lodjur blir det nästan inga rådjur kvar till jägarna att jaga är kontentan.
I det öppna brevet hävdas att beslutet inte baseras ”på aktuella fakta om viltstammarnas status”. Jägareförbundet pekar på att den senaste inventeringen av rådjur visar ”att vi ligger på i storleksordningen 30 rådjur per 1 000 hektar i genomsnitt i länet vilket är hälften av den rådjursstam som länsstyrelsen tidigare använt för att ta fram underlag för miniminivåer av lodjur.”
Jägareförbundets jaktvårdskonsulenter fråga sig i brevet om det är rimligt att ”Uppsala län med sina sju procent landareal av Mellersta förvaltningsområdet och cirka två procent av Sveriges landareal skall stå för 17 procent av lodjursstammen i Mellansverige och hela 10 procent av landet totala lodjurspopulation som Riksdagen fattat beslut om. De hänvisar också till Riksdagens beslut om rovdjurspolitiken som bland annat framhåller betydelsen av regionalt inflytande och stor hänsyn till de som lever i områden med stora rovdjur.
Av: Hans Lundgren
Kommentera artikeln »
Läs tidigare kommentar »© Detta material är skyddat enligt lagen om upphovsrätt.
Eftertryck eller annan kopiering förbjuden.
Välkommen att diskutera på unt.se.
Du som lämnar en kommentar ansvarar själv för vad du skriver och måste följa våra regler ». UNT förhandsgranskar inte läsarkommentarerna och de omfattas inte av det utgivaransvar som gäller på webbplatsens övriga delar. Om du gör ett inlägg som strider mot svensk lag kan du, vid en eventuell rättstvist, personligen bli ansvarig.
Om du har frågor om dessa regler kan du skicka dessa via e-post till följande adress lasarinteraktion@unt.se.
Kommentera artikeln
Rubrik: » Läs tidigare kommentarer
*
Kommentar: (max 800 tecken)
*
Du har 800 tecken kvar.
För att skriva en kommentar på unt.se måste du uppge ditt för- och efternamn. Din e-postadress publiceras inte på unt.se.
Förnamn:
*
Efternamn:
*
E-postadress:
* Ange giltig e-post
Jag har tagit del av UNT:s regler » för artikelkommentarer.
Kommentarer till artikeln
lodjur i uppsala
lodjur i uppsala (Christina Mattfolk)
Mitt förra inlägg togs bort och jag köper att den kanske var lite väl skarp.
Men kontentan i den var att jag vill ha kvar lodjuren i Nåsten/Hågadalen och jag upplever att min livskvalité och andra naturintresserades dito har försämrats efter att jägarna skjutit av/skadeskjöt lodjuren i detta område.
Dessa lodjur gjorde inget ont och det finns gott om rådjur i området.
Jag tycker att man lyssnar alldeles för mycket på jägarna och alldeles för lite på andra naturintresserade när beslut tas.
Av: Christina Mattfolk, 26 sep 2010 kl 18:21 Anmäl Jägarkårens chefsideologer.
Jägarkårens chefsideologer. (Hans Nissen)
...och för det fjärde så har vi redan idag en mycket generöst tilltagen rovdjurslagstiftning, som gjort, att de stora rovdjuren idag är i det närmaste fredlösa. Så jägarkårens konsulenter slår in öppna dörrar med sitt tal om regionalt inflytande och hänsyn till de som lever i områden med stora rovdjur. Att lodjuren skulle vara för många i länet och södra Sverige, kan ju bara ett särintresse som jägarkåren tycka.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 21:03 Anmäl Regeringen och socio- ekonomiska faktorer.
Regeringen och socio- ekonomiska faktorer. (Hans Nissen)
...och för det tredje, så är det regeringens senaste påhitt, att sk. socio- ekonomiska faktorer ska få ett stort inflytande över de stora rovdjurens framtid. Hit räknas jakt. Jag menar, att värnet av och vården om tex. lon här i länet går före business, trofé och nöjesjakt: för att inte tala om de traditioner, sedvanor och den livsstil som jägarkåren också brukar hänvisa till, för att legitimera klappjakten på våra stora rovdjur.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 20:29 Anmäl Jakt
Jakt (Joakim Jakobsson)
Jägare vill bara ha något djur att skjuta på. Det är väl därför man blir jägare.
Av: Joakim Jakobsson, 24 sep 2010 kl 16:16 Anmäl Vänd på frågan
Vänd på frågan (Anders Berglund)
Man kanske skulle vända på frågan och ställa följande:
Hur många jägare skall vi ha???
Det torde vara bättre att låta naturen sköta sig själv. Då kanske man så småningom får se äldre rådjur/älgar med vackra kronor. Nu skjuts alla äldre livskraftiga älgar och rådjur av jägare som vill ha trofeér.
Jägarna kan väl istället plocka svamp eller bär i skogen om det nu är naturintresset som styr deras intresse.
Av: Anders Berglund, 24 sep 2010 kl 16:15 Anmäl Sniken pengadyrkan.
Sniken pengadyrkan. (Hans Nissen)
...men i grunden handlar det om, att jakten sedan länge är "big business" för markägare. Det som då gäller, är att röja undan alla hinder och all konkurrens om det jaktbara viltet. Sedan spelar det tydligen ingen roll att tex. lon är både fridlyst och rödlistad i det här landet.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 15:51 Anmäl Hets.
Hets. (Hans Nissen)
Nu kraftsamlar jägarkåren, och drevet går får att ännu fler lokatter ska skjutas ihjäl i länet och södra Sverige.
Det är lon (fridlyst och rödlistad) som pliktar för en intolerant, inskränkt och fördomsfull rovdjurspolitik i länet och södra Sverige. I främsta ledet hetsar landets statsminister, Centerpartiet, LRF, Landbygsdemokraterna och i synnerhet en revanschlysten jägarkår.
Tyvärr tror jag knappast att länets viltdelegation kan stoppa slakten av lo i länet. Länstyrelsens tilldelning kommer bara att öka för att tillfredställa en gnällig jägarkår, som alltid kommer att hävda, att det skjuts för få stora rovdjur i länet och södra Sverige.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 15:09 Anmäl Man bör fråga sig...
Man bör fråga sig... (Carl Bjuv)
Hur många skadade och döda i viltolyckor man kan acceptera för att jägarna skall få hålla på med sin nöjesjakt.
En gång i tiden trodde jag att jägare och viltvårdskunsulter hade ett genuit intresse att vårda naturen. Idag vet jag att det bara handlar om bytesdjursmaximering. Varg och lo kommer aldrig att behandlas av dem som något annat än en konkurrent.
Av: Carl Bjuv, 24 sep 2010 kl 14:00 Anmäl Ärligt uttalande
Ärligt uttalande (Olle Eriksson)
"Inga rådjur kvar till jägarna". Se där ett ärligt uttalande från Jägarförbundet. Det är alltså ren och skär egoism det handlar om. Knappast ett relevant skäl för länsstyrelsen att ompröva beslutet. Jägarna får jaga vildsvin istället, där behövs verkligen mer jakt. Att rådjuren försvinner skall vi vara tacksamma för, dels hör de inte hemma i vår fauna, dels spelar de en central roll i den accelererande fästingplåga som vi hemsökts av de senaste årtiondena.
PS: Komisk formulering i ingressen: "Jägarförbundet Mitt begär"
Av: Olle Eriksson, 24 sep 2010 kl 13:21 Anmäl Kommentera artikeln »
Jägareförbundet Mitt, begär i ett öppet brev till landshövding Peter Egardt att länsstyrelsen kontaktar oberoende lodjursforskare och låter dem faktagranska underlaget för beslutet i Viltförvaltningsdelegationen nyligen om miniminivåer för familjegrupper lodjur i Uppsala län.
