Prioritizing Wolf Conservation Over Historical Fears
By Aidan Rafols
As time goes by, though the world changes substantially, the farmers will still ready their weapons, for the fear of the wolf remains unchanged. Stemming from a deeply rooted fear of economic ruin, from when a farmer’s survival depended on their livestock, farmers still see the battle between them and wolves as one of life and death. But as technology has developed, we are faced with a new problem. As human population grows, we encroach onto wolf habitat and cause this conflict between wolves and farmers to inflame. Now that we’re armed with the technology to outright kill them. We must ask ourselves. Is death the correct course of action, and if not, what is?
To Conserve or Kill
Balancing wildlife conservation and livestock welfare is tricky, but important. With the advent of new technology, we have multiple options to choose from, with practices ranging from non-lethal methods to more brutal ones. The public and its increasing trend of conservation sees the lethal alternatives as controversial, and if they are allowed, are put under regulation. From these regulations, however, stems the problem which work by Kutal et al (2023) discusses. The study showed that these regulations need to improve the standards for which they evaluate the methods of intervention, pointing out that lethal methods have far fewer standards to uphold when compared to non-lethal alternatives. So, what does this mean?
Firstly, it spells out that we have little knowledge on the effectiveness of lethal intervention, when wild populations of wolves are at stake. This becomes very concerning because their absence can cause different kinds of harmful cascades through the environment. For example, in many cases when predators are removed, herbivore populations can skyrocket and overgraze the land. This lowers important plant abundance which provides us with services like erosion prevention, which prevents dangerous mudslides. When we disturb the delicate balance of nature, we often set in motion a painful domino effect that we end up feeling. So, if we choose to hunt wolves, we need to be sure that this method is the only viable one so that the substantial effects of wolf absence can be justified. Luckily for us, Kutal et al (2023) tackles this exact question.
The Slovakian Method
Across Europe, there are varying setups of wolf management that we can compare to find the best option for reducing livestock losses while maintaining a healthy population of wolves. Wolves are prioritized thanks to their presence on Annex IX and V of the Directive, which, in most EU member states, classifies them as a species in need of strict protection and a species of community interest whose exploitation needs to be managed. Thanks to either or both annexes, member states must ensure a “favorable conservation status” among wolf populations. Due to this, many countries outright banned wolf hunting. But Slovakia tried something different. There was a partial compromise in 2013 that lowered the number of wolves killed by 65%, but still allowed limited wolf hunting from 2014 to 2019. Our study aimed to test the effectiveness of these hunting quotas on livestock depredation.
A Wolves Favorite Meal
By assessing the number of wolves hunted, the number of livestock lost, and what wolves prefer to eat, the study focused on wolf hunting patterns across 54 Slovakian districts and wolf diet across 7 districts. Over five years of data it was found that 2838 livestock were killed along with 246 wolves who were hunted. Surprisingly, while sheep were the most common target among the livestock for wolves (91.1% of livestock heads), they made up a very small portion of their actual diet (0.55%). What wolves really preferred was reflected in their average diet which consisted of 97.7% wild ungulates, hooved mammals like deer and wild boar. The study concluded that there was no change over time in the number of livestock lost, and that the losses suffered in any given year did not correlate with the number of wolves hunted that season. The only significant change reported was that wild undulate populations rose when there were less wolves.
Fear and Its Consequences
Based off the data, the hunting of wolves is found to have no effect on saving livestock. The quotas were poorly created and ignored the highest areas of concern thanks to being set on a regional level. Past that, even if the nonspecific hunting became targeted against certain problematic packs, the study found that even the partial removal of a wolf pack did not affect the number of livestock lost. In addition, prior research showed that the removal of wolves didn’t stop them from coming back in the future. Sadly, this could have been avoided. The study states that these hunting quotas did not utilize livestock depredation data during creation, meaning that during the compromise’s duration, wolves died for no reason because no one knew the hunting wasn’t working. Overall, the study has confirmed that wolves aren’t a substantial threat to livestock and that to hunt them to save a farmer’s flock is only supported by the farmers historic fear.
Where to Now?
Wolves in Slovakia have since gained full protection, and lethal options are out. Many farmers have shifted to more effective nonlethal methods such as guard dogs and fences. While this transition is still new, and the true extent of nonlethal effectiveness remains largely unknown, its future looks brighter than the one we had. To prevent this from happening again, all we can do going forward is learn to question ourselves, asking if our fear is placed correctly, and if not, how we can go forward together.
References
Kutal, M., Duľa, M., Selivanova, A. R., & López‐Bao, J. V. (2023). Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses. Conservation Letters, e12994.
