Killing wolves for coexistence
"the wolf above all challenges our exceptionalism"
Across multiple public talks, interviews, and policy roles, Luigi Boitani has advanced a highly influential but increasingly outdated framework for wolf management in Europe. His definition of “coexistence” — now embedded in guidance documents for the European Commission, the Bern Convention, and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) — normalizes lethal control as an inevitable and even desirable component of wolf conservation. Given his simultaneous leadership roles in LCIE and the Bern Convention’s Large Carnivore Expert Group, Boitani’s views carry disproportionate weight in shaping European policy. This makes critical scrutiny not only appropriate but necessary
I wrote previously about the warning bells that rang over a report to the European Commission on setting Favourable Reference Values for the conservation of large carnivores (1). The downlisting of wolf protection under the Habitats Directive made the determination of some limit to population control of a protected species ever more important when this control could now be triggered under the lesser protection. The report had shrugged off any serious attempt to identify a means to assess ecological effectiveness as a parameter of favourable conservation status with the dismissal that a large carnivore, such as the wolf, could not exhibit a natural wild existence in a modified landscape. The overwhelming impression was that the report allowed too much latitude to EU Member States to make their own judgment about what they contributed to the different subpopulations of wolves in Europe. My worry was that it meant that Member States can determine individually that they have reached all the parameters of Favourable Reference Value by choosing what contribution to make as a justification then for population control within its own national boundary. I warned that this exposed a severe failing of the Habitats Directive in that it doesn’t account for the significance of the dispersal and movement ecology of a wide-ranging species, such as the wolf, and how that affects conservation status, because it fails to recognise the spatial reality of the transboundary subpopulations of wolves. A binding directive must therefore have an arbiter body in place to adjudicate the veracity of the claims of member states, or it is not a directive workable at a supernational level.
Having fewer wolves in the Netherlands would require larger numbers in other countries
That this is now exposed as an issue came from a recent report that set out to determine a Favourable Reference Value for the potential wolf population in the Netherlands using the approach reflected in the guidelines contained in that dreadful report to the European Commission. The intention was to provide ecological and legal reference values for the wolf population in the Netherlands based on predictions of carrying capacity and eventual colonisation (2). It relied on a study that had determined a range of a population size for the Netherlands of between 23 and 56 wolf packs based on habitat suitability, the potential number of territories available based on wolf home range size, and depending on the ultimate dispersal of wolves (3). The report indicated that these wolves would contribute to determining the size of the Central European subpopulation from which the founding population in the Netherlands had mostly come – this includes Germany and Poland. The higher end of the range (around 50 packs) was considered necessary to maintain a viable, long-term wolf population within the Netherlands and prevent inbreeding so long as there was a continuing transboundary interplay with the subpopulation – isolated on its own, that level of population in the Netherlands would be ecologically insufficient. It then noted that the range of wolf population in the Netherlands should be discussed with the neighbouring countries within the Central European wolf population, because the “choice of having fewer animals in the Netherlands would require larger numbers in other countries”
It also recommended that the Netherlands wolf population be included in the Continental Region for reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive even though it is admitted in the report that the Netherlands is in the Atlantic Region. The reason given was that the Atlantic region contained wolves in Spain and Portugal that are not connected to the Dutch population, whereas Dutch wolves were connected to the Central European subpopulation in Germany that is in the Continental Region. This is not entirely the case, as Germany has areas in the Atlantic, Continental, and Alpine biogeographical regions (4). While many of the wolves in Germany are in the Continental region, substantial numbers are also in the Atlantic region and are therefore contiguous with the Dutch population (compare the map of biogeographical regions in (4) with the distribution of wolves in Germany in (5)). This should have been picked up in the report. The placing of the reporting of Dutch wolves in the Continental region would thus be false reporting, and so exposes as well the biogeographical basis of the Habitats Directive as a nonsense. The spatial reality of the transboundary subpopulations of wolves do not correspond with the nine biogeographic regions through which Favourable Conservation Status is reported under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive (6). Nor would they, as the biogeographic regions combine together similar climatic geographies, but which aren’t necessarily adjacent so that there is no connected landscape through which a wolf could disperse, as described above. The EU Guidelines on Concepts and Definitions for Article 17 reporting 2019–2024 does allow that joint assessments between two or more Member States should be done primarily in cases where there is a certain level of cooperation and common understanding of the management needs and approaches for that species (e.g. large carnivore populations) (7). It also says that there may be cases where it is biologically relevant to consider populations in other neighbouring non-EU countries. I see little evidence at the moment of transboundary co-operation.
Wolf numbers in the Netherlands are monitored by BIJ12, an inter-provincial agency that issues periodic progress reports. The Favourable Reference Value report noted at time of its publication in September 2025 that there were 11 wolf packs identified in the Netherlands with an estimated total of >100 wolves that included two solitary established adults and 8-12 dispersing wolves (2). This would have been based on the progress report for the period February to May 2024 that while explaining that the exact number of wolves living in the Netherlands could not be determined, gave an estimate of 104-124 wolves. (8). However, a later progress report was available for the period February to May 2025, published around the same time as the Favourable Reference Value report, and which indicated that that there were 13-14 packs by May last year, with two, unattached solitary wolves (9). At least 45 wolf cubs had been spotted on camera trap footage, and two new territories had been established in the Province of Drenthe, taking the national total to 15-16. It was that latter progress report that led others to the conclusion that while there were more and more wolves in the Netherlands, the Favourable Reference Value report indicated that there were still too few for there to be a legal justification for killing wolves – “For that to happen, there would need to be between 23 and 56 packs in the Netherlands. Currently, there are only 13” (10) and “For the Netherlands, this means that as long as the population does not reach around fifty packs, management by hunters seems out of the question” (11)
As it is, the Favourable Reference Value report was criticised in a letter to the President of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands by Jean Rummenie, the State Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature who had commissioned the report (12). Rummenie complained that the research gave an ecological-technical answer, but had not taken into account the specific situation for a small and densely populated country like the Netherlands – “The social and economic possibilities and opportunities that play such an important role in the Netherlands have not been looked at”. He said the report was of no use to him – “Ecology offers only one perspective; for a complete picture, the views from other relevant perspectives are essential”. He wrote that it was of “utmost importance that thorough research is carried out into the number of packs that the Netherlands can contribute to the Central European wolf population” justifying this by claiming that “the Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Nature in the Netherlands is also often sandwiched between villages, towns and agricultural businesses. I am seriously worried about the presence of wolves in the Netherlands. The safety and well-being of people and animals always comes first as far as I'm concerned”. He then declared that he had an additional investigation being carried out by another international expert investigation party “to include in this new research the specific situation for the Netherlands as a small and densely populated country and therefore to explicitly include other relevant perspectives such as socio-economic considerations and physical security”
Rummenie is without shame
Being aware of Rummenie’s criticisms, his ministry officials had written to him before the report was published stating that Wageningen University and Research (WUR) was delivering exactly what was agreed upon - "You expected the specific situation in a small, densely populated country to be taken into account….That wasn't the research assignment and therefore isn't included in the report. The report is an ecological, technical analysis" (13). The university was reported as saying that Rummenie was “misleading the public by suggesting that WUR didn't carry out its mandate properly. He knows full well what mandate he gave” (14). Further, the accusation that it had not investigated the social and socio-economic consequences was not only incorrect but misleading – "The facts are crystal clear: conservation status is an ecological concept, and we did exactly what we were asked to do. The fact that the conclusions don't suit the State Secretary doesn't make them any less true". Then WUR directly repudiated Rummenie in an announcement about the publication of the report in which it stated that the “study was commissioned by the Ministry of LVVN, which explicitly limited the scope to the ecological and legal framework for wolves in the Netherlands” (15)
The report itself said that it did not provide further explanation of what the reference value could mean in social and economic terms in the Dutch context. It made the point that the while economic and cultural factors and other local circumstances referred to in Article 2(3) of the Habitats Directive could play a role in whether or not the population level for achieving favourable conservation status in the member state is reached – only in the sense that they may affect the long-term distribution and abundance of its populations within the territory - they cannot be allowed to play a role in determining where that population level lies (6). That was determined by the ecological requirements laid down in Article I(i) that requires that the species is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural habitats; that the natural range of the species is neither being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable future; and that there is, and will probably continue to be, a sufficiently large habitat to maintain its populations on a long-term basis. This is consistent with the ruling last year by the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning conservation status of wolves under the lower protection regime, and which also confirmed that transboundary exchange with neighbouring populations could allow smaller states to achieve Favourable Conservation Status even without hosting a population large enough for full viability on their own (16).
A newspaper report early in January expressed surprise that Rummenie had, in the first place, commissioned a group of ecologists to produce a science-based report, knowing of his connection with a political party that represented the Farmer-Citizen Movement (Boer Burger Beweging) (BBB)) an agrarian, right wing populist party in the Netherlands (17,18). The newspaper sceptically wondered whether Rummenie intended to repeat the study until he was satisfied with the outcome – “He could, of course, modify the research assignment to include the stipulations that no stray sheep would ever be attacked, or that no hiker would encounter a wolf, wolf tracks, or wolf scat. Then the outcome would be known in advance: zero wolves“ (17)
I have dwelt on this, as the importance of these observations is that even before the protection of wolves was downlisted, an Executive Member of the Province of Drenthe in the Netherlands was advocating for the province to become a wolf-free region (19). The claim was that the regulations didn’t allow for adequate action against the arrival of wolves. Subsequently, the Province of Drenthe developed an action plan for dealing with the wolf in which it was recognised that a wolf-free region was not yet legally feasible (20). However, that did not stop the Executive from reaffirming its aim for a wolf-free state, and was lobbying the European Commission for a downlisting in the protection of the wolf.
Broad adjustments to geographic distribution
There is no escaping the prejudice that exists against wolves in the Netherlands when the evidence is that 22 wolves disappeared between 2015 to the end of April 2023, about a quarter of the known wolves based on their DNA signatures (21). It is also evident that groups of private land owners in the Netherlands had been actively lobbying for years to lower the wolf's strictly protected status, as well as advocating that culling wolves was necessary for acceptance of wolves (22). The commissioning of the Favourable Reference Value report was as a result of that downlisting of the protection of the wolf, wolf haters like Rummenie buying in to the assertion of the European Commission that it would give “additional flexibility to Member States in managing their local wolf populations, so that they can take measures that are well adapted to regional circumstances”, European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, adding that a “change of EU law that will help local authorities to actively manage wolf populations while protecting both biodiversity and our rural livelihoods” (23). It probably would have been overlooked by the wolf-haters that this “additional flexibility”, this “help…to actively manage” was still subject to the requirement that Member States were “obliged to ensure that the favourable conservation status is achieved and maintained for the populations in their biogeographical regions” (24). In the case of the Netherlands, the Favourable Reference Value report showed that had not yet been achieved, and this is likely to be the case in many other EU Member states (1).
Nevertheless, ever helpful, the same two wolf experts – Boitani and Linnell - that wrote the dreadful advisory report on Favourable Reference Values for the European Commission, wrote a report on behalf of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe on best practice for the management of protected large carnivore species in Europe, and presented it at a meeting last June of the Group of Experts on Large Carnivores (25) the group having been relaunched after the 44th meeting of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention where the protection of the wolf was downlisted under the convention (26). The section in the best practice on lethal control and hunting as management practices said that even with the best application of non-lethal conservation measures, large carnivore conservation will inevitably require some application of lethal measures, from “individual removal to the annual removal of significant (up to 30-40%) proportions of the population each year in a normalised hunting system” (27). I should point out that a common excuse given for culling wolves is that it would reduce predation of livestock, but this is repeatedly shown to be untrue, as two more recent studies demonstrate (28,29). However, this “removal of significant proportions” is way past reducing livestock predation - it is the determined persecution of a wild species to limit its population. The best practice guidance goes on at great lengths about the role of hunting, saying it “serves to provide recreational or trophy hunting opportunities and can be used to stabilise or adjust population density and make broad adjustments to geographic distribution”. The report makes a non-distinction between lethal control, defined as a conflict reaction/reduction tool, where efficiency and humaneness are the main considerations, compared to hunting that is alleged to have the normal ethics of fair chase and humaneness - the wolf is still dead either way. Fundamentally, the report revelled in the detail of legitimising wolf killing, as is exemplified by the checklist in Table 2 and its footnotes, both of which repeatedly use the word “harvest” (27).
It was expected that this report would be adopted at the next meeting of the Standing Committee after final revisions suggested by the Export group had been made. I don’t see any of my concerns are allayed in the final draft (30) but it was “endorsed” by the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention at its 45th Meeting last December, as it may “inspire further discussion on a holistic way of dealing with the sensitive issue of sustainable management of large carnivores, in particular of brown bear and grey wolf populations, and encouraged consideration of the document by all Parties and other relevant stakeholders” (see Item 5.2 in (31)). The Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe described this endorsement as a “Milestone for science-based large carnivore management in Europe” to which I commented “This has nothing to do with science….that the report revels in the detail of legitimising wolf killing” (32). It would probably not surprise you that the report was commended to the Swiss Government during discussion yet again on the ongoing complaint about its culling policy during the 45th Standing Committee meeting of the Bern Commission, and where the status of the complaint was downgraded (see pg. 23 in (31)). Likewise it was commended to the Norwegian Government as the ongoing complaint about its culling policy was also discussed at the meeting, but it was considered that Norway was still in breach of the Bern Convention, and was urged to allow the wolf population, currently listed as “critically endangered” in Norway, to recover to a satisfactory conservation level, as well as “abolish strict zoning where the wolf is excluded from 95% of the national territory” (see pg. 23 in (31)). Norway was also urged to “reconsider the practice of licenced hunting of wolves for population control as the main conflict mitigation measure; combined with poaching, this approach is keeping the population at the verge of extinction, thus violating the very essence of the Bern Convention”
Making “broad adjustments to geographic distribution” is exactly what the executive of the Province of Drenthe wanted in creating a wolf-free region. It remains to be determined, though, whether this is legally possible, now that the protection of the wolf is downlisted, and even if favourable conservation status could be argued. It was certainly the case under strict protection that wolf-free areas were not possible (33). In addition, it is still a requirement through listing under Annex II of the Habitats Directive that Member States designate Special Areas of Conservation for wolves (6). The decision to designate these is solely on ecological criteria, not on socio-economic or political considerations, the wolves effectively indicating where these are designated by their settlement and breeding. Creating “wolf-free zones” is therefore incompatible with the obligations to have a protected space for wolves. The Netherlands didn’t have any Special Areas of Conservation for wolves (34) but De Faunabescherming (The Wildlife Protection) a Netherlands NGO, pursued Rummenie through the courts last August, as he had used the bogus excuse of not designating protected areas until wolves were present for 10 years (35). De Faunabescherming was successful in getting a ruling that Rummenie designate the Veluwe as a protected Natura 2000 area for the wolf. The chairman of De Faunabescherming was quoted as saying “This is a very important ruling, because it allows us to submit similar requests for other areas as well". Let’s hope some area in the Province of Drenthe, which currently has three wolf territories (9) is one of those requests.
Underplaying the ecological role wolves play
It is thoroughly depressing to see wolf hatred fed by guidance documents like the ones produced by Boitani and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE). It should be noted that Boitani was elected Chair of the Group of Experts of the Bern Convention at its June meeting (25). He seemingly thus has a lock on all things wolf in Europe, as he is also Chair of the Large LCIE, a specialist Group of IUCN Species Survival Commission (36) which seemingly has a monopoly in producing guidance documents for both the European Commission and the Bern Convention – he has said himself that he enjoys “a good and privileged relationship with the European Commission in terms of providing them with technical data, technical information, whatever support is needed to implement a management plan in Europe” (37). Boitani was as well sole author of the European assessment of the wolf on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (38). Given all this, there seems to be a blindness to the oppressive institutional influence he has in normalizing killing. I briefly revealed this previously (1) but I write now to expose it, based on a summary of Boitani’s public positions on wolves, coexistence, and management. It is chilling.
Boitani underplays the ecological role wolves play, claiming that “there are many areas of the world where wolves never existed and you have beautiful ecosystems even there… Large areas of Europe have been without wolves for a couple of centuries. They have not collapsed ecologically” (37). He says wolves that are in Europe are “rarely of significant ecological value” (39). He downplays the role that wolves have had in Yellowstone National Park, stating that wolves were not “so essential to keep the ecosystem in good condition” and claiming that it was “hunters who killed the elks and moved the elks away and reduced the number of elks. So, it was not the wolf that did the job but it was the hunters” (37). Boitani got this solely from reading a book chapter that I don’t have access to (40) but which I suspect referred to a paper from 2005 that is behind a paywall (41). That paper refers to late season hunts of elk in Montana that in addition to general season hunts in Montana and Wyoming, were presumed to have been the main cause for the fall in the northern Yellowstone elk herd from ~17,000 to ~8,000 between 1995-2004 – wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone NP in 1995. Since it endlessly continues to be disputed whether reductions in elk browsing attributable to reductions in elk population size have been sufficient to prevent the suppression of willow growth in Yellowstone (42) then it seems that Boitani should be concluding that neither the wolves nor the hunters are of “significant ecological value”
Boitani says the UK is ecologically viable even though it doesn’t have wolves - “It's a nice landscape. You have a lot of predators. You cannot say that UK is ecologically finished at all. So, you don't need wolves” (37). He believes that the motivation for wanting to have wolves is “because you like them and you love. So, the ethical reason to have wolves back, in my opinion, is much, much stronger than an ecological reason”. This is a profound narrowing of conservation’s purpose. Boitani suggested that once wolves were released in Scotland, they would soon appear in the outskirts of London – “then, I want to see the British public opinion discussing about culling wolves. That would be a nightmare. It would be a wonderful experiment in sociology and psychology, but biologically speaking it would be trivial”. He didn’t believe wolves should be released in the UK, and when asked why not by the interviewer, he replied “Because then you have to kill many of them”. Asked why that would have to be done rather than let them live, he used the scaremongering tactic - “Because the population would increase, and you don't want to have wolves in Hyde Park… if you have many wolves in a very urbanized area, I would not exclude that one day a wolf would try to taste a little kid, for example. And you don't want to risk that”. He used a similar scare tactic when giving a talk in Foligno in Italy – “How many more wolves do we want to have? Where do we want them? In the square in the centre of Foligno?” (43). This scaremongering rhetoric blends speculative risk and fatalism about public opinion.
