187
This is still all about Ursula von der Leyen's personal vendetta after her pony died, isn't it?
And the farmers and cattle breeders wanting the EU to fight and not fight climate change and the destruction of the ecosystems that support them all at once, preferably in a way that maximizes their short term profits.
She does have a name of a Disney character that would do such a thing.
I mean a little girl was bitten quite severely a few weeks ago around here. I'm not saying this is the best choice but it's also easy to make a glib offhand comment about a complicated situation.
I don't think a single unprovoked attack this decade and no deaths from wolf attacks in Europe in the 21st century make this a "complicated situation".
This isn't about humans but about farmers. Someone I know just recently told me that they lost a few sheep to a wolf attack. Of course they wanted to be refunded, but the officials who checked if he's eligible for a refund found one short area where his fence was 2 cm too low, therefore he didn't get anything. He sold his remaining animals and stopped, just like a few of his colleagues who'd stopped before already.
This decision isn't because of wolves but because the system didn't work.
I mean, the current level of cattle breeding is not compatible with long term survival of human beings, so the system is not working regardless of wolves.
I assume you're hinting mass producing farms, those aren't affected by wolves anyway (and cattle isn't, it's more about smaller animals like sheep). The ones who are affected are the ones who don't have as many animals but let them be outside.
To prevent being affected by wolves they could of course keep their sheep indoors, but then they aren't getting organic meat certificates anymore leading to less money, requiring them to keep much more sheep. Which is not what should be encouraged.
Isn't that kind of on him? If he didn't meet the minimum requirements, what's the controversy? Yes the govt could have made an exception, but then the next person who's 3 cm short points to him as an example, and there we go.
You’re more likely to die of a wild boar attack or of a cow than a wolf in europe.
Source please.
https://www.rtvutrecht.nl/nieuws/3777023/meisje-werd-beslopen-en-aangevallen-vader-en-bso-doen-hun-verhaal-over-de-wolf Here's a dutch source about the bite btw. Wouldn't call it severe but the wolf did stalk and attack her. Also another child was pushed over by one, and a dog bitten.
They didn't shoot the wolf btw. Think it just left.
It's possible to change the language of the article as I've seen. Thanks for the link, it was an interesting read!
I'm glad the girl has not been severly injured. Of course, such things should not happen. The parents must have been extremely worried about their child, let alone how terrified the child was. I hope it won't stay traumatised from that.
Yesterday, I've also read on another occasion about the other child being rammed by a wolf. I think it's possible to educate people in a manner such they can deal with their children and pets responsibly in areas where wolf populations exist. Wolves don't attack humans without reason. According to the article you've linked, a behavioural biologist states that the wolf bit her lightly as a warning to stay away. Of course a 5 year old child doesn't understand this. But it should be possible in this case to implement precautions for the supervisors. Maybe fence off the school ground, get educated how to handle wolf contacts, install auditive deterrents on a frequency only wolves can hear and so on. This can help to improve a peaceful co-existence between humans and wolves.
It's not surprising that incidents like these can tilt the public opinion against wolves. Which is why it's even more important to highlight other non-lethal alternatives as solutions.
Yeah 1 girl bitten, 1 girl pushed, 1 dog bitten and 1 dog just dragged away into the forest while leashed. And the government doesn't know what to do, they don't want to shoot them. Of course if the population of wolves increases these things will happen more often. That's why I said we just don't have the space. This shouldn't be able to happen if people here don't even believe it.
May I ask where this happend?
name checks
Let's not forget that livestock farmers can get financial compensation in case their animals really got killed by wolves.
So what's the fucking problem?
Yes, and according to an EU report in 2023, only 0.065% of the bloc's sheep population had been killed by wolves and there had been no reports of fatal wolf attacks on humans for 40 years. Source (you need to scroll down to the end of the article for these numbers).
My in laws are shepherds. The situation isn't as easy as you'd think. When some or their sheep were killed, they were denied compensation for a variety of bureaucratic reasons. Much worse than the uncompensated loss of some sheep was that the flock afterwards rejected the pasture, refusing to be led onto it again. Now they have a pasture they can only use to produce hay, which isn't what they need, and need to rent additional space to let their sheep graze on, which they of course aren't compensated for either. I can understand their anger, with the country not providing any compensation whatsoever (which people assume it does) and generally feeling left alone with a problem that they wouldn't even have if it wasn't for rather abstract environmental reasons.
I understand that. Thanks for this insight! This again underlines the importance to improve the bureaucratic process of getting compensation and other forms of aids in order to protect the herds.
But surely killing wolves is not the way to go here instead.
Although this might get me downvoted, but killing wolves does solve that problem, so for farmers this is a way to go here and simply dismissing their pov doesn't make it easier to convince them otherwise. There haven't been wolves in central Europe for decades, so the environment seems to be able to deal with some more deer. I get the environmental reasons, but it's not like the whole system immediately collapses without wolves. For farmers, this introduces a long solved problem because some city dwelling greens want to get their karma balanced without paying for it while they (the farmers) then have to deal with the consequences. Just providing money doesn't address a lot of issues, as I explained above, and even if it did, it's you, the farmer, who is knee deep in the insides of your gutted animal to clean up the mess, just to then end up in an annoying, overly complex bureaucratic process that may or may not result in some money being thrown at you by loafers wearing hipsters that think that this makes everything right. It doesn't. My in-laws raised rejected or orphaned lambs with baby bottles in their living room. Do they later kill these sheep for a living? Yes. But they also seriously attempt to previously have them live a fulfilled and peaceful life, so having their whole flock panicking around a handful of violently gutted mother sheep while essentially being denied both, fair compensation and empathy for their situation does make them understandably bitter. And, to be honest, I'm pretty on board with the idea that wild wolves should fear proximity to humans and their herds, so shooting wolves that think that sheep or cows are an easier prey than deer isn't such a one sided terrible idea as it is often made out to be here.
Hunters wouldn't have to hunt for deer and boar anymore, because they're taking the place of wolfs, lynx and bears.
So they shoot the wolfs and can continue to hunt.
In the netherlands we got a letter warning us not to go into the forest with dogs or small children since the wolves are attacking them. There's not enough space here for them to safely roam unfortunately.
Wolves, in general, don't approach humans and don't attack them as long as not provoked. Such behaviour as what has happened in the netherlands is rather unusual. However, in principle learning how to coexist, involving how to responsibly manage pets and children, and how to handle areas where larger wolve populations reside, is better than to kill them in terms of benefits for the ecosystem as well as wildlife protection.
You asked what the problem was. I gave you a problem here.
I see. Thank you.
Do you feel like that's the most significant reason for why popularity about the idea of returning wolf populations are decreasing in the netherlands?
From my point of view (Germany) it feels like it's mostly livestock farmers who are complaining and propagating populistic and scientifically incorrect nonsense about wolves.
Such events only highlight the importance of what scientists and wildlife / environmental protection organisations are demanding and what I've summarized before.
I don't mind wolves, it's cool that they are here. Would love to see one. I just think that there are only a few places here where they could live properly. We are very densely populated. I'm getting a lot of downvotes in this thread cause it sounds like I don't want wolves here or something. I couldn't care less about cattle. I just think that culling is sometimes needed if it gets out of hand.
If it gets out of hand and there is no better way, sure. I guess there's a lot of checkboxes to be checked before this is the only viable alternative.
when the alt right wins, we don't follow scientific advice anymore.
When ANY conservative wins, all data based decision making is replaced entirely with feefees.
Same thing really
giving in to populist demands that are of little use to livestock farmers,’’
Why am I not surprised. There was definitely pressure from farmers, and they can be powerful political lobby groups.
Does the EU even have the authority to rule over stuff like this? I'm pretty sure they don't and this decision will have no impact on the policies of the member countries.
Yes it does. The EU articles basically say that anything that gets agreed can be binding to member states.
In practice, the structure of the EU institutions keeps a very tight leash on that, by not passing them. This got passed.
After some more reading it seems this isn't a decision by the EU but the members of the Bern Convention which the EU members are just part of. Some African and American countries are also members of that.
As for decision by the EU: only decisions effecting trade between countries seem enforceable, internal policy can't be forced by the EU on member countries, it's a choice to adopt EU laws. Like for example the EU copyright directive was passed in 2019 and only 4 member states chose to adopt it to this day.
After some more reading it seems this isn’t a decision by the EU but the members of the Bern Convention
Thanks, I tried to glean the primary source, but couldn't find it. Hate browsing on mobile.
EU copyright directive
That's what I'm talking about, there are different classes of EU rules, there are mainly opinions (non-binding), directives (members states should theoretically comply, but are free to figure out how to, so what you described might happen), and regulations (becomes law immediately everywhere on passing).
So for example member states have no room to avoid complying with the GDPR, or the one reg about no roaming charges, but passing a regulation is very, very hard. But if it gets passed, individual member state parliaments have no role, it overrides national legislation. But only for regulations.
The member countries approved the Commission's move already.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
187 points (100.0% liked)
Europe
1610 readers
205 users here now
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
Rules (2024-08-30)
- This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
- No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
- Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
- No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
- Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
- If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
- Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
- Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
- No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
(This list may get expanded when necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS