Decree wolves: a travesty of democracy?

98% of the 6,407 comments received in one month oppose the decree

Some do so briefly and to the point, such as "No to slaughter" or "Stop the slaughter". Most contributors, on the other hand, express more complex ideas, imbued with disappointment. Thus, the pressure of the agricultural lobbies on the government is often evoked, as well as the status of the wolf, the competition from New Zealand, overgrazing or the uselessness of shooting.

Others are surprised that all orders of this kind are adopted systematically, without regard for public opinion, as if the decision had already been taken. They speak of a sham democracy.

The position of the Minister of Ecology denounced

Almost everyone is sorry that Nicolas Hulot was able to sign such cruel orders! Note that the defenders of the wolves are the only ones to propose constructive solutions and to open themselves to the dialogue with the shepherds, some of whom share their opinion. Most often, in the opposite camp, we are content to claim a world where "the place of the wolves would be in a circus" as recently said by ex-student from the French school of politics.

So? A mockery of democracy?

Once again, the respect that a majority of French people have for the wolf, his intelligence and his beauty, is coldly trampled underfoot in high places.

By delivering this animal to the revenge of the farmers and giving the hunters a predator that is precious to the balance of ecological, the government spares itself the trouble of reinventing a sector in crisis for many other reasons other than 300 wolves. The wolf is a protected species. He has become a real scapegoat. Slaughter will not solve any problem, it is only a political measure to appease the anger of a minority.

One Voice denounces this travesty of democracy and calls for a national referendum on the wolf issue.