Läs upp
Skriv ut Skicka Kommentera
Dela Björn Uebel, representant för jägarintresset (Jägareförbundet) reserverade sig mot beslutet om en miniminivå på 20 till 24 familjegrupper lodjur i länet. Med så många lodjur blir det nästan inga rådjur kvar till jägarna att jaga är kontentan.
I det öppna brevet hävdas att beslutet inte baseras ”på aktuella fakta om viltstammarnas status”. Jägareförbundet pekar på att den senaste inventeringen av rådjur visar ”att vi ligger på i storleksordningen 30 rådjur per 1 000 hektar i genomsnitt i länet vilket är hälften av den rådjursstam som länsstyrelsen tidigare använt för att ta fram underlag för miniminivåer av lodjur.”
Jägareförbundets jaktvårdskonsulenter fråga sig i brevet om det är rimligt att ”Uppsala län med sina sju procent landareal av Mellersta förvaltningsområdet och cirka två procent av Sveriges landareal skall stå för 17 procent av lodjursstammen i Mellansverige och hela 10 procent av landet totala lodjurspopulation som Riksdagen fattat beslut om. De hänvisar också till Riksdagens beslut om rovdjurspolitiken som bland annat framhåller betydelsen av regionalt inflytande och stor hänsyn till de som lever i områden med stora rovdjur.
Av: Hans Lundgren
Kommentera artikeln »
Läs tidigare kommentar »© Detta material är skyddat enligt lagen om upphovsrätt.
Eftertryck eller annan kopiering förbjuden.
Välkommen att diskutera på unt.se.
Du som lämnar en kommentar ansvarar själv för vad du skriver och måste följa våra regler ». UNT förhandsgranskar inte läsarkommentarerna och de omfattas inte av det utgivaransvar som gäller på webbplatsens övriga delar. Om du gör ett inlägg som strider mot svensk lag kan du, vid en eventuell rättstvist, personligen bli ansvarig.
Om du har frågor om dessa regler kan du skicka dessa via e-post till följande adress lasarinteraktion@unt.se.
Kommentera artikeln
Rubrik: » Läs tidigare kommentarer
*
Kommentar: (max 800 tecken)
*
Du har 800 tecken kvar.
För att skriva en kommentar på unt.se måste du uppge ditt för- och efternamn. Din e-postadress publiceras inte på unt.se.
Förnamn:
*
Efternamn:
*
E-postadress:
* Ange giltig e-post
Jag har tagit del av UNT:s regler » för artikelkommentarer.
Kommentarer till artikeln
lodjur i uppsala
lodjur i uppsala (Christina Mattfolk)
Mitt förra inlägg togs bort och jag köper att den kanske var lite väl skarp.
Men kontentan i den var att jag vill ha kvar lodjuren i Nåsten/Hågadalen och jag upplever att min livskvalité och andra naturintresserades dito har försämrats efter att jägarna skjutit av/skadeskjöt lodjuren i detta område.
Dessa lodjur gjorde inget ont och det finns gott om rådjur i området.
Jag tycker att man lyssnar alldeles för mycket på jägarna och alldeles för lite på andra naturintresserade när beslut tas.
Av: Christina Mattfolk, 26 sep 2010 kl 18:21 Anmäl Jägarkårens chefsideologer.
Jägarkårens chefsideologer. (Hans Nissen)
...och för det fjärde så har vi redan idag en mycket generöst tilltagen rovdjurslagstiftning, som gjort, att de stora rovdjuren idag är i det närmaste fredlösa. Så jägarkårens konsulenter slår in öppna dörrar med sitt tal om regionalt inflytande och hänsyn till de som lever i områden med stora rovdjur. Att lodjuren skulle vara för många i länet och södra Sverige, kan ju bara ett särintresse som jägarkåren tycka.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 21:03 Anmäl Regeringen och socio- ekonomiska faktorer.
