Connect with us

International

San Francisco Ousts Soros-Backed Uber-Progressive DA In Recall Vote

San Francisco Ousts Soros-Backed Uber-Progressive DA In Recall Vote

In 2019, Chesa Boudin openly campaigned on a hard-left, soft-on-crime…

Published

1 year ago

on

San Francisco Ousts Soros-Backed Uber-Progressive DA In Recall Vote

In 2019, Chesa Boudin openly campaigned on a hard-left, soft-on-crime platform - and got elected as San Francisco’s chief prosecutor. On Tuesday, San Francisco voters gave him the boot, having discovered, as Andrea Widburg notes, that the reality of hard-left governance is much less appealing than the theory and promises.

As The Epoch Times' Brad Jones details below, unlike California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent recall election, Boudin didn’t face any opponents. On June 7, San Francisco voters were simply asked to answer yes or no to the question, “Shall Chesa Boudin be recalled (removed) from the Office of District Attorney?”

With more than 61.3 percent of the voters selecting “yes,” San Francisco Mayor London Breed must now appoint an interim district attorney until Nov. 8, when a permanent replacement will be elected. The no votes totaled 40,921 (38.7 percent).

Boudin, a former public defender backed by leftwing billionaire George Soros, came under fire for failed progressive criminal-justice reform policies that have led to a sharp increase in drug overdose deaths, homelessness, and thefts, including smash-and-grab robberies, car burglaries, shoplifting, and other property crimes.

Homicide rates and gun crimes have increased since Boudin became took office. He has strived to end cash bail, reduce incarceration rates, and scrutinize police misconduct.

Boudin fired seven prosecutors his second day on the job. In mid-December, The Epoch Times reported that more than 50 prosecutors, support, and victim services staff had either been fired or had quit their jobs over Boudin’s progressive agenda.

A former prosecutor who produced a list of those who were fired or quit left their jobs said at the time, “the office is imploding,” and requested anonymity for fear of reprisal.

Superior Court Judge Bruce Chan chastised Boudin at a Sept. 24, 2021, court proceeding. Chan cited the “constant turnover” and expressed his “disapproval of the manner in which the Office of the District Attorney is being managed,” according to court transcripts.

The Recall Effort

Several prominent Democrats have opposed Boudin, including Nima Rahimi, an attorney and executive board member of the California Democratic Party.

The San Francisco Board of Elections certified a petition on Nov. 9 to recall Boudin after a group called San Franciscans for Public Safety, led by Mary Jung, a former San Francisco Democratic Party chairwoman, and Andrea Shorter. The two launched the petition on April 28, 2021, and gathered about 83,000 signatures, well surpassing the 51,325 needed to force a recall election.

The group alleges in its official recall petition that Boudin failed to keep his promises to deliver criminal justice reform and police accountability.

“Boudin is not keeping San Francisco safe. He refuses to adequately prosecute criminals and fails to take the drug dealing crisis seriously. He doesn’t hold serial offenders accountable, getting them released from custody, and his response to victims is that ‘hopefully’ home burglaries will go down,” according to the petition.

Boudin dismissed the recall effort as a right-wing campaign based on “false and disproven Republican talking points attempting to undo progress and take us backwards,” in his May, 2021, statement of defense.

He argued that “recalls are not political tools for people who lose elections” and that voters “thoughtfully and carefully elected” him because they support his work “to reform an unjust system that too often criminalized poverty, addiction, and mental illness; failed to hold violent police accountable; and targeted people of color.”

Boudin was elected in 2019 with 50.8 percent of the vote, defeating Suzy Loftus who received 49.2 percent.

He said the “the old approaches” didn’t make the city safer but ignored the root causes of crime and “perpetuated mass incarceration,” and claimed that in his first year he fought to expand support for crime victims, hold police accountable when they commit unnecessary violence, create an independent “innocence commission,” and establish an economic crimes unit to protect workers’ rights.

Boudin argued that “exploiting recalls for political purposes is an abuse of the process [that] disrespects the will of the voters, and costs taxpayers millions of dollars.”

Richie Greenberg, a Republican and former mayoral candidate, launched an earlier but unsuccessful recall petition against Boudin in January last year. The campaign collected 49,600 signatures, 1,725 shy of the number needed to make the ballot.

Progressive Policies

Declaring that he didn’t want to prosecute minor offenses, Boudin has indicated he wanted to shift the focus to more serious offenses and take on corporations. He has also suggested hiring public defenders as prosecutors.

He has refused to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has threatened to prosecute ICE officers whom he accused of breaking “sanctuary city laws.”

Fentanyl Deaths

In San Francisco, fentanyl has claimed the lives of 131 people so far this year, according to data from the city’s Chief Medical Examiner’s office, and nearly 1,100 have died from accidental fentanyl overdoses alone since January 2020 to April 2022 compared to 1,544 total overdose deaths. In 2021, fentanyl deaths in San Francisco surpassed COVID-19 fatalities.

The overdose rate is one of the worst in the state despite the city spending more than $13 million to expand overdose prevention programs last year.

The drug epidemic is so rampant that Mayor Breed and others civic leaders have tried to skirt federal laws to create supervised facilities, otherwise known as shooting galleries, where intravenous drug addicts can shoot up under the watchful eyes of medical professionals. The city approved the purchase of a building to open such a facility but has not actually done so.

Boudin and Breed have both been blamed for allowing the city’s infamous needle-strewn “Tenderloin” district to infect surrounding neighborhoods with open drug use and dealing.

Overdose death rates have surged since fentanyl began appeared on the scene several years ago. Because of its potency and low cost, drug dealers have been mixing fentanyl with heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine.

The drug, known as “China Girl, China Town and China White” among other street names, is most often smuggled into the United States from China through Mexico and can be deadly in doses as low as two milligrams, according to the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that can be up to 50 times more potent than heroin, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A year-long national study ending in Jan. 31, 2021, showed that overdose deaths from opioids increased 38.1 percent, and deaths from synthetic opioids jumped 55.6 percent.

Socialist Ties

Boudin once worked as a translator for Venezuelan socialist dictator Hugo Chávez and co-wrote the book “Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks to Marta Harnecker,” published in 2005. Boudin is credited on the book cover.

In 2011, he attained a law degree from Yale Law School and began working for the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office the following year. Unlike other Soros-backed candidates, Boudin was a public defender and had never served as a prosecutor before he was elected as San Francisco’s district attorney—a position Los Angeles DA George Gascón held from 2011 to 2019.

Boudin attended Oxford’s St. Antony’s College in England on a Rhode’s Scholarship and earned two master’s degrees, one in public policy in Latin America and the other in forced migration.

Radical Parents

Boudin was a 14-month-old infant when his parents were arrested in 1981 and imprisoned for their involvement in a botched attempt to rob an armored delivery truck in Nanuet, NY, about 35 miles north of New York City. They were getaway drivers for and members of the radical Weather Underground which orchestrated the failed heist in which two police officers and a Brink’s security guard were killed.

His mother, Kathy Boudin, spent more than two decades in prison before she was released on parole in 2003. His father, David Gilbert, was sentenced 75 years to life in prison but was released on parole in October after Boudin successfully lobbied disgraced New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to commute his sentence before he left office. Cuomo did so on his final day as governor in August. Gilbert, now 76, served more than 40 years in prison.

Boudin was adopted and raised by Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were also members of Weather Underground, a radical Marxist group that sought to lead a violent communist revolution in America and bombed government buildings across the country.

During the 1970s, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) displayed wanted posters with photos of Ayers and other Weather Underground members in every U.S. post office. The FBI listed Dohrn, whom Ayers married in 1982, as one of its 10 most-wanted fugitives. Ayers was a fugitive for years but resurfaced after charges against him were dropped. He taught at the University of Illinois at Chicago for more than 20 years and retired in 2010. He has authored several books on education.

Marxist Roots

Boudin hails from a long line of Marxists.

Louis B. Boudin (1874-1952), Chesa’s great-grand-uncle was a Jewish-American writer, politician, and lawyer. Born Louis Boudianoff (Leib Budiansky) in Ukraine—then under the rule of Imperialist Russia—he was a Marxist theoretician best known for writing a two-volume history of the Supreme Court’s influence on American government published in 1932.

The Boudin family immigrated to America in 1891 and settled in New York City. Louis studied law and was admitted to the New York State Bar Association in 1898. He was a member of the Socialist Labor Party of America and the Socialist Trade and Labor Alliance in the late 1800s. He left the Socialist Labor Party in 1899 and joined a dissident faction to help form the Socialist Party of America in 1901.

His grandfather, Leonard Boudin (1912-1989), was a known civil rights lawyer, who represented Cuba’s communist dictator Fidel Castro and Paul Robeson, an American entertainer who was denied a passport over his refusal to disavow membership in the Communist Party.

*  *  *

However, as AmericanThinker's Andrea Widburg notes, sadly, it’s doubtful any San Franciscans, having literally been mugged by leftist reality, will change their political views. Rather than seeing the problem as leftism, they’ll almost certainly chalk it up solely to Chesa’s mismanagement - and place someone very similar in an office that, before Chesa came along, was held by both Kamala Harris and L.A.’s George Gascon.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/08/2022 - 07:27

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Are Cold War Treaties Beginning To Crumble?

Are Cold War Treaties Beginning To Crumble?

Authored by RFE/RL Staff via OilPrice.com,

The CTBT, signed in 1996, aimed to reduce the threat…

Published

1 hour ago

on

October 16, 2023

By

Are Cold War Treaties Beginning To Crumble?

Authored by RFE/RL Staff via OilPrice.com,

  • The CTBT, signed in 1996, aimed to reduce the threat of nuclear war and the spread of radioactive material.

  • Despite the US not ratifying it, most signatories, including Russia and the US, have adhered to its terms.

  • Tensions and increased weapon development hint at Russia's potential decision to withdraw, further eroding international arms control frameworks.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Treaty on Open Skies. New START.

For years, the pillars of international arms control have been crumbling: agreements signed by Washington, Moscow, and others during and after the Cold War aimed at reducing the threat of nuclear war, costly arms races, or overall military tensions.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty may be the next to go.

Signed in 1996, the treaty was a major step to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons technology and keeping a lid on the arsenals of the world's biggest nuclear powers. Along with earlier treaties, the agreement, known as the CTBT, also aimed to reduce the spread of radioactive material that was blasted into the atmosphere and the oceans during the frenzied days of the Cold War.

Here's the problem: The treaty never went into effect because a number of countries, including the United States, never ratified it.

Still, most signatories -- including Russia and the United States, whose arsenals are by far the biggest in the world -- have abided by the ban.

Now, however, Russia is making noises about backing out and "de-ratifying" the treaty.

Here's what you need to know about the CTBT and its potential unraveling:

How'd It Come About?

The United States and the Soviet Union, as well as Britain, conducted hundreds of nuclear tests between 1945, when the world's first atomic bomb was detonated in the U.S. state of New Mexico and 1961, when Soviet officials detonated the world's most powerful weapon, the Tsar Bomba. France joined the nuclear testing club in 1960; China, in 1964.

The fallout, literal and figurative, from the testing led to a partial ban on atmospheric, oceanic, and space tests in 1963; underground tests continued to be allowed.

In 1974, India tested its first nuclear device, further expanding the nuclear club. A 1980 test by China became the last atmospheric test by any country anywhere.

Moscow's final test -- underground -- occurred in October 1990 on the remote Arctic archipelago called Novaya Zemlya. Britain, the United States, France, and China all conducted their final tests in the years that followed, prior to 1996, mainly underground.

What's It Do?

The CTBT basically bans all tests that result in a fission chain reaction, essentially a nuclear explosion.

Signed in 1996, the treaty was sent out to 187 signatory countries for ratification, but it has never come into effect because of a group of holdout countries.

Russia signed and ratified the treaty in 2000. The United States signed, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify, citing concerns about verifying other countries' compliance with the ban. Despite nonratification, the United States has complied with the moratorium. China signed but didn't ratify.

Neither India, nor Pakistan, nor North Korea -- all of which have conducted open nuclear tests since 1996 -- is a member.

The treaty does allow for states to conduct subcritical, or zero-yield tests. Those involve explosives and nuclear materials but do not result in a fission reaction, the reaction that gives atomic weapons their terrible power. Both the United States and Russia are known to have conducted such tests.

Despite not ratifying the treaty, the United States does provide $33 million annually in funding for a system set up to monitor possible nuclear tests, as well as the Vienna-based organization charged with overseeing it.

What's The Problem Now?

As relations between Washington and Moscow have worsened, major treaties between them have also frayed or collapsed entirely.

Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2002, angering Moscow. Washington for years accused Moscow of trying to cheat on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty until it effectively collapsed in 2019. In 2021, Russia withdrew from the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows countries to conduct surveillance flights over one another's territories in order to observe weapons and military sites.

Both countries have adhered to New START, which capped the number of warheads and "delivery vehicles" each could possess.

New START's extension, by both Russia and the United States in early 2021, was a lone bright spot in the continuing erosion of arms control.

But the agreement expires in 2026 and cannot be extended. Unless a successor treaty can be agreed upon and ratified, there will be no limits on the countries' arsenals after that year. Tensions over Ukraine have kept the two sides from even sending inspectors to one another's countries, as stipulated for in New START.

Both countries have also moved to modernize and upgrade their arsenals. But in a sign of deepening distrust, the U.S. State Department suggested in a 2022 report that Russia had not adhered to the standard of "zero-yield" testing.

So Russia Wants To Pull Out Then?

For more than a decade, the Kremlin has increased spending not only on conventional weapons and force strength but also on modernizing and expanding its strategic arsenal.

In 2018, Putin boasted that Russia was developing new weapons like an unmanned, nuclear-capable, underwater torpedo, and a hypersonic "glide" missile. He also bragged of the development of a nuclear-powered cruise missile -- the Burevestnik, which has had major problems.

In recent years, researchers have been monitoring a surge of activity on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago: satellite imagery showing an uptick of construction at one or possibly two settlements that researchers had identified as sites for a possible test of a nuclear device or the trouble-plagued Burevestnik.

A top Russian nuclear researcher called for Russia to resume testing, and on October 5 Putin announced a successful test of the Burevestnik, though he provided no details.

Putin also opened to the door to Russia resuming nuclear testing, saying it could "de-ratify" the CTBT. A week later, on October 12, the speaker of the State Duma, the lower house of parliament, introduced legislation to withdraw ratification.

The prospect of Russia withdrawing prompted alarm bells, including from the CTBTO, the Vienna-based organization charged with monitoring compliance.

What Happens Next?

Even if "de-ratification" ends up happening, as is likely in the Kremlin-controlled parliament, that does not necessarily mean Russia will start blowing up uranium or plutonium again, on Novaya Zemlya or otherwise.

"I think that withdrawal of ratification is a strictly political step -- leveling status with the U.S.," said Nikolai Sokov, a former Russian Foreign Ministry official and arms control expert.

"I think the main motive is the perception that 'Russia tried too hard in the past and made too many concessions' and now 'We're not interested in arms control more than other countries.'"

Leonid Slutsky, head of the Duma's foreign affairs committee, emphasized that Russia would not be withdrawing its signature under the treaty or "withdrawing from the voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing."

"We are withdrawing the ratification, thus restoring legislative parity with the U.S. Congress," he told the newspaper Kommersant.

"It was especially important for [the CTBTO] to hear that revoking ratification does not mean that Russia intends to resume nuclear tests and implies that Russia will continue to fully participate in the work being done for the Treaty's entry into force," Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia's ambassador in Vienna, told the state news agency RIA Novosti.

Still, it's not a good sign, experts say -- all the more so, given the demise of other treaties.

Russia or any major nuclear power backing out of the CTBT "would be a huge blow to the [global nonproliferation] regime and would undoubtedly lead to a cascade of nuke testing by other states," Lynn Rusten, a former U.S. arms control negotiator, told RFE/RL.

There could also be other nonproliferation or arms control treaties that are at risk, since, according to Sokov, the Kremlin has initiated a review of all similar agreements.

One strong candidate for "de-ratification" or a downgrading of Russia's involvement, he said, is the 1992 Chemical Weapons Convention, which obligates members to destroy their stocks of chemical weapons.

Russia's compliance with that treaty has been in question since the near-fatal poisonings of former Russian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal in England in 2018 and opposition activist Aleksei Navalny in Siberia in 2020.

In both cases, Western scientists identified a powerful Soviet-era nerve agent and suggested that Russia had maintained a secret, undeclared chemical weapons program.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/16/2023 - 02:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

CHF/JPY further potential up move reinforced by CHF safe haven status

CHF was the top-performing currency among the USD pairs in the past five days. An uptick in geopolitical risk premium has reinforced CHF’s safe haven…

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 16, 2023

By

  • CHF was the top-performing currency among the USD pairs in the past five days.
  • An uptick in geopolitical risk premium has reinforced CHF’s safe haven status.
  • CHF/JPY short-term and major uptrend phases remain intact with the next intermediate resistance coming in at 167.90/168.30.

This is a follow-up analysis of our prior report, “CHF/JPY Technical: Continuation of potential bullish impulsive up move” published on 10 October 2023. Click here for a recap.

The CHF/JPY has staged the expected impulsive up move sequence and met the 165.20/165.60 intermediate resistance zone as highlighted in our previous analysis; the cross-pair printed an intraday high of 166.12 last Friday, US session, 13 October.

The current short-term uptrend phase in place since the 3 October 2023 low of 160.01 has been driven by the momentum factor supporting the CHF/JPY’s major uptrend phase since the 13 January 2023 low of 137.44.

Also, the rising geopolitical risk premium trigged by the current Israel-Hamas conflict has not abated, and now with the latest attacks orchestrated over the weekend by Hezbollah, a militant group backed by Iran on Israeli army posts in the north may have caused a further rift among key stakeholders in the Middle East region which in turn can further escalate the turmoil in the current “fragile state” of international relations affairs.

CHF maintains safe haven status but not JPY

Fig 1:  USD major pairs rolling 5-day performance as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)

In in state of rising geopolitical tensions, the safe-haven proxy currencies, the Japanese yen (JPY) and Swiss franc (CHF) tend to be the likely outperformers in the foreign exchange market. Based on a five-day rolling performance basis as of 16 October 2023, the CHF has indeed climbed up against the US dollar where the USD/CHF rate is the worst performer among the US dollar major pairs that recorded a loss of -0.48% at this time of the writing.

However, the JPY has lost its safe haven status this time round as the USD/JPY rate has been firmed above 148.25 (the intermediate support in place since 5 October 2023) due to a “hesitant” Bank of Japan (BoJ) that does not give any clear indication of bringing forward its plans in the removal of negative interest rates policy.

Major uptrend supported by bullish momentum

Fig 2:  CHF/JPY major & medium-term trends as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)

After the appearance of the weekly bullish reversal “Hammer” candlestick sighted for the week ended 6 October 2023, the price actions of the CHF/JPY had a positive follow-through that led to the formation of a weekly bullish long-bodied candlestick that ended on 13 October that surpassed the highs of the prior weekly candlesticks seen in the past three weeks.

These observations coupled with an uptick seen in the daily RSI momentum indicator that has yet to reach its overbought zone (above the 70 level) suggest that medium-term bullish momentum remains intact and has increased the odds of a clearance above the 166.60 intermediate resistance (22/30 August 2023 swing highs).

164.75 is the key support to watch in the short-term

Fig 3:  CHF/JPY minor short-term trend as of 16 Oct 2023 (Source: TradingView, click to enlarge chart)

Watch the 164.75 key short-term pivotal support (also the 50-day moving) on the 1-hour chart of CHF/JPY to maintain its current bullish impulsive up move sequence within its short-term uptrend phase in place since the 3 October 2023 low.

A clearance above 166.60 sees the next intermediate resistance coming in at 167.90/168.30 (a Fibonacci extension cluster).

However, a break below 164.75 negates the bullish tone for a deeper pull-back towards the next support of 163.60 (20-day moving average, 9 October 2023 minor swing low & 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the current up move from 3 October 2023 low to 13 October 2023 high).

 

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Wolf protection in Europe has become deeply political – Spain’s experience tells us why

Some European countries view wolf protection differently to others. A look at Spain’s experience may explain why.

Published

3 hours ago

on

October 16, 2023

By

Wolves are making a comeback throughout Europe – but not everyone's happy. Ramon Carretero/Shutterstock

Wolves are staging a comeback in many areas of Europe after centuries of persecution. Over the past decade alone, they have expanded their range on the continent by more than 25%.

This resurgence was brought into sharp focus in September 2023 following a controversial statement by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. She said: “The concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans. I urge local and national authorities to take action where necessary.”

But what is the right action to take? Recent decisions by EU member states do not reflect a consensus on the matter.

The Swiss senate has voted to ease restrictions on culling their roughly 200 wolves to safeguard livestock that roam freely in the Alps. Spain, which is home to more than 2,000 wolves and boasts extensive livestock grazing systems, has adopted a contrasting stance.

In 2021, the Spanish government declared wolves strictly protected. It aims to increase the wolf population by 18% and encourage farmers to implement livestock protection measures like installing fences or keeping guard dogs.

An examination of Spain’s motivations for protection may provide some insight into what motivates countries to adopt such different approaches to coexistence.

Ursula von der Leyen giving a statement to the press.
President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Alexandros Michailidis/Shutterstock

What does coexistence mean?

In new research that I carried out with several colleagues, we investigated how people in Spain interpret and experience coexistence with wolves. Our findings revealed three distinct and, to some extent, conflicting views of what coexistence means and how it should be achieved.

Read more: How to live with large predators – lessons from Spanish wolf country

“Traditionalists” cared deeply about the landscapes, livelihoods and biodiversity that evolved together throughout millennia of free-range pastoralism. They saw people as a part of nature and interpreted coexistence as a state where the wolf was controlled to not disrupt pastoral activities.

“Protectionists” wanted to restore “wild” nature (with minimal human influence) and believed that the wolf would catalyse this process. They saw coexistence as a state where human activities were controlled so that wolves could roam free.

“Pragmatists” were less fixated on a certain type of nature and more on the relationships and context within each location. They regarded coexistence as a state where the needs of different groups (including wolves) were balanced.

Relaxing or increasing wolf protection has come to represent these different visions of the future. Each of these visions offers advantages to some people and wildlife and presents challenges for others. As a result, the topic has become deeply political.

The politics of wolf conservation

In Spain, the proposal to protect wolves was put forward by protectionists, and aligned with the agenda of the incumbent left-wing government. Podemos, one of the left coalition parties, submitted a proposition for strict wolf protection in 2016 (when they were in opposition) in collaboration with pro-wolf advocacy groups.

By contrast, Spain’s right-wing political parties were firmly opposed. These parties tend to target rural voters, for whom the return of carnivores has come to symbolise the demise of pastoral cultures.

The proposal was ultimately endorsed by the government based on wolves’ “scientific, ecological and cultural value” – largely subjective criteria. For instance, one could argue that the fox, which is not protected, possesses similar values. These criteria do not consider how stringent wolf protection measures might affect other cultural or ecological values, like pastoral farming systems.

Spain’s decision was also influenced by the protectionists’ view of the wolf’s conservation status. A species that is classified as having a “favourable” status (adequate to guarantee its long-term survival) in the EU Habitats Directive can, in some instances, be hunted. However, conservationists disagree about the criteria and data on which this status is based.

For example, an assessment submitted to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List in 2018 indicates that the Iberian wolf population is large, stable and slowly expanding. By contrast, a report published by a pro-wolf advocacy group in 2017 claimed that more wolves were killed than born in Spain during that year.

The latter has been accused of being biased and unscientific. However, it did not stop the Spanish Environment Ministry from using the report to reclassify the conservation status of wolves from “favourable” (as it was in previous reports) to “unfavourable”. In other words, information was interpreted, selected and presented in a way that justified increased protection.

The Swedish government, which has been led by a right-wing coalition since 2022, seeks to achieve the opposite. It has ordered the Environment Protection Agency to review if the established threshold for favourable status, set to a minimum of 300 in 2019, can be lowered to enable increased culling.

Free-roaming sheep in Spain.
Free-roaming sheep in the Picos de Europa National Park, Asturias, Spain. Hanna Pettersson, CC BY-NC-SA

This nature or that nature?

To bridge the political divide between protection and persecution, as well as between the restoration of “wild” versus pastoral landscapes, a reevaluation of how decisions are made and what evidence is considered is needed.

Science plays a crucial role in evaluating various policy options and their consequences, such as the effect of an increased wolf population on sheep or deer behaviour. But it cannot determine the “correct” course of action. That choice depends on what people, livestock and wildlife in a particular place need to live well. In other words: context matters.

In most cases, the question is not a matter of choosing between “this or that”, but rather, how we get “a little bit of everything”. Reconciling different interests and finding a way forward requires public participation and, usually, professional mediation. These are the actions that the European Commission should encourage among member states.

With this in mind, it is concerning that the pragmatic interpretation is largely overlooked in the debate. Ultimately, the sustainable coexistence of humans and wolves does not hinge on whether wolves are hunted or protected, or even on the size of the wolf population. Rather, it hinges on how these decisions are made.

Hanna Pettersson received funding from Leeds-York Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) Doctoral Training Partnership (DTP) SPHERES under grant NE/L002574/.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending