Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Eurasian Wolf conservation in the Netherlands

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

Eurasian wolf, in the Kolmården Wildlife Park, Sweden

The return of the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus) to the Netherlands marks an important turning point in European wildlife conservation history. In 2015, wolves, primarily from Germany, began to recolonize the country after being eliminated in the nineteenth century due to habitat degradation and targeted shooting.[1] Wolves play an important role in prey population management and biodiversity conservation, which can improve carbon cycling and alleviate the effects of climate change. Their reappearance symbolizes the restoration of ecological balance.[2][3]

Human-wolf confrontations have been rekindled as a result of this conservation achievement, especially in rural areas where livestock care, cultivation, and breeding is essential to the local economy. BIJ12, a Dutch organization responsible for supporting the implementation of environmental policies in the Netherlands reported 65 cattle predation cases between May and August 2021, 41 were confirmed to involve wolves .[4] Farmers are severely impacted financially and emotionally by these attacks, which fuel growing hostilities and public discontent with conservation measures. Because of worries about cattle safety and mistrust of current management techniques, public support for wolves in the Netherlands has decreased from a majority in 2020 to just 42% by 2023.[1]

Despite these obstacles, it is not only feasible but also essential for people and wolves to coexist. Conflict has been successfully reduced by conservation measures such as guardian dogs for livestock, protective fencing, and community education campaigns.[5][6] Additionally, encouraging "wildlife-smart communities" that include local stakeholders in decision-making may promote socio ecological resilience and long-term tolerance.[6] Wolves are apex predators that help ecosystems and the economy by reducing the need for human intervention in prey population management and promoting healthier ecosystems.[7]

The history of wolf protection in the Netherlands has changed from systematic extermination in the mid-1800s caused by habitat loss and hunting to organic recolonization by German wolves in 2015. Initially marked as a triumph for biodiversity, the increasing number of wolf-livestock conflicts has resulted in a drop in public support, highlighting the challenges of returning apex predators into human-dominated settings. This emphasizes the need of achieving a balance between conservation objectives and the needs of affected people. By implementing inclusive, science-based management policies, policymakers may assure long-term coexistence while preserving the ecological and cultural significance of this iconic species. To promote long-term coexistence, these measures must address both ecological and socioeconomic realities.

Human-Wolf Conflicts

Challenges in Coexisting with Wolves

The reintroduction of the Eurasian wolf (Canis lupus lupus) to the Netherlands represents an exciting new chapter in the ecological story of the country. Nevertheless, it has also resulted in continuous human-wolf conflicts, mainly affecting rural livestock farms.[1] Wolves were historically wiped out in the Netherlands in the mid-19th century due to habitat destruction and targeted culling, but they started to recolonise the country naturally in 2015, primarily from Germany.[1] However, the reappearance of this mega-predator has generated both excitement and apprehension among the public, who initially received its return positively as a sign of wildlife conservation success in Europe.[8] Yet enthusiasm diminished as wolves expanded their ranges, impacting livestock and livestock owners.[8]

Photo of a Eurasian Wolf (Canis Lupus Lupus) taken in France.

One of the main reasons for the dispute is the financial pressure wolves exert on livestock owners. Wolves have repeatedly targeted livestock, generating financial losses and rising tensions within rural circles.[5] In 2021 alone BIJI12 received 65 reports of wolf attacks on livestock between May and August.[5] Of these attacks, 41 were confirmed by wolves and 12 by dogs.[5] Local farmers depend on sheep, cattle, and other farm animals for income, not livestock losses.[5] These incidents affect farmers earning a living and reinforce a sentiment that wolf conservation ignores financial and emotional costs to rural games.[5]

Public Opinion and Changing Perspectives

That topic has greatly impacted Dutch public opinion on wolf conservation. At first almost half of the Dutch population would like to encounter a wolf in the wild, with 77% of the Dutch considering it as a special experience.[4] In 2012 data illustrated that 57% of Dutch citizens accept wolf settlement in the Netherlands[4] This demonstrates a more positive long-term perspective on the ecological function of wolves. However, the reputation of the wolf is quickly worsening. In 2020 a clear majority saying that wolves are welcome in the Netherlands has shrunk to 42%, with 18% who believe that the government shouldn't even reintroduce the wolves.[9] Moreover, four in 10 people blame wolves for causing widespread damage, and 30% of people—up from 20%—are calling for action to control their numbers.[9] Even though the Canis Lupis Lupis wolves are a protected species, about 26% of citizens will go as far as to shooting them.[9]

Such a decline indicates a surging public discomfort fuelled by fears for livestock safety and a lack of confidence in the efficiency of existing conservation policies in resolving conflicts.[10] The coexistence with large carnivores has been difficult to accept by many, resulting in demands for tighter population control and protection.[8]

Among critics of wolf recolonisation, perceptions of the potential threat to human safety are key (despite the low likelihood of a wolf attacking a human).[11] Wolf sightings have become more frequent in rural and suburban communities, leading to public concern that these wild canids may pose a threat.[9] Perceived risk, further amplified in the media, has led to demands for increased regulation regarding the management of wild wolf populations, along with a discussion on potential culling as a measure for public safety.[10] While actual attacks on humans by wild wolves are extremely rare, the perceived threat is of considerable importance in opposition to wolves.[10]

Policy and Management Approaches

A Photo of a Dead Wold from a Wolf Hunt in Belarus

Effectively managing wolves in human-dominated landscapes is complex and poses important policy challenges.[1][8] Historically practised solutions to eradicating wolf populations are no longer considered viable or moral under conservation paradigms, as there has been a shift towards less invasive and more humane methods of wolf management and control.[12] In its place, science-based management approaches focusing on the balance between ecological conservation and community protection have been widely promoted by conservationists and environmental NGOs.[11] Multi-faceted approaches to conservation emphasise prevention, education for communities, and science-informed descriptions of human-wolf interactions.[11] Rewilding Europe (2020) advocates using protective fencing and livestock guardian animals like dogs to deal with wolf-livestock conflict and minimise economic losses for farmers.[10]

Another sustainable approach for enabling coexistence based on bringing local communities to live in harmony with wildlife has been put forward under the label of "smart wildlife communities."[10] It engages local communities in decision-making and promotes tolerance through education and other interventions targeting the conflict.[11] Rewilding Europe highlights works with smart wildlife communities that emphasise pragmatic solutions like monitoring wolves when they see them to enable swift response, spontaneous grassroots monitoring initiatives and loss compensation programs as effective measures.[10] By being inclusive of the people most impacted, these initiatives hope to foster the development of socioecological resilience (as defined in the introduction) towards wolves in rural populations and promote coexistence.[11] This framework aligns with EU policies that promote adaptive management approaches to conserving biodiversity within the socio-economic realities of affected communities.[10]

Although the return of wolves to the Netherlands is generally positive from an ecological perspective, this species can create problems and requires proper management.[1] Although public opinion has become increasingly risk-averse, non-lethal management solutions and community engagement units offer an opportunity to tackle the issues associated with human-wolf conflict.[10] Moving forward, sustainable coexistence requires a balancing of conservationist goals with the on-the-ground needs of farmers and rural communities, enabling the process of rewilding to continue in a manner that minimises conflict and cultivates acceptance of these ancient predators returning to the landscape.[8]

Conservation strategies and policies

Introduction

In the Netherlands, the conservation of the Eurasian Wolf (Canis lupus lupus) is strongly supported by policy frameworks at national and EU level. In recent years, due to the significant increase in Wolf density in neighboring countries and the continuous improvement of the domestic legal environment in the Netherlands, the Eurasian Wolf has begun to re-enter the Dutch territory after an absence of nearly two centuries. With the increase in the number of wolves in Europe, the protection of wolves in Europe is facing new challenges, especially in farming and ranching. European Wolf conservation policies should be developed to ensure the effective protection of the Eurasian Wolf population while promoting harmonious coexistence between humans and wolves.[13] Addressing concerns about wolves and their resurgence in Europe is not simply about killing them, but it is about changing people's perceptions and attitudes about wolves.[13]

Solution 1: The Wildlife Smart Community

The Wildlife Smart Community concept is inspired by the North American way of co-existing with bears and aims to enable and encourage communities to accept and benefit from coexisting with wildlife, including wolves.[13] In wild landscapes, co-existence is supported by raising awareness and helping communities take preventive measures.[13] Develop models of coexistence that allow people to benefit from the return of wildlife, for example, through wildlife observation and nature tourism.[13] This has increased acceptance of wolves and contributed to their continued recovery.

The Habitats Directive specifies that member States must maintain healthy Wolf populations and protect their habitats from destruction.[14] The EU policy has promoted the Dutch government and all sectors of society to formulate and implement a series of comprehensive and detailed conservation strategies from multiple complex dimensions such as ecology, technology and social politics.[6] Through shared conservation experiences, coordinated conservation actions, and joint scientific research projects, countries are working together to improve understanding of the living habits of European wolves and develop more scientific and rational conservation measures. The Netherlands, for example, does not include special measures for large carnivores, such as wolves, in its strategic plan for the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for 2023-2027.[6] However, some member States indirectly support protection measures for livestock through the CAP, which provides a reference for the Netherlands to develop similar policies in the future.[6] These measures reduce the financial burden on farmers and incentivize them to take preventive measures, such as fences and monitoring systems, thus ensuring the economic sustainability of rural communities. This cross-border cooperation mechanism not only reflects the strong commitment of European countries to biodiversity conservation, but also sets a model for global wildlife conservation work.

The Wildlife Community Wisdom approach emphasizes community involvement, granting local residents the right to participate in decision-making and monitoring.[10] Education programs targeting rural populations help eliminate fear and promote understanding of the ecological role of wolves.[10] By involving local stakeholders in conservation efforts, this approach can build trust and ensure a long-term commitment to coexistence strategies. Cultural acceptance of wolves is the cornerstone of successful coexistence. In areas where wolves have historically been viewed as a threat, reshaping the wolf's image through storytelling, art, and celebration activities can enable people to associate positive connotations with the presence of wolves.

A photo of a wolf hunting livestock.

Solution 2: Enhanced Wolf Deterrent Systems

As wolf numbers continue to rise in Europe and conflicts intensify, strengthening Wolf repellent systems offers an effective and non-lethal solution to reducing livestock predation. A Wolf fence is an effective measure to prevent or limit Wolf attacks on livestock, alleviating the threat of wolves to livestock farming. An environmental NGO conducted a study revealing that between 2014 and 2023, a total of 693 claims for compensation caused by wolves came from farms without protective fences, while only nine came from farms with fences installed.[6] This demonstrates the effectiveness of protective measures in reducing livestock damage. BIJ12, a Dutch organization dedicated to supporting the implementation of environmental policies, emphasizes the importance of establishing fencing with appropriate height and voltage intensity to effectively deter wolves. The organization advocates for a strategy that prevents wolves from accessing livestock areas in a single attempt, rather than allowing them to taste sheep and subsequently return repeatedly due to inadequate fencing measures.[6]

Using a group of herd guard dogs, the number of dogs, breed, training level can affect the attack of wolves. Breeds commonly used as guard dogs for sheep herding are Pyrenean mountain dogs, Turkish Akbashi dogs, and Hungarian Kuvas dogs.[6] Although guard dogs may have an impact on other species in the area, such as birds and small mammals, they are effective in protecting against other harmful animals, such as foxes. A sheep guard dog combined with a fixed fence with a wire or electrical grid is also a good measure.[6]

According to existing research, installing a Wolf fence does require an initial investment, but its effectiveness in reducing livestock losses makes it a cost-effective solution in the long term. For example, one study that tested the effectiveness of high fences in reducing livestock losses in night pens showed that fences significantly reduced losses.[15] These measures not only protect farmers' livelihoods, but are also in line with the EU's policy objectives to promote biodiversity conservation. Under the EU's Habitats Directive, member States are obliged to maintain a favorable conservation status for species such as wolves, while taking measures to reduce direct and indirect pressures on biodiversity.

The European Union has submitted a proposal to the Convention's Standing Committee to recommend changes to wolves and their conservation status. The Netherlands may be able to list wolves as a protected species, rather than a strictly protected species.[16] Under EU and international legislation, wolves will remain a protected species and the obligation to achieve good conservation status will remain.[16] This flexibility would enable the Netherlands to implement targeted measures, such as requiring farms in wolf-prone areas to install fences as a legal obligation.

Eurasian Wolf Conservation Impacts and the Path Forward

Socio-economic

The revitalization of Eurasian wolf populations has the potential to increase wolf-livestock interactions in some areas, which could negatively impact farmer income. To mitigate wolf-livestock conflict, farmers could use agroecological management strategies such as buffer zones on the fringes of agricultural lands or take non-lethal livestock protection measures (e.g. guard dogs, night enclosures for livestock).[7] Non-lethal and agroecological deterrent strategies should be favoured over lethal measures such as culling since many deem lethal wolf management strategies to be unethical, not to mention that they are often counterproductive and can further reduce economic returns. Wolf culling can inadvertently cause increased wolf-livestock conflict since it can disrupt the species’ social stability. For instance, smaller wolf packs tend to hunt easier-to-catch species such as livestock, whereas larger packs tend to prey upon their natural diet. Thus, population control as a mechanism to preserve farmer livelihoods may actually produce a direct negative economic effect. In the case of crop production, wolves have the potential to indirectly reduce crop losses due to their ability to control ungulate populations. Since ungulates are common pests to agricultural systems, the presence of wolves can provide economic benefit to farmers in the Netherlands. Given their negative impact on farmer income, each year, 40-85% of wild ungulates are culled in the Netherlands. [17] Similarly, in the Dutch nature reserve, Veluwe, approximately 50% of the red deer population (2500 individuals) is randomly culled annually. With reduced habitat fragmentation, wolves would be able to integrate into this system and provide natural deer population control. Thus, the revitalization of Eurasian wolves in the Netherlands may reduce the need for costs associated with human interventions such as culling.[18]

With the presence of wolves, primary consumer populations (e.g. ungulates) are controlled, and in turn primary producer populations (e.g. trees) are maintained at a healthy level. In contrast, this image also shows how removing wolves from an ecosystem facilitates the overpopulation of primary consumer populations, leading to the loss of primary producer populations.
Trophic cascade facilitated by wolves in an ecosystem.

Ecological

Conserving Eurasian wolf populations has the potential to improve ecosystem functioning in the Netherlands. This is such given that Eurasian wolves are considered to be keystone species, meaning they control ungulate and mesopredator populations, preventing overgrazing. In the Netherlands, Eurasian wolves are facultative carnivores, and consume large prey (e.g. deer and wild boar), along with a diversity of small vertebrates (e.g. hares and rabbits), invertebrates, plants, and carcasses. Notably, wolves have the ability to prevent these species from becoming overabundant.[18] As apex predators, wolves cause trophic cascades that have a positive indirect impact on vegetation and biodiversity.[7] Additionally, conserving wolf populations may be a promising nature-based climate mitigation strategy. This is due to wolves' ability to improve carbon cycling in an ecosystem as a result of their control of primary consumer populations (i.e. herbivores). When herbivore populations are kept in check via the presence of predators such as wolves, plant biomass has the ability to regenerate, increasing carbon stored in above- and below-ground biomass and in the soil.[19] In order to create self-sustaining ecosystems, many Dutch conservationists advocate for the adoption of the strategic plan called the Three E’s of Nature Development which include Ecological core areas, Ecological corridors, and Ecological networks. [18] Urbanization and land-use change (e.g. conversion of forest to agricultural land) has led to widespread habitat fragmentation throughout the Netherlands and much of western Europe. As a result, wolf gene flow is reduced, leading to decreased genetic diversity in many wolf populations. Given that wolf packs require a minimum viable subpopulation of 200 individuals and between 150 - 400 square kilometers to survive, conserving natural areas and creating transnational corridors can facilitate the revitalization of wolf populations in the Netherlands and the surrounding countries. This method of conservation has the potential to increase genetic diversity of both wolf and ungulate populations. Creating transnational corridors that facilitate the transboundary migration of wolves can increase gene flow and thus increase genetic diversity.[18] With the revitalization of wolf populations in the Netherlands, the need to control ungulate populations via culling will be reduced. This can in turn lead to increased genetic diversity in ungulate populations. In ungulate populations that are subject to random culling, the process of natural selection is interfered with. This means that the most fit individuals are not necessarily the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. For example, in the Veluwe Nature Reserve, 50% of red deer species are culled annually to prevent crop damage and traffic collisions. This reduces the likelihood of random mating and reduces the size of the gene pool. In comparison, red deer in the Oostvaardersplassen Nature Reserve are not managed via culling and display higher genetic diversity. This population also exhibits higher fitness given that only the most fit deer participate in reproduction. Overall, it is clear based on international precedent that wolves play a key role in maintaining the natural balance of an ecosystem and have the potential to reduce costs associated with ungulate culling. For example wolves have exhibited top-down control on deer populations in Yellowstone National Park since their reintroduction in 1995, restoring ecosystem functioning and biodiversity.[18] Each of these conservation strategies comes with both socio-economic and ecological trade-offs. Although there is no silver bullet solution, it is clear that if the Netherlands continues to implement the Three E's of Nature Development and if they enhance transnational corridors with surrounding countries, there is hope for the restoration of biodiversity in Western Europe.

Conclusion

A significant accomplishment in European conservation is the reintroduction of the Eurasian wolf to the Netherlands to restore a keystone predator that is essential for controlling prey populations, reviving biodiversity, and even aiding in efforts to mitigate climate change. The difficulties they face upon their reintroduction, such as livestock predation and rising public awareness, emphasize the delicate balance needed to survive alongside huge carnivores in a heavily populated, human dominated environment. These issues are especially severe for rural areas, where farmers experience monetary losses, psychological distress, and a feeling of exclusion from the larger conservation discourse.

The need of tackling both tangible and intangible obstacles to coexistence is highlighted by the decline in popular support for wolf protection. Innovative approaches like wildlife smart communities, livestock guardian animals, and protective fencing are examples of non lethal treatments that have been successful in reducing conflict and promoting tolerance. Along with lowering misconceptions and anxieties, these actions, when paired with educational initiatives and cooperative decision making, can increase awareness of the ecological and financial advantages that wolves provide. Conservation initiatives can foster trust and guarantee a more inclusive, long term commitment to coexistence by incorporating impacted stakeholders, such as farmers and rural inhabitants.

Finally, the reintroduction of wolves offers a chance to balance conservation objectives with community needs, proving that protecting biodiversity does not require sacrificing human livelihoods. The Netherlands can become an example for sustainable cohabitation with apex predators and reduce conflicts by putting science-based, community-focused policies into practice. The preservation of the Eurasian wolf's ecological and cultural value and the development of a future in which nature and humans coexist peacefully depend on this equilibrium.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Lelieveld, G; Beekers, B.; Kamphuis, J.; Klees, D.; Linnartz, L. (2016). "The first proof of the recent presence of wolves in the Netherlands" (PDF).
  2. ↑ Groot, Bruinderink; Hazebroek, E. (2014). "Potential for grey wolf (Canis lupus) in the Netherlands: Effects of habitat fragmentation and climate change on the carrying capacity and population dynamics".
  3. ↑ Wilmers, C. C; Evans, D. A; Landa, A. (2016). "The role of large carnivores in ecosystem dynamics: A multi-species perspective".
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 "Dutch people enthusiastic about wolves returning to the Netherlands". 2020-06-29.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 "De wolf in Nederland". 2024-11-03.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 Tweel, Marc (2017). "Living with Wolves". Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":10" defined multiple times with different content
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Kuijper, D.P.J.; Churski, M.; Trouwborst, A.; Heurich, M.; Smit, C.; Kerley, G.I.H.; Cromsigt, J.P.G.M. (2019). "Keep the wolf from the door: How to conserve wolves in Europe's human-dominated landscapes?". Biological Conservation. 235: pp. 102-111 – via ScienceDirect.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 van Heel, B.F.; Boerboom, A.M.; Fliervoet, J.M.; Lenders, H.J.R; van den Born, R.J.G. (2017). "Analysing Stakeholders' Perceptions of Wolf, Lynx and Fox in a Dutch Riverine Area".
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 "Wolves are becoming more unpopular as their number grows". 2024-04-12.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 "Living With Wolves". 2024-11-03.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Carter, N.H. (2019-04-07). "Keep the wolf from the door: How to conserve wolves in Europe's human-dominated landscapes?".
  12. ↑ Camilla, Fox; Bekoff, Marc (2011). "Integrating Values and Ethics into Wildlife Policy and Management—Lessons from North America".
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 I-J, B. (2018). "Wolf in Netherland".
  14. ↑ "Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora". 1992.
  15. ↑ Samelius, G. (2021). "Keeping predators out: testing fences to reduce livestock depredation at night-time corrals". Cambridge Journals.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 "Commission proposes to Change International Status of Wolves from 'strictly protected' to 'protected' based on new data on increased populations and impacts". European Commission. 2023.
  17. ↑ "Netherlands at a Glance". International Wolf Centre. Retrieved December 1, 2024.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4 Jansman, Hugh A. H. (2021). "Animal Conservation in the Twenty-First Century" (PDF). Springer. 33: pp. 27-45.CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  19. ↑ Schmitz, O. J.; Sylvén, M. (2023). "Animating the Carbon Cycle: How Wildlife Conservation Can Be a Key to Mitigate Climate Change". Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 65(3). 65: pp. 5-17 – via Taylor & Francis.CS1 maint: extra text (link)


Seekiefer (Pinus halepensis) 9months-fromtop.jpg
 This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200. It is shared under a CC-BY 4.0 International License.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2024WT1/Eurasian_Wolf_conservation_in_the_Netherlands&oldid=853943"