Forklaring på hvorfor Senterpartiet er i mot en bærekraftig framtid - Ulven i Norge

[G]

Video starter med en ganske enkel å forstå modell på hvilken rolle hvalen har i økosystemet. For så å beskrive hvor ødeleggende utryddelsen av ulv i USA var. Samt hvor mye frukter det brakte å reintrodusere kanadisk ulv i den store nasjonalparken i USA.

Man må se denne video for å forstå hvor naturfiendtlige Senterpartiet faktisk er:

Obs, reklamesponsing fra 3 min 26 sekunder til 4 min og 36 sekunder ut i video.

Endret 15. mai 2021 av G

[debattklovn]

20 minutters video? 

[G]

Alt er jo mye bedre med bilder og skisser i video da. Men forstår at ikke alle har tid. Håper dette bidrar litt på å hjelpe med akkurat det 

Teksten fra den tredje spoiler bidrar med å bygge opp video ved å ta eksempler fra positive effekter ved å la hval være i fred. Så sammenliknes ulv til å ha en liknende viktig rolle som det hvalen har på økosystemet og klima.

Transcript fra video:

Spoiler

00:11
as anyone who's lived through high
00:13
school will tell you
00:14
the world can be a ruthless place
00:17
we humans seem to spend a lot of our
00:19
time competing for things
00:22
money power market share
00:25
love and detention that last piece of
00:28
birthday cake
00:29
and with the world population growing
00:31
faster than a herd of nymphomaniacal
00:33
rabbits
00:34
competition for resources is only going
00:37
to get
00:38
more intense but we are not only
00:41
competing against each other
00:42
there are thousands upon thousands of
00:45
other species out there
00:46
going about their daily business too
00:50
two varying degrees we are also
00:52
competing with all of them
00:54
for basics like food water and
00:58
land and so far
01:01
it looks like we're crushing it
01:05
according to research by the worldwide
01:08
fund for nature
01:09
wildlife populations across the world
01:12
have declined by an average of 68
01:16
since 1970 mostly due to human
01:19
impact so in the race for survival
01:23
there's really no contest if this were
01:27
a hundred meter sprint we'd be usain
01:30
bolt
01:31
and the rest of nature would be your nan
01:34
on ketamine this level of domination
01:39
may fill you with horror or a warm glow
01:42
of genocidal pride
01:44
but either way you don't need to be a
01:45
genius to comprehend that running at
01:47
this pace
01:48
isn't sustainable since our planet has
01:52
finite resources
01:53
it's highly likely we won't be able to
01:56
consume at our current rate
01:58
forever if we're going to survive
02:02
people need to find a way to conserve
02:05
and replenish
02:06
stocks of flora and fauna and
02:09
opposite to the thinking that's guided
02:11
us most of the last hundred years and
02:13
beyond
02:14
that does not involve getting rid of the
02:16
creatures we consider our main
02:18
competition for food
02:20
from primary predators to pigs
02:23
humans have a long history of hunting
02:27
and killing goth species we see as a
02:29
threat to our food supply
02:31
even today this thinking underpins
02:34
government policies for example
02:36
after an international ban in place
02:39
since 1986
02:41
japan recently announced a decision to
02:44
resume
02:45
commercial whaling part of the
02:47
justification for this move was that
02:50
whales eat huge amounts of fish as well
02:53
as the fish's food
02:55
tiny crustacean-like shrimp called krill
02:58
the argument goes if we let whales have
03:01
their way
03:02
there won't be anything left for us at a
03:05
glance
03:06
this thinking makes sense but's research
03:10
over the last few years
03:12
suggests that having whales in the ocean
03:15
actually increases not decreases
03:19
the numbers of fish and krill and the
03:22
reason why
03:23

Spoiler

OBS, REKLAME I AKKURAT DENNE SPOILER

may take you completely by surprise if
03:26
you enjoy documentaries about wildlife
03:28
like me
03:28
or anything else for that matter you
03:30
should definitely use
03:32
surfshark to unlock videos on streaming
03:34
services
03:35
that might not be available in your
03:36
country surfshark runs on any device
03:39
anywhere and it's packed full of
03:41
features such as industry-leading
03:44
uncrackable encryption ip and
03:47
dns leak protection an internet kill
03:50
switch of your vpn drops out
03:52
and 24 7 customer support surfshark
03:55
maintains a strict
03:56
no logs policy and their network of 3200
04:00
servers
04:01
in over 65 countries runs 100
04:04
on ram so they couldn't log your data
04:07
even if they wanted to by using
04:10
surfsharkvpn you can stay anonymous and
04:12
secure online
04:14
personally i use surfshark to watch
04:16
netflix content from other countries
04:19
such as the us that's usually blocked
04:21
here in the uk
04:22
by using the code 42 you'll benefit from
04:25
an 83
04:26
discount plus free extra months for
04:29
free all you have to do is click the
04:32
special link in the description below
04:34
don't miss out

Spoiler

in case you hadn't
04:37
noticed
04:38
whales are big really big
04:41
blue whales are the biggest species to
04:43
ever exist on the planet
04:46
yes even bigger than those dinosaurs
04:48
with their ridiculously long necks
04:50
and that big silly flying lizard i
04:52
talked about recently
04:54
they have a heart the size of a small
04:56
car
04:57
which can be heard beating from two
04:59
miles away
05:01
and some arteries are so large a small
05:04
person can crawl through
05:07
as you can imagine a creature this size
05:10
needs to eat a lot one blue whale can
05:13
eat
05:13
40 million krill a day
05:17
but as you can also imagine
05:21
what goes in must come out
05:25
what i'm trying to say is whales
05:29
are massive factories you've
05:32
probably not spent too much time
05:34
wondering about this
05:35
that's why i'm here to ask all the
05:38
really tough questions
05:39
on your behalf but i think it's pretty
05:42
easy to accept that whales produce
05:45
a lot of pain enormous clouds of the
05:47
stuff actually
05:48
known as fecal plumes in a hypothetical
05:52
process called the whale pump
05:55
whales are tought to dive deep below the
05:58
waves to search for food
06:00
and then when they return to the surface
06:02
to breathe
06:03
they release poop plumes usually in the
06:06
photic zone
06:07
the upper level of the sea in which
06:09
there's enough light for photosynthesis
06:11
to happen
06:12
because in sunlight is just
06:14
more pleasant
06:16
this fabulous feces is rich in iron and
06:20
nitrogen which are rare minerals this
06:22
high in the ocean strata
06:24
and it acts as a fertilizer for
06:27
microscopic marine
06:29
algae called phytoplankton
06:33
formed the foundation for ocean food
06:36
webs
06:37
acting as the food source for small fish
06:40
and crustaceans
06:42
who in turn act as the food source
06:45
for bigger fish and so on
06:48
so more whale poo equals more nutrients
06:52
for phytoplankton
06:54
equals more food for everyone
06:58
studies suggest that ocean areas with
07:00
higher whale populations
07:02
have higher densities of phytoplankton
07:05
fish and sea life all the way up the
07:08
food chain
07:10
the increased phytoplankton from the
07:12
whale pump could also have other
07:14
benefits
07:15
phytoplankton absorb around 40 percent
07:18
of the carbon from the atmosphere
07:20
which is equivalent to four amazon
07:22
rainforests
07:24
and produce about half of the world's
07:26
oxygen
07:27
making it a major influencer in climate
07:31
change
07:32
so it could be that rather than
07:36
threatening human food supply whales
07:39
actually support and increase it
07:42
and possibly improve the climate whilst
07:44
they're at it too
07:46
these huge blubbery beasts are able to
07:49
have
07:50
such an outsized impact due to an
07:53
ecological process
07:55
called a trophic cascade which describes
07:58
what happens to a food chain
08:00
and the ecosystem around it when a top
08:04
predator is added or taken away
08:08
imagine for example a simple free tier
08:11
food chain with a carnivore at the top
08:13
known as the predator a herbivore below
08:16
called the primary consumer
08:18
and plants at the bottom known as the
08:21
primary producers
08:23
until the middle of the 20th century it
08:25
was widely believed that ecosystems were
08:28
governed
08:29
by primary producers essentially the
08:32
size and diversity of a habitat
08:34
as well as the sizes of animal
08:36
populations at all stages in the food
08:38
chain
08:39
were determined by how much food there
08:42
was
08:42
at the very bottom of the pyramid
08:45
usually in the form of plants
08:47
or phytoplankton predators just
08:50
weren't considered to play a
08:52
particularly meaningful role
08:55
if there were lots of primary producers
08:57
there could be more primary consumers to
08:59
eat
09:00
them and then there would be more
09:02
predators to eat
09:03
them at least that's what was assumed
09:07
the problem with this theory was if the
09:10
entire ecosystem was regulated by food
09:12
supply
09:13
at the bottom of the chain what stops
09:16
the animal populations in the middle
09:19
from growing unstoppably and decimating
09:22
all the green stuff the answer to this
09:25
little puzzler
09:26
emerged in the 1960s the theory of
09:30
trophic
09:31
cascades and along with it
09:34
the concept of keystone species
09:38
in a trophic cascade predators at the
09:40
top of the pyramid
09:41
are just as important as the producers
09:44
at the bottom
09:46
if you reduce the number of carnivores
09:48
at the top
09:50
the population of herbivores is likely
09:52
to expand
09:53
because there's nothing to keep it in
09:54
check and
09:56
more herbivores usually equals
09:59
overgrazing of plants
10:01
which can destroy an ecosystem
10:05
because reduced vegetation causes
10:07
increased soil erosion
10:09
which in turn leads to silted up rivers
10:13
and so on on the other hand having more
10:16
predators at the top
10:17
keeps the populations of herbivores
10:19
under control
10:21
which allows plants to flourish this is
10:24
known
10:24
as a top-down trophic cascade
10:28
for a real world example in the kelp
10:31
forests in the pacific ocean
10:33
sea otters feed on sea urchins
10:36
who in turn graze on the kelp
10:40
in some areas otters have been
10:42
extripated
10:43
which means their numbers have been
10:45
reduced to extinction within that region
10:48
usually through excessive hunting where
10:51
this has happened
10:52
sea urchin populations have increased so
10:55
much
10:56
that the kelp has been almost totally
10:59
deforested
11:00
the opposite of this is known as a
11:03
bottom
11:03
up trophic cascade in which
11:06
the primary producer at the bottom of
11:08
the chain sets the limit
11:10
for the rest of it because phytoplankton
11:14
and plants rely on photosynthesis
11:17
variations in sunlight can cause
11:19
big issues affecting nutrient levels
11:23
when there's an abundance of nutrients
11:26
generally all
11:27
trophic levels prosper together however
11:30
a lack of nutrients at the bottom can
11:32
decimate
11:33
the entire pyramid all the way up to the
11:36
carnivores at the top
11:38
[Music]
11:39
the most famous and arguably most
11:42
interesting
11:42
example of a trophy cascade is the
11:45
reintroduction
11:46
of grey wolves into the yellowstone
11:49
national park in the united states
11:52
when yellowstone was established in 1872
11:56
there was no legal protection on the
11:58
wildlife in the park
11:59
so tourists and hunters had the right to
12:03
kill
12:03
anything they wanted protective laws
12:06
were put in place a few years later
12:08
but predators were excluded
12:11
so by 1926
12:15
wolves had been hunted to extinction
12:18
in yellowstone but when the wolves
12:21
disappeared
12:22
populations of their number one prey the
12:25
elk
12:26
increased massively and hence
12:29
the ecological conditions within the
12:31
park
12:32
drastically declined biologists were
12:35
worried about
12:36
erosion and the overgrazing of woody
12:39
plants like willow
12:40
aspen and cottonwood so population
12:44
control programs were started
12:46
which basically involves moving elk
12:48
around or killing them
12:50
because you know what us humans are like
12:53
if we don't know how to fix something
12:54
we just kill it these programs helped
12:57
slow the negative impact on the
12:59
territory
13:00
but the vegetation and landscape didn't
13:03
recover

13:04
so in the 1940s campaigns began
13:08
for gray wolves to be reintroduced into
13:11
the park
13:12
the general public tend to feel about
13:14
wolves the same way they feel about
13:16
say sharks or gonorrhea
13:20
so there wasn't an overwhelming amount
13:22
of support for having wolves back at
13:24
yellowstone
13:25
things began to change in the 1960s
13:28
though
13:28
the free love movements meant there was
13:30
a lot more gonorrhea
13:32
and better understanding of ecosystems
13:34
meant there was more support for having
13:36
wolves back in yellowstone
13:38
in 1969 zoologist robert payne
13:42
introduced the concept of the keystone
13:44
species
13:45
which describes an animal that's able to
13:48
influence an
13:49
entire habitat on its own
13:52
all animals in a particular area may
13:54
have their place in the trophic pyramid
13:57
but not all of them can fundamentally
14:00
shift the way that pyramid works
14:03
keystone species have that ability
14:07
they are essentially ecosystem engineers
14:11
and the wolf is one of them
14:15
a few short decades later in january
14:18
1995
14:19
14 wolves imported from canada
14:22
were released into yellowstone national
14:24
park

14:25
it was a rare situation in which the
14:28
trophic cascade
14:30
from the reintroduction of an apex
14:32
predator
14:33
could be monitored and compared to the
14:36
environment
14:37
that existed before as a result
14:40
scientists have spent the last 25 odd
14:43
years
14:44
studying the impact of the wolves at
14:46
yellowstone
14:48
and arguing about what all of it means

Spoiler

14:52
one version of events popularized by a
14:54
video that went viral
14:56
no not gonorrhea was that the
14:58
reintroduction of the wolves
15:00
not only had an impact on the population
15:02
of elk in the park
15:04
but also elk behavior for the first time
15:08
in
15:08
70 years elk needed to be more wary
15:12
of attack and began to avoid areas where
15:14
they felt vulnerable
15:16
such as valleys and gorges so
15:19
vegetation in those areas began to
15:21
regenerate
15:22
with some trees showing a five-fold
15:25
increase in
15:26
height in just six years deforested
15:29
areas saw new growth of trees like
15:32
willow aspen and cottonwood which
15:35
in turn saw greater biodiversity with
15:38
the return of the birds and insects who
15:41
lived in those trees
15:42
the resurgence of willow trees was a
15:44
particularly big
15:45
deal because these are favorites of
15:48
beavers who eat willow
15:49
and use it to build their dams and
15:51
lodges like
15:53
wolves beavers are a keystone species
15:57
so they began to have a dramatic impact
15:59
on the environment
16:01
between 1996 and 2009
16:04
the number of beaver colonies in
16:05
yellowstone increased
16:07
from 1 to 12.
16:10
and importantly they weren't restricted
16:12
to the main rivers
16:14
but began frequenting the smaller
16:16
outlying rivers
16:17
too the dams the beavers built created
16:20
new habitats of their
16:22
own with fish aquatic birds muskrats
16:25
and other water mammals also the wolves
16:28
killed coyotes
16:30
which allowed populations of coyote prey
16:33
to flourish
16:34
which is mostly small mammals like mice
16:36
and rabbits
16:37
which in turn attracted species that
16:41
hunt mice and rabbits
16:42
like weasels foxes and birds of prey
16:46
the carcasses that the wolves left
16:48
behind after their feeding
16:50
attracted scavengers like bald eagles
16:52
and ravens
16:53
bears also profited from having more
16:55
carrion lying around
16:57
and because there were now more shrubs
16:59
there were also more
17:01
berries but perhaps most amazingly of
17:04
all
17:05
the wolves even changed the behavior
17:09
of the rivers due to more widespread
17:13
vegetation growth and regenerating
17:15
forests
17:16
river banks were stabilized and soil
17:19
erosion decreased
17:20
leading to deeper less meandering rivers
17:23
with more pools and less silt all of
17:27
which
17:27
was good for local habitats the primary
17:30
message was
17:32
even though there were only a few wolves
17:34
to start with in 1995
17:36
the fact they were a keystone species in
17:39
a trophic cascade
17:41
meant they had the power to change
17:44
not only the ecosystem of yellowstone
17:47
national park
17:48
but also the physical landscape of the
17:51
environment
17:52
itself that's a pretty amazing story
17:58
but is it true scientists generally
18:01
agree that trophic cascades
18:03
are a genuine and credible phenomenon
18:06
but zoologists biologists ecologists
18:10
and gynecologists continue to argue
18:14
about the wolves and beavers in
18:16
yellowstone
18:18
no one is debating whether wolves had an
18:20
impact on elk populations since they
18:22
returned to the park
18:24
but what is questioned is whether they
18:27
can be declared
18:28
responsible for the shifts in vegetation
18:30
and
18:31
therefore the rivers the ecosystem at
18:35
yellowstone national park
18:37
is very complex and it's impossible to
18:40
say for certain that one change at the
18:42
top of the food chain
18:43
is responsible for a linear change all
18:46
the way at the bottom
18:48
for example in the same period of time
18:50
since wolves came back to the park
18:52
grizzly bear and cougar populations have
18:54
increased
18:56
and bears specifically are a natural
18:58
predator of elk calves
19:00
hunting by humans is also responsible
19:02
for smaller elk populations
19:05
with thousands of animals killed when
19:07
herds cross the border
19:08
and leave the park for some parts of the
19:10
year
19:12
other elk have contracted diseases from
19:14
the growing number of bison
19:16
yellowstone has also experienced
19:18
significant drought in recent years
19:20
which has impacted animal populations
19:22
but also revealed some facts about
19:24
willow growth
19:25
willows need water to flourish and the
19:28
discrepancies in tree growth
19:30
brought on by drought has highlighted
19:32
that the rise and fall of willow density
19:34
across the park
19:36
can't be attributed to one single cause
19:39
the science around trophic cascades is
19:42
still emerging
19:43
and it seems clear that stories about
19:46
river-moving wolves and
19:48
poop-plooming whales
19:51
highly complex systems and ecological
19:54
processes
19:56
but they do shine light on how
19:58
interconnected the different elements of
20:00
the natural world
20:01
are and if that's going to encourage
20:04
humans to make better decisions about
20:07
how
20:07
and where we fit in i'm all for it
20:12
thank you for watching

Ganske viktig vippepunkt i video ved ca. 15 minutter. Som da omtaler hvor viktig hjortebestandens oppførsel når den har ulv å være redd for, påvirker økosystemet.

 

Endret 15. mai 2021 av G

[G]

Senterpartiets ulvehat rimer ikke ift. hva vitenskapen forteller om dens rolle:

Quote

Nok en gang ble bygdefolket fortalt av folk i byen at de ikke vet hva de snakker om. Bernkonvensjonen og Naturmangfoldloven ble brukt for alt de er verdt og tolkningene til regjeringens lovavdeling ble brukt som unnskyldning for vedtaket. Handlingsrom fantes ikke. 

Kilde: https://www.senterpartiet.no/aktuelt/arkiv/by-bygd-og-ulv

[G]

retorikken minner om noe av det man så i video ovenfor:

Quote

– Vi ønsker et balansert uttak av disse predatorene. Det er begrenset tilgang på mat både for dyr og mennesker, og hvis man skal frede en art bare fordi den er søt, så er ikke det helt heldig, sier leder Tom Vegar Kiil i Kystfiskarlaget til NRK.

https://www.nrk.no/nordland/norges-kystfiskarlag-vil-apne-for-jakt-pa-smahval-som-springere-og-niser-1.15502377

Endret 20. mai 2021 av G

[Budeia]

Nå er kanskje Yellowstone en inngjerdet nasjonalpark? Et enormt område i et enormt land. 

[G]

@Budeia

Hvor mange kvadratkilometer må til før det kalles et økosystem? Selv et enkeltstående tre er jo et eget økosystem fra krone til rot. Et hjem for innsekter, et hjem for fuglematlagring, et rotsystem som forhindrer jorderosjon så lenge man har mange nok trær etc. Fuktabsorbsjon. Le for vind. Skygge for sol til planter, dyr og organismer som ikke vil ha for mye av sterk sol.

Endret 9. juni 2021 av G

[Kazuo]

SP burde ikke ha noe plass i Norsk politikk.

Masse bønder som så vidt orket fullføre grunnskolen som mener det er feil at sauer som slippes ut uten noe som helst oppsyn blir tatt av rovdyr.

Ikke minst de stemmer imot rusreformen sammen ny Frp (Ap).

Fleste er nok enige at et Afrika uten løver eller elefanter er tragisk, men ulv i Norsk natur NEI NEI tenk at noen få hunder dør årlig og kanskje et menneske om man er riktig uheldig.

 

 

[G]

Ønsker tilføye denne til debattråden:

Hun er av de i Norge som vet mest om ulv. Men forskningen hun foreleser om har minst tillit i befolkningen.

SAU OG ULV: Professor ved HINN, Barbara Zimmermann, foreleser om forskning som er gjort rundt tap av beitedyr og elg til ulv for studenter ved Evenstad. Men det hun forteller om stiller mange seg tvilende til.

FOTO: ANNE KARI LØBERG / NRK

Det viser en doktorgradsavhandling som nå sluttføres ved Høgskolen i Innlandet (HINN). Av de 2000 som er spurt i alle kommuner i Norge har folk minst tro på rovdyrforskning.

– Jeg tror ikke folk klarer å skille mellom forskningen som skal bringe fram ny kunnskap, forvaltningen og politikken.

Det tror professor Barbara Zimmermann er grunnen til den lave tilliten.

Og når hun drar ut i skogen for å samle inn informasjon, som skal bidra til forskning på ulv, blir hun stoppet av folk som gjør det de kan for at hun ikke skal få gjort jobben sin.

Fordi de er imot ulv.

<snip>

<snip>

MÅ LANDE: Når forskerne har fått bedøvd ulven må de lande helikopteret. Men ikke alle grunneiere sier ja til at de kan lande. Her er det ulven i Slettås i Trysil som blir merka i januar 2017.

FOTO: PER MAGNUSSEN / NRK

Når forskerne skal ut i skogen blir de ofte møtt med stengte bomveger og folk som sier de ikke vil ha dem på sin eiendom.

Ved merking av ulv må de bruke helikopter for å få bedøvd dyret og raskt komme seg til den for å veie og måle. Da kan det være over 100 forskjellige grunneiere de må be om tillatelse til å lande, og noen sier nei.

– Det er jo data som kommer grunneierne til gode, sier Zimmermann.

Men hun tror det kan være en mulighet for noen grunneiere til å demonstrere at de er imot ulvepolitikken.

https://www.nrk.no/innlandet/forskning-pa-ulv-og-andre-rovdyr-har-liten-tillit-i-befolkningen-1.15671923

Endret 5. oktober 2021 av G

[anon_83104]

DaniNichi skrev (På 9.6.2021 den 17.11):

Masse bønder som så vidt orket fullføre grunnskolen som mener det er feil at sauer som slippes ut uten noe som helst oppsyn blir tatt av rovdyr.

 

Bønder har gjerne egen utdanningsløp innen landbruksskolen, og mange av dem er også yrkessjåfører, tømrere, tømmerhuggere, eller tilsvarende, og har utenom det utallige kurs. Foruten det så har de fleste mange års erfaring fra barndommen av. Folk har alltid hatt en nedlatende tone til bønder. De gangene andre forsøkte å ta over så gjorde de stort sett alt verre. Hovmod står for fall. 

[Snikpellik]

anon_83104 skrev (3 minutter siden):

Bønder har gjerne egen utdanningsløp innen landbruksskolen, og mange av dem er også yrkessjåfører, tømrere, tømmerhuggere, eller tilsvarende, og har utenom det utallige kurs. Foruten det så har de fleste mange års erfaring fra barndommen av. Folk har alltid hatt en nedlatende tone til bønder. De gangene andre forsøkte å ta over så gjorde de stort sett alt verre. Hovmod står for fall. 

Spot on. Som gårdeier selv er ikke sånn nedlatenhet mot bønder noe ukjent fenomen nei, dessverre. De fleste bønder har forøvrig en utdanning og jobb ved siden av gårdsdrifta, ikke minst landbruksskole som du sier. 

Når det kommer til rovdyrpolitikken synes jeg det er vanskelig å ta noe standpunkt. Mye følelser på begge sider som forskurrer debatten.

[Budeia]

G skrev (På 9.6.2021 den 16.37):

Hvor mange kvadratkilometer må til før det kalles et økosystem?

Det jeg mente var at det er lettere for dem i USA å grunnlegge en stor nasjonalpark. I Norge virker det som mange bønder i Innlandet og rundt, nå har gitt opp. 

Dessverre tror jeg det er typisk hva gårdeieren Arvid Mæland opplever (en fargerik person, med åpen Facebook-profil). Baksnakking, ja mobbing. Han har ikke hatt den gården mer enn noen år, og opplever å bli meldt til politiet av naboen og at besøkende tar bilder av hundematingen og sender til Mattilsynet. Folk forlanger veldig mye av en bonde, at alle bygninger skal være feilfritt vedlikeholdt, m.m. 

[G]

Mer om hval-pumpen.

Altså poenget er jo at hvalen på linje med ulven er helt unike og viktige arter i økosystemet. Som gavner mennesket.

 

Endret 29. oktober 2021 av G

[Budeia]

G skrev (3 timer siden):

Som gavner mennesket.

På samme måte som skorpioner..

[Kazuo]

Snikpellik skrev (På 5.10.2021 den 11.53):

 

Når det kommer til rovdyrpolitikken synes jeg det er vanskelig å ta noe standpunkt. Mye følelser på begge sider som forskurrer debatten.

Synes du vi skal ha tigere i India og andre eksotiske steder ? Burde det finnes Elefanter i Afrika ?  eller løver ?Er ikke noe vanskelig ta standpunkt vel. Er noen få ulv man snakker om.

Jeg er helt enig i forvaltning, men slik det er idag er bare forkastelig også med tanke på andre rovdyr her i Norge.

Gått på skole med dyr selv, slipp av sauer og sanking , noe ganske ugreit med finne små sauer som har sultet ihjel fordi de setter seg fast eller falt utenfor små klipper brekt bein for så sakte død.

Bøndene kan da bare se til passe på de jævla sauene sine synes jeg.

Endret 30. oktober 2021 av DaniNichi

[G]

i Folldal, politisk agenda ??

Innspillingen i Folldal er til en ny krimserie som etter planen skal sendes på TV (Viaplay) neste høst. Skuespiller Ida Elise Brock har hovedrollen i serien, som spinner rundt rovdyrkonflikten.

– Det handler om en gutt som er blitt borte og antakeligvis er blitt tatt av ulv, og så skal en biolog finne ut hva som har skjedd, sier regissør Simen Alsvik til NRK.

https://www.nrk.no/innlandet/folldal-kommune-fikk-regning-pa-250.000-etter-filminnspilling-1.15767129

Endret 11. desember 2021 av G