SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
endangered species
'Shame': Sweden to Start New Year With Controversial Wolf Hunt
"The Swedish government since 2010 has been blatantly disregarding the wolf's special protection status, allowing a yearly licensed quota hunt and thereby breaking E.U. law," one campaigner said.
Jan 01, 2025
Sweden is set to start a controversial wolf hunt on Thursday that could see its declining wolf population fall by another 8%.
The country has authorized the killing of 30 of the nation's 375 wolves—or five entire families—in a move that conservationists say is illegal under European Union law. Ultimately, the Swedish government wants to nearly halve the minimum number of wolves for "favorable conservation status" from 300 to 170.
'Imagine... the outcry if this were Sri Lanka killing leopards, or Botswana lions, both much trickier animals to live with," U.K. environmentalist Ben Goldsmith wrote on social media. "Shame, shame on Sweden."
"If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
Under the Council of Europe's Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, or Bern Convention, countries must preserve the populations of protected species so that they remain above a sustainable level. However, Magnus Orrebrant, the chair of the Swedish Carnivore Association, toldThe Guardian that E.U. law has not meant much for Sweden's wolves.
"The Swedish government since 2010 has been blatantly disregarding the wolf's special protection status, allowing a yearly licensed quota hunt and thereby breaking E.U. law," Orrebrant said. "We filed a formal complaint to the E.U. commission, leading to an infringement procedure against Sweden, as yet to no avail."
Excessive wolf hunting has been a problem in Sweden for decades, and was part of the reason that the country had no breeding population at all between 1966 and 1983. In addition, increased hunting slashed the population by nearly 20% between 2022 and 2023.
Beyond licensed hunts, Sweden's wolf population also faces pressure from poachers, according to conservation group Revolution Rov, with DNA evidence suggesting that up to 80 wolves are killed illegally each year.
"In many license hunting decisions on wolves in recent years, it has been argued that if legal hunting is allowed, illegal hunting will disappear, but that has not happened at all... Instead, even more wolves have had to die," the group wrote in a petition against 2024's hunt.
The group also wrote that Sweden's wolf population is genetically vulnerable, with many mating pairs being closely related. For the population to remain healthy, it needs an influx of new genes from wolves migrating from Finland or Russia, but these wolves are often killed before they can pair off.
Wildlife advocates outside of Sweden also criticized the 2025 hunt.
"I believe that one of the hallmarks of human progress is learning to coexist with other species that our ancestors once feared," wrote Wildlife Trusts CEO Craig Bennett on social media. "And sadly, it often feels like we still live in the Dark Ages."
Ecologist and conservationist Alan Watson Featherstone wrote: "I really do despair about humanity—we are such a selfish species. If Sweden, one of the richest countries in the world with a population of 10.5 million people, can't accept a population of 375 wolves, what hope is there for the planet's biodiversity?"
However, Sweden is not alone in Europe in its hostility to wolves. The Bern Convention in December accepted an E.U. proposal to lower the wolf's status from "strictly protected" to "protected." The decision followed complaints from farmers that the continent's rebounding wolf population was harming livestock, but conservationists say that allowing the killing of wolves will threaten the species in a vulnerable moment and is not the solution to livestock killings.
"The wolf is still endangered in many parts of Europe, and weakening its protection will only lead to further conflict and threaten its recovery," Ilaria Di Silvestre, regional director of policy at the International Fund for Animal Welfare, toldThe Associated Press in December.
The Bern Convention's decision, which will go into effect on March 7, will clear the way for the European Commission to alter its habitats directive for wolves to reflect their higher numbers in the mountains and forests of Scandinavia and Western Europe, which will then make it easier to approve more wolf killings.
"We are very critical to the path that the E.U. is now taking, downgrading the protection status of the wolf," Orrebrant told The Guardian. "If the E.U. follows up the latest Bern Convention decision by changing the wolf's protection status in the habitat directive, the result will be very negative not only for the wolves, but for all wildlife in Europe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Landmark Victory': US Proposes Endangered Species Protections for Monarch Butterfly
"We're hoping that this is a call to everybody to say this species is in decline, and now is our opportunity to help reverse that decline," said one federal scientist.
Dec 10, 2024
Biodiversity defenders on Tuesday welcomed a "long overdue" move by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service toward protecting the monarch butterfly under the Endangered Species Act—the result, the Center for Biological Diversity said, of a lawsuit filed by several groups to safeguard the pollinators and their fragile habitat.
The FWS proposed designating the butterfly as threatened with extinction, four years after monarchs were placed on a waiting list for protection.
"For too long, the monarch butterfly has been waiting in line, hoping for new protections while its population has plummeted. This announcement by the Fish and Wildlife Service gets this iconic flier closer to the protections it needs, and given its staggering drop in numbers, that can't happen soon enough," said Steve Blackledge, senior director of conservation campaigns for Environment America.
Monarch butterflies journey from Mexico each spring to points across the United States east of the Rocky Mountains to pollinate and reproduce. When cooler weather arrives they migrate back to the south for the winter.
But their populations have declined by more than 95% from over 4.5 million in the 1980s, leaving the western monarch with a 99% chance of becoming extinct over the next six decades, according to federal scientists.
The decline has been driven by the widespread use of herbicides like Roundup on milkweed, the monarch's sole food source, as well as the use of neonicotinoid insecticides. Millions of monarchs are also killed by vehicles annually during their migration, and in their winter habitats they face the loss of forests due to logging.
"The monarch butterfly is an iconic North American species and like other such iconic species, including the bald eagle and American peregrine falcon, it too deserves a chance at recovery."
Rising temperatures have also disrupted the monarch's reproduction and migration, with warmer weather tricking them into staying in the north later in the year.
"The species has been declining for a number of years," FWS biologist Kristen Lundh toldThe Washington Post. "We're hoping that this is a call to everybody to say this species is in decline, and now is our opportunity to help reverse that decline."
Western monarchs are down to an estimated 233,394 butterflies, while experts say there are several million eastern monarchs in existence.
"The protections that come with Endangered Species Act listing increase the chance that these precious pollinators will rebound and recover throughout their historic range," said Andrew Carter, director of conservation policy for Defenders of Wildlife. "The monarch butterfly is an iconic North American species and like other such iconic species, including the bald eagle and American peregrine falcon, it too deserves a chance at recovery."
The FWS is also proposing to designate 4,395 acres of the western monarch's overwintering sites as a critical habitat.
If the butterfly's protections are finalized—a process that could be completed by the end of 2025—landowners would be required to get federal approval for development that could harm the monarch.
During his first term, President-elect Donald Trump weakened the Endangered Species Act, limiting the definition of a "critical habitat."
"Today's monarch listing decision is a landmark victory 10 years in the making. It is also a damning precedent, revealing the driving role of pesticides and industrial agriculture in the ongoing extinction crisis," said George Kimbrell, legal director at the Center for Food Safety. "But the job isn't done... The service must do what science and the law require and promptly finalize protection for monarchs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Losing the Whales: How the Anti-Whaling Narrative Has Failed
The anti-whaling movement has failed to address the issues underpinning international negotiations over whaling, and now faces its greatest defeat.
Sep 16, 2024
Save the Whales. Perhaps the first famous conservation slogan. The end of pelagic commercial whaling was one of the original successes of the conservation movement in international diplomacy. The movement started in the USA, yet now, the two species of whale that are critically endangered are both found in U.S. waters. And we’re about to see the resumption of Antarctic commercial whaling, supported by the U.S. military-industrial-security complex. Crunch time is the meeting of the International Whaling Commission, or IWC later this month. “Lose the whales” is looking more realistic.
To understand how we’ve arrived here, we need to go back to 2010. The year Apple unveiled the first iPad. Taylor Swift released Speak Now. Wikileaks put out the “Collateral Murder” video. U.S. President Barack Obama declared the end of combat operations in Iraq, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the beginning of the USA’s re-engagement with East Asia. In November 2010, President Obama attended the meeting in Japan of APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
While there he had individual meetings with the (then) Prime Ministers of Japan, Naoto Kan, and Australia, Julia Gillard, the USA’s most important allies in the region. At the time, Japan and Australia were at loggerheads over whaling. A few months earlier Australia had started proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice that it was, with its “scientific whaling,” in breach of its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the treaty underpinning the IWC. Australia won the case a few years later.
The return of pelagic commercial whaling is imminent.
As part of the movement against whaling, on November 5 2010, conservationists organized the “World Wide Anti-Whaling Day.” In Sydney, Australia, a protest was held at the Japanese Consulate. For the media coverage it received, it may as well not have happened. Concerns about Japanese whaling in Australia’s Antarctic whale sanctuary were running high, so this lack of media interest was unusual. However, the press had just covered another whaling “protest.”
On the evening before, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) organized a different action. The video remains available. They set up a fake whale in Sydney Harbor with a generic “stop whaling” message. As the video celebrates, this garnered huge coverage in the Australian media, so the action at the consulate the following day got none. Evidence of the conflict over whaling, between these two major U.S. alliesevaporated just in time for the presidential trip to Asia. Instead, the generic, unfocused “stop whaling” message occupied the airwaves. Organizers of the action at the consulate were livid.
Founded in 1969, IFAW was originally a small and effective NGO. It helped establish non-lethal studies as the way to do science on whales. In 1997 IFAW’s founder passed the organization on to a couple of former government officials, ex-senior managers of Peace Corps programs in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Under their direction, IFAW grew rapidly, including by taking over smaller NGOs internationally. Most conservation NGOs are short of money, and IFAW, suddenly rich, absorbed them.
The person who was heading IFAW’s whale program at the time of the stunt in Sydney Harbor has an unusual background for an employee of a conservation NGO. He was originally a German and Russian linguist with U.S. Army intelligence, enlisting in the early 1980s. After the army he moved to Mongoven, Biscoe, and Duchin (MBD), a company that specialized at infiltrating environmental NGOs for corporate clients, as detailed in an academic paper on their work for the tobacco industry. The title—“[MBD]: Destroying Tobacco Control Activism From the Inside”—tells the story. In a move that was the most radical conversion since Paul on the road to Damascus, he then immediately got the job as head of GLOBE USA, a collaborative of global politicians working on environmental issues. He moved to IFAW in 1996, immediately prior to the leadership changeover there. In 2007, coinciding with a U.S. government decision to come up with a process to “solve” issues in the IWC, he was appointed to IFAW’s new position of Global Whale Program Manager. Unlike other IFAW staff, he had little prior experience with the IWC.
The Sydney stunt is just one example, demonstrating how easy it is to direct media stories. IFAW remains the go-to organization for much of the mainstream media on whaling, and other whale conservation issues. IFAW’s messaging controls the anti-whaling narrative.
The anti-whaling movement has been operating under a set of assumptions over the past couple of decades. These include: whaling is a dying industry running on subsidies; acting forcefully against whaling will encourage a backlash in whaling nations; whaling can be replaced with whale-watching as an economic use of whales; and recently, that the Japanese withdrawal from the IWC was an “elegantly Japanese solution” that meant Japanese whalers would never again engage in pelagic whaling. Note that all but one of these links quote IFAW.
Given the new Japanese quotas for killing fin whales, the new ice-strengthened Japanese whaling factory ship, and the call to shut down the IWC, these assumptions are mistaken. Whaling is just one part of much bigger geopolitical machinations that revolve around the U.S. military maintaining its Japanese bases in the face of pubic anger there at the appalling behavior of some service personnel. And then the Japanese government uses access to bases as leverage to winning on whaling, in order to maintain their control over management of other, more important, pelagic fisheries.
Further, the anti-whaling movement has failed to heed warnings of problems in their midst. These were clear after Wikileaks released documents revealing the dealings between the U.S. IWC commissioner, and the Japanese government in 2009. Also clear from the Wikileaks cables is the way in which Australia and Japan’s relationships were impacted by whaling, and how this was a concern for the U.S. government. The NGO community treat this as irrelevant.
That U.S. IWC commissioner? Prior to her return to government, Monica Medina, also ex-military, also worked at IFAW.
On the Wikileaks documents, IFAW’s whale program leader wrote a blog post back in 2011. It includes: “...as I stare back at his face on the WikiLeaks homepage, that Julian Assange—who doesn’t look so well—is on a one-man mission, that the job he is tryin’ to do on us is about something other than saving whales or even promoting transparency in government, and that he really doesn’t much like us—as in U.S.”
The return of pelagic commercial whaling is imminent. The anti-whaling movement has failed to address the issues underpinning international negotiations over whaling, and now faces its greatest defeat. A major NGO focusing on whaling—one to whom many media outlets turn to for comment—has a track record of employing former U.S. military, and military intelligence, staffers. (And not just for whaling). Have these intelligence professionals failed to comprehend the geopolitical issues driving negotiations over whaling?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular