EU Wolves - Uncertain Future

Wildlife conservancy enters a whole new reality in Europe and beyond. Conservation status of the gray wolf in the EU has been downgraded from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’. The decision made by the EU and the Bern Convention Standing Committee entered into force on 7th March 2025.

It is quite a huge turnaround, remaining in a stark contrast to the approach so far. Not long ago, in 2022, Switzerland’s proposal to lower the status of wolves was rejected, because the scientific data didn’t justify such a solution. The data hasn’t changed significantly during those two years. However, now, on the basis of the same data, EU has made a completely opposite decision. The only factor that indeed has changed in those two years is the politics. This situation has triggered numerous disputes and sometimes intense arguments between various stakeholders.

An interesting aspect is the report – In-Depth Analysis on the Situation of the Wolf in the EU produced to accompany and support the decision making process - and the context in which this document has been prepared.

In order to collect data for this report, in 2023, EU invited all European interested parties – locals, NGOs, foresters, scientists, farmers, hunters, other institutions and EU Citizens in general to provide statistics on numbers of wolves in their country or region and losses they incur. Significant fact is that there were no precise recommendations on the methodology of data collection and processing.

The result was therefore a compilation of very various findings from different timespans, ranging from simple descriptions of wolf sightings by tourists, through rough estimates from hunting societies across the continent with different, inconsistent methodologies, farmers loss reports, up to detailed scientific or technical reports from national parks, NGOs and Academia. In total, over 19000 emails have been submitted from across the EU.

However, vast majority (98%) of the emails were opinions on the wolf conservation status, not facts or data. It is therefore quite an opportunity to see the views from the entire continent. And vast majority of those opinions were to leave the status as it was.

Academics explained the key role of wolves as apex predators with the potential to trigger cascade effects in entire ecosystems. They are an important factor of ecosystem health, supporting natural selection and hindering the spread of infectious diseases like swine flu. Keeping the ungulate populations at bay, they alleviate excessive pressure on the vegetation.

It has been stressed out that the case of wolf recovery in Europe is a living, flagship victory after many years of efforts, that is now under the threat to be wasted.

Researchers also argued that our wolf population may not be as healthy and resilient as it seems – due to inbred. We have to remember that the existing population has been retrieved from a very small number of specimens that managed to survive. Exerting a stronger pressure on wolves may thus have unpredictable consequences.

Numerous reports have been supplied that testified culling, under certain circumstances, doesn’t reduce farmers’ losses at all. That’s because a weakened wolf pack, in which some animals have been killed, will choose an easy prey, which is, again, a herd of docile sheep or goats. In majority of cases electric fences, guard dogs and shepherds provide sufficient protection if properly applied.

Conservationists are concerned that lowering the status will open the way to reduce the protection of other ‘controversial’ species, like beaver, lynx or bear. It also undermines EU credibility as the global leader of wildlife conservancy and management. How can we inspire and motivate developing countries in Africa or Asia to protect their large predators if we fail to do it here, with tools, funds and resources that other, less financially privileged nations, couldn’t even dream of?

On the other hand, farmers pointed out that fencing alone doesn’t always solve the problem, especially in inaccessible, mountainous terrain like Alps, where installation and maintenance of the fences is a challenge.

Hunters added that fencing on large areas may restrict natural migrations of wild animals. They also sometimes perceive wolves as competitors in harvesting ungulates and danger to hunting dogs, which has been especially brought up by hunters from Scandinavia.

Numerous reports have been provided that documented large losses of sheep and other livestock. They are concentrated strictly in certain subregions, on a local scale. Those lethal attacks, sometimes also on pets, along with material consequences, may also exert severe emotional impact on the owners. In many countries, loss compensation schemes after such attacks need major improvements.

Submitted local loss reports are alarming and they definitely call for urgent action. However, local issues affecting subregions are not a sufficient reason to implement regulations spanning over the entire continent.

Arguments on both sides are VALID. However, there is a major difference between exchanging arguments and a genuine dialogue. Many stakeholders are arguing just now over various human-wildlife coexistence issues around the world. There is a common pattern in all such cases – inability to listen with respect.

Nobody is willing to adjust his opinion although everybody demands it from the opponent. Many persons think that a simple change from armed weapons to arguments is a progress. And it is not. History has already shown us such an attitude is illogical and exacerbates existing social divisions. The price of such ‘discussions’ is extreme – and it is paid IN FULL by Nature, Local Communities affected by the conflict and, especially, by Future Generations.

How long are we going to survive like this?

Not much longer. More and more people realize it and work on inclusive, pragmatic solutions involving all interested parties. There are already first inspiring examples to follow from Europe and beyond.

In La Rioja province in Spain a Round Table has been formed between local farmers, NGOs, conservationists, hunters and activists to design the Management Plan for the Wolf in La Rioja and its coexistence with extensive livestock farming.

The initial stage of the process was a fierce conflict. The way out was the mediation, which was coordinated by Entretantos Foundation. It was a long way, starting with prejudices and lack of communication and respect. The shift of perception took two years of intensive labour. The result was a pioneer, community-based Wolf Management Plan covering issues like compensation schemes, environmental education, guard dog management and technologies used for conflict prevention. The scheme proved to be technically and legally efficient. It is a fully grassroot, independent initiative, entirely bottom-up.

Similarly, in US, Montana, a local landowner NGO named Blackfoot Challenge works with ranchers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yale University, environmental activists, hunters and locals to manage the coexistence of humans, grizzly bears and wolves – with over 24 years of experience. They also walked a long journey from the crisis and conflict to a well-established community-driven wildlife management system. According to their expertise, the key element is the communication and trust. When all parties know that their values are incorporated into the project, they are willing to take bigger responsibility for it.

During all those years Blackfoot Ranchers have ‘extended’ their ownership beyond their own single farms. They realized that one farmer, one person, is not enough to address a human-wildlife conflict – they have to cooperate as elements of the bigger picture. Together with other landowners, conservationists, foresters, hunters, activists and scientists they tested and worked out prevention practices that are best for the Blackfoot area. In seven years human-wildlife conflict cases dropped by 96%, while grizzly and wolf populations grew significantly.

Some farmers in Europe and US have revolutionized their source of income, offering tourists a possibility to stay and help on a farm while learning about coexistence of pastoralism and wolves. Wolf tourism opportunities spring up like mushrooms after the rain – to such an extent that LIFE WolfAlps has published a specialist manual ‘Non-consumptive use of Wolf in tourism’.

These examples invite us to think outside the box. They prove that Cooperation is not a luxury, but an unavoidable necessity if we want to survive. The sooner we accept it the better.

Maybe it’s the time to see the conflict as an Opportunity? Every conflict has a huge transformative potential – only we can decide whether we use it or not. It is still a new approach. We are used to win-lose outcomes being normal, faster, obvious. They are much easier than win-win strategies. Otherwise we wouldn’t choose competition over cooperation in the first place. Cooperation requires more time, initiative and flexibility, but its outcomes are much more durable and cost-effective in the long run.

Controversial environmental problems in particular tend to trigger an insightful, creative Dialogue on broader social issues if properly managed. That’s because they are a part of a larger, multi-dimensional conflict, encompassing a growing polarity between rural and urban areas, political identities, or between traditional and modern values. The results of such a dialogue often exceed expectations – addressing one challenge will improve the function of the system as a whole.

As long as the Gross Domestic Product is the indicator of Happiness, nothing will change. As long as we sit, avoid the responsibility, and wait for top governing bodies to do everything on our behalf, we will remain inert pawns on the chessboard of Life, very prone to manipulation and instability. That’s why open, inclusive grassroot initiatives based on local cooperation and local reality are the future of wildlife conservancy. W have to start from the base if we want to influence the top.

In order to do this, we need to find the common ground and build upon it. And there already IS the common ground. We can simply find it in the mentioned In-Depth Analysis. Clearly, according to the report, hunters, activists, locals, conservationists, NGOs, farmers, foresters – may have very various, opposing views, but all of us have two things in common:

[1] All of us, whether we are for or against the reduction of conservation status, find it necessary to introduce a consistent methodology to monitor wolf population in Europe, as EU has lowered the status without even knowing of how many of wolves we have – there’s not enough data.

[2] Most importantly – all persons submitting their opinions for the report - have definitely expressed the WILL TO TALK. It is a very uplifting finding for a start. Obviously it won’t be fast and easy. For many of us it is just overwhelming. Inch by inch, it will take years, as outlined in above case studies. However, as we already can see, it’s definitely worth the effort.

Because we are as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided.

Photos: pxhere.com, pixabay.com, actualidad.larioja.org, Matt Moyer, Wild Areas Network

Keywords: wolf, conservation status, Bern Convention, wolf culling, human-wildlife conflict, conflict of interest, livestock depredation, wildlife management, wolf management, european wolf, common wolf, eurasian wolf, La Rioja, Blackfoot Challenge, wolf hunting, livestock farming, conflict mediation, round table, participatory process, human wildlife coexistence, living with wolves, electrified fencing, fladry, shepherds, pastoralism, wolf tourism, loss compensation, sustainable agriculture, farming, EU, large carnivores, sheep, cattle, wildlife conservancy, cooperation, apex predator, forestry, Appendix III, grey wolf, canis lupus, animal management, conflict management, Wild Areas Network