Swedish authorities are once again planning extensive licensed hunting of lynx — despite the fact that a formal complaint regarding Sweden’s extensive lynx hunting policy has been submitted to the European Commission and remains unresolved.
The complaint, which was filed almost two years ago, has not yet been assessed or acted upon by the Commission, even though the hunt concerns a species that is strictly protected under EU law.
More than 100 lynxes are now expected to be killed, while the legality of Sweden’s lynx management is still under review — effectively awaiting review — in Brussels. This raises a fundamental question for the European Union: how long can a Member State continue a contested practice while a formal complaint remains unexamined?
The planned hunt is not only an environmental issue — it is an economic and governance issue with implications far beyond Sweden.
The high cost of fewer lynx
High populations of deer and other ungulates already cost Swedish society billions of euros each year. Forest damage, agricultural losses, and wildlife-related traffic accidents place a substantial financial burden on landowners, farmers, insurers, and taxpayers. These costs are well documented and continue to grow. Against this backdrop, reducing lynx numbers further is economically irrational.
The Eurasian lynx is a highly efficient natural predator of roe deer and other ungulates. Unlike human hunting, lynx predation does not increase traffic accidents, does not disturb ecosystems, and does not generate secondary societal costs. By naturally regulating deer populations, lynx contribute to reduced forest damage, healthier ecosystems, and improved road safety.
Despite this, Swedish authorities continue to pursue low management targets for the lynx. The species is classified as Vulnerable on Sweden’s national Red List, yet licensed hunting continues year after year.
The driving force behind these low population targets is not public safety or agriculture, but competition for game. Maintaining high deer densities for hunting interests shifts significant costs onto other sectors of society. The question is whether such a narrow interest should be allowed to override broader economic and environmental considerations.
Public opinion clearly points in another direction. Repeated national surveys show that a large majority of Swedes support the lynx, and that a large majority oppose hunting predators solely because they compete with humans for game. Nevertheless, hunting interest continue to dominate regional wildlife management decisions in Sweden even though hunters only represent 2% of the population.
Livestock damage is sometimes cited as justification for lynx hunting, but the data does not support this narrative. Outside reindeer herding areas, lynxes cause minimal harm to livestock.
When individual problem animals occur, EU law already allows targeted protective hunting. There is no scientific or legal basis for large-scale licensed hunts. Nor is there evidence that hunting lynx increases public acceptance. Research instead suggests that repeated hunting at low population levels risks escalating conflicts and undermining trust in wildlife governance.
Europe’s credibility at stake
From a European perspective, the situation is deeply concerning. A formal complaint alleging that Sweden’s lynx hunt violates the EU Habitats Directive was submitted to the European Commission almost two years ago but has yet to be formally examined and processed.
This prolonged inaction sends a dangerous signal. If Member States are allowed to continue potentially unlawful practices while complaints remain pending, the credibility of EU environmental law is weakened. The ripple effects for biodiversity protection across Europe are already visible.
This is not about opposing hunting in principle, but about ensuring that wildlife management complies with science, economic rationality, and EU law.
The European Commission must now urgently assess and act on the lynx complaint submitted nearly two years ago. Allowing the case to remain unresolved while extensive hunting continues risks turning the Habitats Directive into a paper commitment rather than binding law — with consequences far beyond Sweden.
