Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook
Featured New York Google Tom Brady Denver Nuggets Netanyahu


The government lets the wolf ravage

the centre party is concerned to fight the fight for a fair and balanced rovdyrforvaltning because it is important for many people's lives. It's all about the quality of life for people in rovdyrutsatte areas, the food available to many farmers, biodiversity in the cultural landscape and the sustainable and environmentally friendly food production.

the Government is conducting now a policy in conflict with the parliament's decision. Bestandstallet for the wolf is far above the stated goal of the Parliament of 4-6 litters per year.

Ulvekjeftens political power Comment

the progress party and the Right uses the days its on to bedyre in the media that they will shoot more wolves and follow The rovviltforlik. In Parliament, however, they vote against every initiative to reduce the current ulvebestand in line with the bestandsmålet, that is contrary to their own promises.

They spend a lot of time to attack the centre party, despite the fact that they do not disagree in our rovdyrpolitikk. On the contrary, they are completely agree, but seem to think that we make too much to actually get implemented the policy. Although they lead a vernepolitikk that continues to increase the wolf population.

It is embarrassing to see how the progress party and the Right trying to maneuver away from the rovdyrdebatten. There are actually those who sit with the power of a new majority rule. The centre party is now in mindretallsopposisjon, and can promote the proposals in Parliament and ask critical questions to the government in order to push them to follow up the policy Parliament has adopted. Right and the Progress party, calling it "manipulative games", we call it opposisjonspolitikeres responsibility.

We're not playing roulette with our kids Debate

That we are using this the opportunity, and takes this responsibility seriously, should only be missing when we are elected as people's representatives in Norway's supreme democratic organ. If the Right and the political Right really want to, it is quite possible for them to get done something with the current unsustainable situation by making sure that it fired more wolf. So simple, so difficult.

instead, go the opposite way. On almost six years with the Progress party and the Right in government, has the number of wolves in Norway almost doubled. In recent time, it has never been registered so a lot of wolf in Norway as of now. (It is also the reason that Erna Solberg can boast that it has never been shot so much wolf.)

The regional r ovviltnemndene set in the autumn to take out the three flocks, in line with local assessments, and in line with the national bestandsmålene. The government responded with only to take out one tribe, which consisted of 2 older wolves (Slettås). Rovviltnemndene was again overprøvd and overtaken by the present government.

Hobøl and Many-revirene was protected by the government, and the Right and the Right thus to set the Storting's decision, the entire rovdyrforliket and the current bestandsmålet to the page. This is serious, both politically and in principle.

Takes fewer sheep than before the Debate

great demonstrations against the government's protection of the wolf. For only a few weeks ago, 10,000 people in the torchlight procession outside the Parliament, among them also many local representatives from the progress party and the Right. Over 200 mayors have signed a ordføreropprop with the requirement that the government must change course in rovdyrpolitikken.

People affected and several people have had to modify their pattern of life. Farmers have enough of a summer have had to use countless hours of extra work by the supervision, documentation of the damage and not at least the load it is to go this was considered every single day with a fear of finding half dead and killed animals on the pasture.

The rovviltforlik from 2004 and 2011 is built on a twofold objective. It shall be ensured sustainable populations of the great rovviltartene at the same time as it is to provide for a continued active and versatile use of the utmarksressursene and vibrant communities. It means to reduce the rovviltskader, mitigate conflicts, and to counteract the insecurity of those who are most affected.

Unfortunately, the Norwegian rovviltpolitikk the last few years borne the stamp of to prioritize as much predators as possible at the expense of an active beitepolitikk, without that this is politically and democratically rooted. This covers a wide range of community, industry practitioners, families, and individuals strong.

When the government does not follow up the two-part goal, tweaked also rovviltpolitikkens legitimacy in Norway. This injustice builds resistance and provocation against ulvens presence and is highly conflicting.

the centre party wants western tendencies in the Norwegian forests Debate

When the government does not follow the rovviltforliket, and thus breaks with The fattede decision, it's actually about more than predators. It is, fundamentally, about people's trust to the authorities. When the state changes the rules of the game along the way and the driver of exercising power without democratic rooted grounds, weakened the confidence of those who govern the country.

Can the progress party and the Right to live with that their own government overkjører population in rovdyrområder who find that their experiences are not respected, that their arguments are less important and their rights are worth less?

Think Progress and Right really that the that points out this driver with the "manipulative game"? In that case, they have completely abdisert in rovdyrdebatten.

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.