Regeringen och socio- ekonomiska faktorer. (Hans Nissen)
...och för det tredje, så är det regeringens senaste påhitt, att sk. socio- ekonomiska faktorer ska få ett stort inflytande över de stora rovdjurens framtid. Hit räknas jakt. Jag menar, att värnet av och vården om tex. lon här i länet går före business, trofé och nöjesjakt: för att inte tala om de traditioner, sedvanor och den livsstil som jägarkåren också brukar hänvisa till, för att legitimera klappjakten på våra stora rovdjur.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 20:29 Anmäl Jakt
Jakt (Joakim Jakobsson)
Jägare vill bara ha något djur att skjuta på. Det är väl därför man blir jägare.
Av: Joakim Jakobsson, 24 sep 2010 kl 16:16 Anmäl Vänd på frågan
Vänd på frågan (Anders Berglund)
Man kanske skulle vända på frågan och ställa följande:
Hur många jägare skall vi ha???
Det torde vara bättre att låta naturen sköta sig själv. Då kanske man så småningom får se äldre rådjur/älgar med vackra kronor. Nu skjuts alla äldre livskraftiga älgar och rådjur av jägare som vill ha trofeér.
Jägarna kan väl istället plocka svamp eller bär i skogen om det nu är naturintresset som styr deras intresse.
Av: Anders Berglund, 24 sep 2010 kl 16:15 Anmäl Sniken pengadyrkan.
Sniken pengadyrkan. (Hans Nissen)
...men i grunden handlar det om, att jakten sedan länge är "big business" för markägare. Det som då gäller, är att röja undan alla hinder och all konkurrens om det jaktbara viltet. Sedan spelar det tydligen ingen roll att tex. lon är både fridlyst och rödlistad i det här landet.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 15:51 Anmäl Hets.
Hets. (Hans Nissen)
Nu kraftsamlar jägarkåren, och drevet går får att ännu fler lokatter ska skjutas ihjäl i länet och södra Sverige.
Det är lon (fridlyst och rödlistad) som pliktar för en intolerant, inskränkt och fördomsfull rovdjurspolitik i länet och södra Sverige. I främsta ledet hetsar landets statsminister, Centerpartiet, LRF, Landbygsdemokraterna och i synnerhet en revanschlysten jägarkår.
Tyvärr tror jag knappast att länets viltdelegation kan stoppa slakten av lo i länet. Länstyrelsens tilldelning kommer bara att öka för att tillfredställa en gnällig jägarkår, som alltid kommer att hävda, att det skjuts för få stora rovdjur i länet och södra Sverige.
Av: Hans Nissen, 24 sep 2010 kl 15:09 Anmäl Man bör fråga sig...
Man bör fråga sig... (Carl Bjuv)
Hur många skadade och döda i viltolyckor man kan acceptera för att jägarna skall få hålla på med sin nöjesjakt.
En gång i tiden trodde jag att jägare och viltvårdskunsulter hade ett genuit intresse att vårda naturen. Idag vet jag att det bara handlar om bytesdjursmaximering. Varg och lo kommer aldrig att behandlas av dem som något annat än en konkurrent.
Av: Carl Bjuv, 24 sep 2010 kl 14:00 Anmäl Ärligt uttalande
Ärligt uttalande (Olle Eriksson)
"Inga rådjur kvar till jägarna". Se där ett ärligt uttalande från Jägarförbundet. Det är alltså ren och skär egoism det handlar om. Knappast ett relevant skäl för länsstyrelsen att ompröva beslutet. Jägarna får jaga vildsvin istället, där behövs verkligen mer jakt. Att rådjuren försvinner skall vi vara tacksamma för, dels hör de inte hemma i vår fauna, dels spelar de en central roll i den accelererande fästingplåga som vi hemsökts av de senaste årtiondena.
PS: Komisk formulering i ingressen: "Jägarförbundet Mitt begär"
Av: Olle Eriksson, 24 sep 2010 kl 13:21 Anmäl Kommentera artikeln »
Jakt kan halvera Montanas vargar
Study: Hunt would halve Mont. wolf population
By MATTHEW BROWN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
BILLINGS, Mont. -- A scientific study released Wednesday said a proposed hunt for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies would cut the endangered species' population in Montana by roughly half during a single season.
The study from two Montana State University ecologists raised questions about claims that the wolves could easily withstand hunts proposed this fall in Montana and Idaho. The peer-reviewed report was published online by the Public Library of Science.
Wolves in the Northern Rockies were returned to the endangered species list last month under a federal court order, but state officials still want permission to hold the public hunts.
The MSU study found that Montana stands to lose approximately 50 percent of its wolves under a proposal submitted in mid-September to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The data suggest that a sustainable harvest can be developed. But the thresholds identified (in Montana) appear to be above a sustainable level," said MSU ecologist Scott Creel, one of the study's authors.
Wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho said they were not swayed by the MSU study and characterized it as speculative. They added that even if wolf populations get into trouble, they could simply adjust future quota levels to compensate.
State and federal wildlife managers have said repeatedly that about 30 percent of a wolf population can be killed and it still will bounce back the following year.
After analyzing 21 studies of North American wolf populations by government and academic researchers, Creel and colleague Jay Rotella estimated the figure for the Northern Rockies would be much lower, at 22 percent. The study reached the new estimate by using a computer model that compared Montana's proposed hunting season to how wolf populations have responded to human-caused killings in the past.
The lower estimate means wildlife managers using the old number could inadvertently set wolf quotas too high, threatening the species' recovery after two decades and more than $30 million spent on restoration efforts.
Montana wants a hunting quota of 186 wolves, on top of 145 wolves that the state expects to be killed this year by wildlife agents responding to attacks on livestock.
Idaho also is seeking a hunt, but its proposed quota has not been released so the potential impact was not measured in the study.
Idaho and Montana had a combined minimum population of 1,367 wolves at the end of 2009. Montana wants to pare back its wolf population by 15 percent this year, while Idaho has a long-term objective of 41 percent fewer wolves.
About 340 wolves live in neighboring states, primarily in Wyoming, but also in Oregon and Washington. No hunts are proposed in those states.
"We understand that if we tried to reduce the population at the same rate for years, it wouldn't work," said Jim Unsworth with the Idaho Fish and Game Department. "But that's not what any of us have proposed."
"If we're too heavy with harvest, we can back off," he added.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf biologist Carolyn Sime said the MSU study was flawed because it failed to account for wolf pups born in the spring. She said that failure overestimated the impacts of hunting.
Creel responded that his model used an established method to measure population changes between the same day from one year and the next, rendering irrelevant any interim spikes caused by spring births.
A Canadian wolf researcher with a newly published study on the same topic said Wednesday that he reached a conclusion similar to Creel: past research apparently underestimated the impacts human-caused mortality can have on wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Prior assumptions of hunting impacts were based largely on work done in the deep wilderness of Alaska and Canada, said Dennis Murray, a biologist with Trent University in Peterborough and that study's lead author. Many wolf packs in the Northern Rockies live in proximity to inhabited areas - where they are more likely to be shot for attacking livestock or run over when crossing a highway.
"Based on (the MSU) analysis and our analysis, the high rates of mortality that have occurred so far are probably not sustainable over the long term. That could curtail population growth and, in fact, might cause populations to decline substantially," Murray said.
The study was based on 22 years of data from more than 700 wolves in the Northern Rockies, appears in the November issue of Biological Conservation. Co-authors included four government wolf biologists from Idaho, Yellowstone National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
They did not offer a sustainable harvest figure comparable to Creel's 22 percent.
David Mech, a U.S. Geological Survey wolf biologist based in Minnesota, said both studies underscore that some hunter harvest of wolves is possible without hurting the population.
Those quotas can be set higher, Mech said, if hunters can successfully target wolves that have been attacking livestock. Many of those animals would be shot anyway by government wildlife agents.
---
Online:
Wolf mortality study: http://www.plosone.org
Montana wolf program: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/default.html
By MATTHEW BROWN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
BILLINGS, Mont. -- A scientific study released Wednesday said a proposed hunt for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies would cut the endangered species' population in Montana by roughly half during a single season.
The study from two Montana State University ecologists raised questions about claims that the wolves could easily withstand hunts proposed this fall in Montana and Idaho. The peer-reviewed report was published online by the Public Library of Science.
Wolves in the Northern Rockies were returned to the endangered species list last month under a federal court order, but state officials still want permission to hold the public hunts.
The MSU study found that Montana stands to lose approximately 50 percent of its wolves under a proposal submitted in mid-September to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"The data suggest that a sustainable harvest can be developed. But the thresholds identified (in Montana) appear to be above a sustainable level," said MSU ecologist Scott Creel, one of the study's authors.
Wildlife officials in Montana and Idaho said they were not swayed by the MSU study and characterized it as speculative. They added that even if wolf populations get into trouble, they could simply adjust future quota levels to compensate.
State and federal wildlife managers have said repeatedly that about 30 percent of a wolf population can be killed and it still will bounce back the following year.
After analyzing 21 studies of North American wolf populations by government and academic researchers, Creel and colleague Jay Rotella estimated the figure for the Northern Rockies would be much lower, at 22 percent. The study reached the new estimate by using a computer model that compared Montana's proposed hunting season to how wolf populations have responded to human-caused killings in the past.
The lower estimate means wildlife managers using the old number could inadvertently set wolf quotas too high, threatening the species' recovery after two decades and more than $30 million spent on restoration efforts.
Montana wants a hunting quota of 186 wolves, on top of 145 wolves that the state expects to be killed this year by wildlife agents responding to attacks on livestock.
Idaho also is seeking a hunt, but its proposed quota has not been released so the potential impact was not measured in the study.
Idaho and Montana had a combined minimum population of 1,367 wolves at the end of 2009. Montana wants to pare back its wolf population by 15 percent this year, while Idaho has a long-term objective of 41 percent fewer wolves.
About 340 wolves live in neighboring states, primarily in Wyoming, but also in Oregon and Washington. No hunts are proposed in those states.
"We understand that if we tried to reduce the population at the same rate for years, it wouldn't work," said Jim Unsworth with the Idaho Fish and Game Department. "But that's not what any of us have proposed."
"If we're too heavy with harvest, we can back off," he added.
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks wolf biologist Carolyn Sime said the MSU study was flawed because it failed to account for wolf pups born in the spring. She said that failure overestimated the impacts of hunting.
Creel responded that his model used an established method to measure population changes between the same day from one year and the next, rendering irrelevant any interim spikes caused by spring births.
A Canadian wolf researcher with a newly published study on the same topic said Wednesday that he reached a conclusion similar to Creel: past research apparently underestimated the impacts human-caused mortality can have on wolves in the Northern Rockies.
Prior assumptions of hunting impacts were based largely on work done in the deep wilderness of Alaska and Canada, said Dennis Murray, a biologist with Trent University in Peterborough and that study's lead author. Many wolf packs in the Northern Rockies live in proximity to inhabited areas - where they are more likely to be shot for attacking livestock or run over when crossing a highway.
"Based on (the MSU) analysis and our analysis, the high rates of mortality that have occurred so far are probably not sustainable over the long term. That could curtail population growth and, in fact, might cause populations to decline substantially," Murray said.
The study was based on 22 years of data from more than 700 wolves in the Northern Rockies, appears in the November issue of Biological Conservation. Co-authors included four government wolf biologists from Idaho, Yellowstone National Park and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
They did not offer a sustainable harvest figure comparable to Creel's 22 percent.
David Mech, a U.S. Geological Survey wolf biologist based in Minnesota, said both studies underscore that some hunter harvest of wolves is possible without hurting the population.
