Centerpartiet rasar mot vargstoppet – Thand Ringqvist varnar för hot mot landsbygdens trygghet

After a court decision put a sudden stop to the planned wolf hunt this winter, the Center Party is sounding the alarm — and they’re not holding back. Party leader Elisabeth Thand Ringqvist calls the ruling devastating for people and livestock owners across rural Sweden.

A Blow to Rural Confidence

In a sharp written statement, Thand Ringqvist argues that the decision deeply undermines the sense of safety for those living near wolf territories. She says the government has failed to follow through on its promises to reduce the size of the wolf population — promises that, in her view, are long overdue.

She emphasizes that people’s safety and their ability to keep animals must come first, and that the Center Party will never accept a situation where rural communities pay the price for what she calls a broken predator policy.

For her, a sustainable wolf policy means allowing protective hunting when necessary and maintaining a population size that works both socially and ecologically — not one that leaves farmers constantly fearing for their animals.

The Court’s Decision

On December 15, the Administrative Court ruled to halt wolf hunting across every county where it was set to begin in early January. The ban followed appeals from environmental groups, who questioned whether the balance between conservation and hunting had been properly weighed.

That ruling effectively spares about 35 wolves that were planned to be hunted — a decision that several county boards have already announced they’ll challenge.

A Political Flashpoint

The Center Party’s outcry highlights a growing fault line in Sweden’s predator policy. The question of how many wolves the country should have — and who gets to decide — has long strained relations between urban and rural areas, and even caused friction among parties within the government bloc.

Political observers believe this latest ruling could ignite fresh debate in the spring, when parliament takes up issues related to wildlife management and hunting laws.

What’s your take? Was the court right to stop the hunt, or should the rules be changed?