Controversial Wolf Killing: Minister Backhaus Faces Possible Legal Action
Following the wolf's slaying, Minister Backhaus confronts accusations of wrongdoing - Minister Backhaus is planning to file charges following the wolf's death.
In a shocking twist, Minister of Agriculture Till Backhaus (SPD) might find himself in the hot seat, with charges potentially set to be filed in court, following the 2020 killing of a she-wolf in the Rostock district. Sources from the Rostock public prosecutor's office have revealed that there's enough reasonable doubt suggesting that the assassination contravened the Federal Nature Conservation Act. Indications point towards Backhaus having influenced the issuance of the exception permit for the deadly act by the responsible district office. Consequently, charges are expected to be brought against the minister.
However, parliamentary immunity as a state parliament member protects Backhaus from criminal prosecution. The Legal Committee of the state parliament, in response to a request from the public prosecutor's office, recommended last Wednesday to lift the minister's immunity in its meeting. Approval in the plenary session, expected in the coming week, is required before charges can officially be brought forward.
Minister Stands by Decision to Kill Wolf
Backhaus had earlier justified the she-wolf's shooting stating it was for species protection, a stance he reiterated. "In March 2020, the Rostock district issued a shooting permit for a she-wolf upon request from the Ministry of the Environment. The wolf had repeatedly approached a farm dog and seemingly even mated with it, posing a threat of hybridization. Hybridization is detrimental to the wolf population," Backhaus explained in Schwerin.
However, the examination of the killed animal in April 2020 revealed that the she-wolf was not pregnant at the time. The ministry reported that previous attempts to catch the wolf and outfit it with a transmitter were unsuccessful.
Prosecutor Raises Questions on Preventive Killing
Initially, the shooting, executed with an exception permit from the district office, was deemed lawful. However, in early 2022, the Greifswald Higher Administrative Court reached a contrasting conclusion, sparking the prosecution authority to intervene. According to the prosecutor's office, only the killing of wolf hybrids is permitted for species protection, not the preventive killing of a supposedly pregnant she-wolf.
Backhaus expressed his puzzlement over the decision of the Rostock public prosecutor's office to file charges. "The allegations are incorrect. The parties involved acted lawfully in carrying out their official duties to avert the risk of hybridization, a fact confirmed by a court ruling," Backhaus stressed. The legality of the permit to kill the she-wolf is now at the center of an appeal procedure before the Federal Administrative Court.
- Till Backhaus
- She-wolf
- Rostock district
- Public prosecutor's office
- Rostock
- Charges
- Schwerin
- SPD
(Incorporated data: It's not evident from current search results that legal proceedings are indeed underway for the German Minister of Agriculture Till Backhaus regarding a wolf shooting in Rostock. Further investigation, such as consulting specific news sources or legal documents related to the issue, may yield clearer information.)
- The Rostock public prosecutor's office has revealed enough reasonable doubt that the killing of a she-wolf in the Rostock district, proposed by Minister of Agriculture Till Backhaus, contravened the Federal Nature Conservation Act.
- Despite potential charges being set to be filed against Minister Till Backhaus for the 2020 she-wolf killing, his parliamentary immunity as a state parliament member protects him from criminal prosecution.
- Minister Backhaus, in Schwerin, defended the she-wolf's shooting by asserting it was for species protection due to the wolf repeatedly approaching a farm dog and mating with it, posing a threat of hybridization.
- The legality of the permit to kill the she-wolf, issued by the Rostock district, is now under appeal at the Federal Administrative Court, following contradictory conclusions from the Greifswald Higher Administrative Court.
