by Bengt Holst | Feb 20, 2025 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature view, Wildlife
Since the wolf returned to Denmark in 2012, there has been an ongoing debate about its danger and whether there is room for wolves in Denmark. The waves have been high and the fronts between supporters and opponents of the wolf have been heated at times. Now the debate has flared up again after wolves have been spotted in the middle of the town of Oksbøl in southwest Jutland – not just once, but several times. And then, of course, the question arises: Can you shoot wolves?
The wolf is totally protected – but with exceptions
In principle, the wolf is totally protected, not only in this country, but throughout the EU. Only under special circumstances are the authorities allowed to regulate the wolf population or cull so-called “problem wolves”. The big question is when these special circumstances are present.
Is the wolf pressure in Denmark great enough?
Some suggest that when wolves move into cities, it must be because the population has become so large that they have no other option. The territories outside the cities are occupied and therefore some wolves move closer to humans than they normally would. However, there is no indication that we have reached that point yet. With a maximum of 80 wolves spread across most of Jutland, half of which are pups from last year, the territories are hardly full. With around 30 kilometers to the nearest wolf pair – both to the east and north – and in good wolf terrain, the wolf pair in Oksbøl is hardly under pressure to move into the town.
Read more at Kristeligt Dagblad
by Bengt Holst | Nov 3, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature and environment, Nature view
We’re used to seeing death as something negative – and with good reason. It takes life away from us and creates a sense of loss when loved ones pass away. It is so final and cannot be undone. But death is also a prerequisite for life and a very important event in the natural processes.
The role of death in nature
“One man’s death is another man’s bread”, there is a saying that applies on many levels.
In nature, death is a prerequisite for the survival of predators and the livelihood of the many animals that feed on carrion, from vultures, hyenas and marabou storks to carrion beetles and fly larvae. The dead animals quickly decompose and become new life, which fulfills important roles in ecosystems and in this way also becomes a prerequisite for our own lives. Life and death go hand in hand in the biological processes that make up life here on Earth.
Acceptance of death
Death is thus just another biological state that we find difficult to relate to, but which is a completely natural element on a living planet like ours. To understand nature, we need to accept death as a premise on a par with life itself and not let our feelings about the meaning of death for ourselves guide our actions.
Intervening in nature’s processes
And with this in mind, we should not least look at our intervention in the natural processes where death plays a role. Should we intervene in the face of impending death in nature, knowing that if we do so, we deprive other living organisms of the opportunity to create new life?
Ethical considerations
Should we satisfy our own feelings and value those feelings so much that we intervene and prevent the coming death based on a principle of “compassion”?
In cases where we are responsible for the coming death of other beings – by running over animals or shooting them and the like – the answer can be quite easy. There we have made ourselves responsible for the lives of others. But what about the many situations in nature where we simply witness death? Should we intervene there too? Read the rest of the post in Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Sep 29, 2024 | Animal ethics and welfare, Nature view
This year marks 10 years since Copenhagen Zoo was caught in a global shitstorm for euthanizing a young giraffe. After the euthanasia, the giraffe was autopsied, and as it was too big to lie on the normal autopsy table and it was a cold February day, they decided to perform the autopsy on the ground in front of the veterinary clinic, where there was plenty of space and where the public could witness the autopsy – a great opportunity to convey good biological knowledge about anatomy, organ functions, adaptations to life in the wild and much, much more. And finally, after sending most of the organs to research institutions at home and abroad, the meat – approximately 250 kilos – was distributed to the garden’s predators, including the lions, who were able to taste giraffe meat for the first time in their lives. It was a completely natural process that the Zoo had openly carried out with many other animals over the years, from snakes, goats and antelopes to lions, tigers and zebras that had been euthanized and required autopsies.
The reactions and international criticism
But this time the reaction was completely different. The media reported it as a major drama, and the story went around the world in a matter of hours. Copenhagen Zoo and its employees were portrayed as barbarians, and people from all parts of the world demanded that the Zoo be closed down and the responsible employees, including myself, who at the time was the scientific director and thus also responsible for the decision, be fired. Some even took the opportunity to send death threats against me and my family, as well as against the Zoo’s veterinarian who performed the actual euthanasia and the subsequent autopsy.
The shitstorm’s strongest points of criticism
After the big fuss and many clarifying interviews later, we analyzed the many emails sent to the Zoo during the shitstorm to see what the strongest points of criticism were. And to my amazement, it turned out that what offended people the most was that the Zoo had allowed children to witness the autopsy and to see the lions subsequently being fed half a hindquarter that still had the skin on, so you could see that it came from a giraffe. A third of the 40,000 emails the Zoo received during that period fell into that category. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Jul 7, 2024 | Nature and environment, Nature view
Sensation, shambles, ommer and historic agreement. These were just some of the many words used to describe the green tripartite agreement when it was finalized at the end of June after months of intense negotiations.
Criticism and compromise
Some think it is far too unambitious and others that it favors either agriculture or nature too much. But the fact is that the parties have agreed, and that in itself is a great achievement that justifies the term “historic agreement”. It gives ownership to all parties and therefore also ensures support when the agreement is implemented after the upcoming political negotiations.
Content: Historically good?
But what about the content? Is it also historically good? That depends on the eyes of the beholder. There is no doubt that each of us could have wished it better in different areas, depending on where we stand. But deep down, we also know that the agreement has been the art of the possible, and that all parties have had to make compromises during the process.
Focus on the future
So, let’s forget the traditional tribal dances associated with all political agreements and look forward. Let’s forget the things that aren’t in the agreement and concentrate on the things that are actually in it.
The main points of the agreement
250,000 hectares of forest will be planted, of which 100,000 hectares will be managed as “untouched forest” – i.e. without production in mind. 140,000 hectares of low-lying land will be set aside for wild nature by 2030.
A Nature and Biodiversity Act will be drawn up to ensure, among other things, that at least 20 percent of Denmark’s area will be protected nature by 2030.
A plan must be drawn up to reverse the development of the nature that is currently in a very bad state, so that in 25 years we can ensure that it is in what is called “good condition”. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
by Bengt Holst | Mar 11, 2023 | Nature view
Bjørn Harvig and I talk about Dian Fossey, aka the gorilla woman who paid the ultimate price to protect the mountain gorillas. The talk is the latest installment in the podcast series “The Outermost Limit”, about men and women who go to the limit to achieve their goals, and for some, with their lives on the line.
Listen for yourself
by Bengt Holst | Jan 23, 2023 | Bio-diversity, Nature view
Just before Christmas, 196 countries signed the Kunming-Montreal agreement on how to reverse the biodiversity crisis, in the same way that the 2015 Paris Agreement set targets on how to reverse the climate crisis. The agreement sets a number of overarching goals for how to improve biodiversity globally by 2030, partly by conserving existing biodiversity and partly by restoring that which has been lost.
Denmark’s challenges with nature management
These are very general goals, and it will now be interesting to see how the individual countries will implement these goals in their daily nature management. This also applies to Denmark, which for many years has been very poor at looking after nature and which, in a list of how good the EU countries are at looking after their natural areas, is in a woeful second-to-last place. An unfamiliar place for those of us who, in our own self-image, are supposed to be very green and advocates for more wild nature.
Need for action and link to the climate crisis
But with the new, ambitious global goals that Denmark supports, we need to take a step back. The most significant target is probably that 30 percent of the world’s land and marine areas must be protected by 2030. It’s hugely ambitious and will probably be difficult to achieve. But it sends a clear signal to countries. Now all the fine words need to be translated into action. And it’s urgent if we want to have any hope of halting the decline and achieving a sustainable relationship with the nature we are so dependent on. And let’s not forget that if we don’t solve the biodiversity crisis, we can’t solve the climate crisis either. The two crises are inextricably linked and must be solved together.
Denmark’s contribution to the Global Goals
Although the 30 percent protected nature cannot be transferred to all countries on a one-to-one basis, it will be a great challenge for Denmark to make a serious contribution to the common goal. Currently, around 60 percent of Denmark’s land area is covered by agriculture, 15 percent is zoned for cities and roads, and almost 15 percent is left as forest, but mostly as production forest, which is not very exciting for biodiversity. Read the rest of the post at Kristeligt Dagblad.
Recent Comments