Article posted March 10, 2016
Following public input on the website of the Ministry of Ecology, which was open from February 11 to March 4, 2016 it is clear that the overwhelming majority of people opposed the project to destroy another 6 wolves after the 36 already killed.
5563 voters, which was over 90% of the 6153 contributors, said no to the draft proposed by Minister Segolene Royal.
Indeed, some testimonies proved to be very emotional; a significant number of people who were opposed to the draft developed substantive arguments.
It is time to try to organize the coexistence between wildlife and livestock, and also, for the return of beneficial predators to our ecosystems.
The number of wolves killed has doubled between 2014 and 2015. What was a ceiling has unfortunately become a quota to meet. It is necessary to know the effectiveness of the actual destruction of 36 wolves regarding lowering attacks on herds before considering more shooting.
Because it's a safe bet that the destruction of random wolves do not reduce the number of attacks on sheep; instead packs become disorganized and individuals are dispersed.
Giving hunters the opportunity to shoot wolves is a serious infringement against the conservation of protected species. The experts of the National Nature Protection Council on 9 February voiced a very negative opinion against the decree to destroy another 6 wolves (18 against, 2 abstentions 7).
Also, the previous public consultation registered more than 6,000 commentors. Among the many comments raised in this new consultation, some think that this kind of consultation is unnecessary since already more than 90% of French people expressed themselves against the previous decree.
Madame Minister Segolene Royal is committed to participatory democracy, so we hope our opinions and the opinions of experts will have merit. Madame Barbara Pompili, as Secretary of State, is in charge of biodiversity, so our naturalist associations and the scientific community expect strong support, against all odds, from her.
As the state must again vote on this issue, our voices would attack this new order before the court.