Wildlife management marking and euthanasia on animal welfare grounds
Management tagging of wildlife and euthanising injured wildlife on animal-welfare grounds
What's at stake: The decision affects how the wolf population and other large predators are managed and protected, weighing the benefit of reducing individual animals' suffering against the risk that the tools are misused to suppress already-threatened populations or to facilitate illegal hunting.
Case texts and AI reasoning are AI-translated from the Swedish originals; the Swedish text is authoritative.
What the vote decides
The question is whether management tagging of wildlife, such as wolves, and a right for hunting-rights holders to search for, track and pursue injured wildlife for euthanasia on animal-welfare grounds should be introduced without further criteria, or whether such criteria should first be developed given the risks of misuse and increased illegal hunting.
Yes Yes — the committee proposal
The committee welcomes introducing management tagging - for example of wolves - as a tool within wildlife management, aimed at protecting and conserving wildlife while allowing the wolf population to persist long-term in Sweden, albeit at a significantly reduced size; the government can specify the conditions for tagging at ordinance level. The committee also shares the view that rules are needed enabling the search for, tracking and pursuit of injured wildlife for euthanasia on animal-welfare grounds, and holds that the benefit of reducing animal suffering outweighs the risk of misuse, since the right is limited to the hunting-rights holder, illegal hunting already carries a high penalty, and a national collaboration group against illegal hunting of large predators already exists alongside ongoing preventive work.
No No — the reservations
Reservation 2 (MP)
The reservation (MP) shares the view that some management tagging, for example of wolves that migrated in from the east, can be relevant for strengthening the wolf population's genetics, but sees a risk that the government's proposal, in its current form, could be used to suppress the wolf population further, in tension with legal requirements for long-term conservation. It instead wants the wolf population rebuilt to sustainable levels alongside investment in coexistence, and argues that management tagging should not be used until criteria - potentially including an animal-testing ethics review - have been developed. It also sees value in the euthanasia proposal but fears that, in its current form, it could increase the already inadequately combated illegal hunting of large predators, and wants criteria set for the circumstances under which pursuing injured wildlife is allowed.
Summarised from the committee report. Party labels in the summary come from the report, not from the vote.
V–
S–
MP–
C–
L–
KD–
M–
SD–
YesNoAbstainAbsent
What do the votes mean here?
Yes The committee proposal: rejecting the motions (keeping things as they are).
No Backing the counter-proposal: reservation 2 by MP.
Abstain The party marks a position of its own that is not one of the two final alternatives.
The plan's stance / Actual vote
AI
Vote
Confidence
Evidence
V
–
Yes 21/0/0/0
S
–
Yes 106/0/0/0
MPown reservation
–
No 0/18/0/0
C
–
Yes 24/0/0/0
L
–
Yes 16/0/0/0
KD
–
Yes 19/0/0/0
M
–
Yes 65/0/0/1
SD
–
Yes 69/0/0/1
Committee proposal
The Riksdag rejects motion
2025/26:4068 by Emma Nohrén et al. (MP) demands 2 and 3.
Original (Swedish)
Riksdagen avslår motion
2025/26:4068 av Emma Nohrén m.fl. (MP) yrkandena 2 och 3.
Riksdag decision: The Riksdag said yes to the government's proposal to simplify hunting opportunities.
The proposal means that the government is given the right to decide on regulations that make it possible to capture wildlife on someone else's land for marking, examination, or other measures to protect and conserve wildlife. The proposal also means that a new provision is introduced that makes it possible for the hunting rights holder to search for, track, or pursue wildlife in order to euthanize it on animal welfare grounds.
The proposal also means that it shall be permitted to hunt on public water following notification and to hunt seals in Sweden's economic zone following notification, with the aim of improving conditions for commercial fishing and facilitating for hunters to hunt on public water. Furthermore, a new secrecy provision is introduced in the Act on Public Access to Information and Secrecy to protect information that could reveal a person's identity in matters concerning hunting of large predators and compensation for damage caused by large predators.
The legal changes enter into force on 1 July 2026.
Counter-proposals
The counter-proposal wants criteria for wolf management marking to be established before implementation and for parliament to reject the proposals for hunting on public water and seal hunting in Sweden's economic zone. (MP) — Reservation 2