Tonning Riise supports thus Frp-politicians from the same area, who believes the decision whether to take out only one of the three ulveflokkene that the tribunal is asking for trouble.
- It is very provocative that the government, once again, reverses the decision of the regional rovviltnemndene when it comes to the licence within the zone. Thus, we end, once again, up with a population that is far above the bestandsmålet Parliament has decided, printer Tonning Riise on Facebookthe Settlement be set aside, the vice mayor believes that the conservative party out of government: - We can't keep on the way
To Dagbladet, he says that he believes rovdyrnemnden let themselves on a reasonable compromise, then they would take out three turf on a total of 17 animals in the ulvesonen.
- It means that to trap the three revirene they suggested, would a still be in the upper echelon of bestandsmålet for the wolf. A be actually adopted to take out enough of a crowd to and still been within the bestandsmålet. It is, nevertheless, ignored once again, and one ends up with a situation where the settlement once again be set aside.
- This is the wolf that live within the ulvesonen, where it should be wolf?
- Yes, but it has never been intended to be a reserve. It should be a higher threshold for taking out the wolf within the zone than outside, but now we are in a situation where there is so much wolf that it is not possible to come down on the bestandsmålet without touching the zone, " says Tonning Riise, which refers to a different point in the settlement from 2011.
It says the ulveforliket, that when bestandsmålet is reached, it shall be done bestandsregulering both within and outside the zone.- Elvestuen misleads
In the post on their Facebook page accuses he also Elvestuen to "trying to mislead the population".
I have seen that several times today, has shown that the population in the winter is just a little over bestandsmålet. It is a brash way to avoid the realities of the mean Tonning Riise, and refers to the way a sign the wolf, where it is last season's counting (1. October - 31. march) that forms the basis for this year's withdrawal, says Riise to the Newspaper.
When he refers to the that is a tent in the winter, he knows very well that that is the basis for the next year fellingsvedtak, not this year's. We are in reality not a little over, we are far above. Rovdatas numbers show that we, having taken out two of the flocks, still is at 8.5 ynglinger, i.e. 2,5 flocks above the maximum bestandsmål.
Hedmarks-the politician does not intend to let the matter lie.
- the Interior Right and me it means we unfortunately have to continue the fight for the Storting will be carried out, " he says.
He goes on to say that he generally supports the conservative party-politicians, who require a legislative amendment, but believes it should be unnecessary.- This is the noise of the
- I have problems with to see that we do not have sufficient definitive basis of authority as it is in the day to take out these wolves. I think it is more the minister's will that is the problem. But I am in principle totally agree with the conservative party in this matter. Has Parliament enacted any as the minister thinks it needed an amendment for the follow-up, and obliged to come back to parliament with it. But I believe that is not really necessary in this case.is Rejected by the Left
Kjetil Kjenseth, the Left-politician and chairman of the energy and miljøkomiteen in Parliament, supports the however, the decision from the government, although it also reaps criticism from the environmental movement that previously has been the Liberal allerte in the case
. - There should not be any habit, says Kjenseth, stating that it is now open for the withdrawal of the wolf in the ulvesonen.
But Slettås-herd, there has been conflict round in many years. I'm from Oppland and know well the fronts. It is the settlement from the Parliament and regjeringsplattformen that is governing here, " he says.
at the same time he does not agree with Tonnig Riise and progress party representatives that ulveforliket in Parliament is broken.
- We have made two tough decisions. One is to dare to take out a flock where there have long been major challenges. So, we dare to overrule the tribunal, and say that here goes the national interest in front. We are still within the settlement and manages the ulvestammen, he believes.
Kjenseth goes on to say that it is important that these are in tact .
- There are more sheep on the pasture and fewer losses. It shows that we have an active management. We also follow up with the more money to the Norwegian nature inspectorate. We ensure at the same time that the total number of wolves, not under where it should be. A to have a if size that preserves genetic diversity.
But contrary to this to the Left earlier has said about the protection of wolves within the ulvesonen?
This is a part of it to manage ulvestammen. When there are more wolves, you need to follow the action. I don't see that there is a conflict, as long as we manage a tribe that is sustainable and in line with our international obligations. Also naturvernerne must have confidence in the public sector. As long as we make sure that we build up expertise in nature management, but also takes out the appropriate individuals when the decision is, I believe it goes in the right direction.- Good intermediate solution
Also Stefan Heggelund, which sits in the energy and mijøkomiteen for the Right, supports the government's proposal.
I see no one rejoicing over the government's decision, neither of them that will have more restrictive policy, or in the environmental movement. In rovdyrpolitikken it usually means that one has reached a good intermediate solution, " he says.