Those quotas can be set higher, Mech said, if hunters can successfully target wolves that have been attacking livestock. Many of those animals would be shot anyway by government wildlife agents.
---
Online:
Wolf mortality study: http://www.plosone.org
Montana wolf program: http://fwp.mt.gov/wildthings/wolf/default.html
Jakt påverkar vargar mer än väntat
Research shows that hunting affects wolves more strongly than expected
September 29, 2010 -- MSU News Service
Print with images Print text onlyImages Search
Using data from 21 North American wolf populations, two Montana State University researchers have found that the recently proposed levels of hunting for Montana and Idaho wolves are likely to have larger effects on wolf numbers than has been suggested.
Recent Headlines
MSU expert on world's fairs is part of national exhibit opening Oct. 2
Potvin named MSU's next provost
MSU economist sworn in as board member for Farmer Mac
Montana Shakespeare in the Schools begins 2010 fall tour
Teachers invited to MSU resource fair on Oct. 13
Note: This returns only MSU News results.
Stories older than 30 days can be located by using our news search feature:
Search by Keyword: Search by Topic: - Main Topic - General/Campus Agriculture Business Research Health/Home Students/Youth Nature/Resources Extension Service Yellowstone studentlivin'@msu MSU Today Start Date: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 End Date: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Bozeman - Using data from 21 North American wolf populations, two Montana State University researchers have found that the recently proposed levels of hunting for Montana and Idaho wolves are likely to have larger effects on wolf numbers than has been suggested.
Recent wolf-hunting quotas may be based on a flawed assumption that has persisted in the scientific literature for many years about how wolf populations are affected by hunting, according to a paper published by MSU ecology professors Scott Creel and Jay Rotella on Sept. 29 in PLoS One, the Public Library of Science.
Research on wolf harvesting has often assumed that - human-caused mortality - like hunting and predator control operations - is mainly compensatory, meaning that hunting simply substitutes one form of death for another in the overall wolf population.
If hunting and predator control simply substitute for other causes of death, then the total death rate should not be affected, the authors explain.
Another way that human killing might not substantially affect wolf populations is that fewer wolves mean more resources for those remaining, so that the survivors thrive, the authors wrote. With either type of compensation, the net effect on a population can be negligible.
Looking at data published from 21 North American wolf populations the authors found no evidence of hunting being compensatory. Instead, increased human-caused mortality was associated with a strong increase in the overall death rate and a strong tendency for wolf populations to decline.
"If the level of harvest proposed for 2010 was implemented, the data suggest that wolf populations are likely to decline by a substantially larger margin than is currently stated by management policies," Creel said. "The underlying assumption that wolf populations can compensate for heavy levels of human harvest was not supported by the data."
The data show that annual hunting of about 22 to 25 percent is expected to be sustainable for a typical North American wolf population, Creel said.
The paper notes that in 2009 predator control practices in Montana eliminated 145 wolves, or 27.6 percent of the population. If the same number of wolves were killed through predator control and the proposed hunting quota for 2010 (186 wolves) was filled, a typical North American wolf population would decline by about half.
"Obviously, there are many factors to consider in the management of wolves, but it would be unprecedented for a species to move directly from the endangered species list to harvest of this magnitude" Creel said.
The small wolf packs that typify the Northern Rockies may be particularly affected by hunting because in a small pack, the odds are higher that any adult shot will be a breeder. Prior research has shown that packs are less likely to breed and more likely to disband when breeders die.
As Rotella summarized, "a more complete understanding of the effects of wolf harvest on wolf survival and population change ought to help managers make decisions about how to meet population goals for the species regardless of whether those goals are to reduce, maintain, or increase wolf populations."
For related stories see:
Greater Yellowstone elk suffer worse nutrition and lower birth rates due to wolves, July 15, 2009
Elk, wolf researchers probe wildlife battlefield, April 19, 2006
MSU research: Bull elk oblivious to danger at dinner time, July 28, 2004
Contact: Scott Creel, professor of ecology, 406-994-7033, screel@montana.edu; Jay Rotella, professor of ecology, 406-994-5676, rotella@montana.edu
September 29, 2010 -- MSU News Service
Print with images Print text onlyImages Search
Using data from 21 North American wolf populations, two Montana State University researchers have found that the recently proposed levels of hunting for Montana and Idaho wolves are likely to have larger effects on wolf numbers than has been suggested.
Recent Headlines
MSU expert on world's fairs is part of national exhibit opening Oct. 2
Potvin named MSU's next provost
MSU economist sworn in as board member for Farmer Mac
Montana Shakespeare in the Schools begins 2010 fall tour
Teachers invited to MSU resource fair on Oct. 13
Note: This returns only MSU News results.
Stories older than 30 days can be located by using our news search feature:
Search by Keyword: Search by Topic: - Main Topic - General/Campus Agriculture Business Research Health/Home Students/Youth Nature/Resources Extension Service Yellowstone studentlivin'@msu MSU Today Start Date: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 End Date: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Bozeman - Using data from 21 North American wolf populations, two Montana State University researchers have found that the recently proposed levels of hunting for Montana and Idaho wolves are likely to have larger effects on wolf numbers than has been suggested.
Recent wolf-hunting quotas may be based on a flawed assumption that has persisted in the scientific literature for many years about how wolf populations are affected by hunting, according to a paper published by MSU ecology professors Scott Creel and Jay Rotella on Sept. 29 in PLoS One, the Public Library of Science.
Research on wolf harvesting has often assumed that - human-caused mortality - like hunting and predator control operations - is mainly compensatory, meaning that hunting simply substitutes one form of death for another in the overall wolf population.
If hunting and predator control simply substitute for other causes of death, then the total death rate should not be affected, the authors explain.
Another way that human killing might not substantially affect wolf populations is that fewer wolves mean more resources for those remaining, so that the survivors thrive, the authors wrote. With either type of compensation, the net effect on a population can be negligible.
Looking at data published from 21 North American wolf populations the authors found no evidence of hunting being compensatory. Instead, increased human-caused mortality was associated with a strong increase in the overall death rate and a strong tendency for wolf populations to decline.
"If the level of harvest proposed for 2010 was implemented, the data suggest that wolf populations are likely to decline by a substantially larger margin than is currently stated by management policies," Creel said. "The underlying assumption that wolf populations can compensate for heavy levels of human harvest was not supported by the data."
The data show that annual hunting of about 22 to 25 percent is expected to be sustainable for a typical North American wolf population, Creel said.
The paper notes that in 2009 predator control practices in Montana eliminated 145 wolves, or 27.6 percent of the population. If the same number of wolves were killed through predator control and the proposed hunting quota for 2010 (186 wolves) was filled, a typical North American wolf population would decline by about half.
"Obviously, there are many factors to consider in the management of wolves, but it would be unprecedented for a species to move directly from the endangered species list to harvest of this magnitude" Creel said.
The small wolf packs that typify the Northern Rockies may be particularly affected by hunting because in a small pack, the odds are higher that any adult shot will be a breeder. Prior research has shown that packs are less likely to breed and more likely to disband when breeders die.
As Rotella summarized, "a more complete understanding of the effects of wolf harvest on wolf survival and population change ought to help managers make decisions about how to meet population goals for the species regardless of whether those goals are to reduce, maintain, or increase wolf populations."
For related stories see:
Greater Yellowstone elk suffer worse nutrition and lower birth rates due to wolves, July 15, 2009
Elk, wolf researchers probe wildlife battlefield, April 19, 2006
MSU research: Bull elk oblivious to danger at dinner time, July 28, 2004
Contact: Scott Creel, professor of ecology, 406-994-7033, screel@montana.edu; Jay Rotella, professor of ecology, 406-994-5676, rotella@montana.edu
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)