Compromise includes killing wolves
Across his talks, Boitani repeats a single central thesis: that coexistence with wolves requires compromise, and compromise necessarily includes killing wolves. He reframes lethal control from a last resort into a default tool, legitimising political pressure to weaken protections - ”The word coexistence means compromise. Compromise means that both parties give up something. And both parties in this case are humans that have to learn to tolerate a little bit of conflict and damage. And wolves will have to take some culling, some killing. Some of the animals will have to be removed. And this should not be a taboo” (37). It is not flippant to note that wolves get no say in this compromise where their lives are lost. Boitani went on -“Coexistence means that if you release the wolf in the UK and tomorrow morning a wolf manages to get into Hyde Park you just kill it, or remove it whatever you want to call it, but you have to do that, and if you have this compromise in place and accepted by all parties then we can have wolves everywhere” (37). In response to this, the interviewer said “That's quite a difficult thing to get your head around. To have wolves we've got to kill wolves?” to which Boitani answered “Yes” (37). In this context, Boitani had said at an earlier talk in Foligno - “Controlled hunting, why not?....hunting is one of the tools that we have always used to manage our coexistence with wild boars, with deer and so on…. Coexistence means compromise. What we all do every day at home is we coexist with our partner even through many compromises, why not? And how far can this compromise go? How many more wolves do we want to have? Where do we want them?” (43). It did seem odd that Boitani mentions managing wild boar and deer when a recent study of wolf diet from Poland showed that roe deer (~60%) and wild boar (~20%) contributed the most biomass to the wolf’s food (44). This study also confirmed yet again that there was a low contribution of livestock in the diet in an area with high availability of free-ranging cattle and horses. Since the deer and wild boar are prey of wolves, why not let them “manage deer and wild boar” but then Boitani doesn’t want to take away the hunter’s “recreational” fun (see above).
Boitani repeated his assertion that there can be
wolves everywhere providing that there is population control:
“Coexistence it means compromise. Compromise means also you know getting
rid of some animals if the animal is just incompatible. Compromise - it
doesn't mean to eradicate all the wolves. That means that we should not be
against getting rid of some of them when they are really too many. By doing
that I can see that there is room in Europe to have wolves everywhere as long
as we are ready to control certain situations where things get out of our
hands” (45)
This is bound up in his view that the population of wolves in Europe is nearing its maximum - “my guess is that we are if not already there, about to reach the maximum number of wolves in Europe, there will be some further increase especially in Spain, in Germany toward the central southern part of Germany, the range will increase but the numbers of wolves will probably not increase because I can predict that in the next few years many more wolves will be killed legally to keep the population low in certain areas” (45). This is problematic in many ways, not least because it arrogantly sets a bar on wolf population even though there are areas with unused carrying capacity still to be colonised in the wolves continuing to establish their natural range in Europe, as is required under the Habitats Directive (see above). It says nothing about how wolves themselves may limit their own population size (46). Moreover, it panders again to lethal management being used to create a desirable outcome, of keeping a “population low in certain areas”
Coexistence as a budgetary calculation
The definition of coexistence that Boitani puts forward is anthropocentric, management‑driven, and explicitly normalizes lethal control that risks polarizing public opinion, but it gets worse. A recurring theme from Boitani is coexistence as a budgetary calculation that frames wolf presence as conditional on public tolerance rather than ecological need, and makes an error in presuming that public intolerance is static. He proposes that governments should set a maximum acceptable cost of wolf damage, and then manage wolf numbers to stay within that limit - “Well, so not only how many wolves and bears, but also what level of conflict do we want to sustain? My dream that will never come true is that one day the State, instead of saying how many wolves, says 'Okay, this year I am willing to pay 10 millions of euros for the damage caused by the wolf'. He calls a technician, whoever it is, and says, 'Look, no more than 10 million' then I know what to do to keep the damage to that thing there. However, there is a politically set objective, expressed not in terms of the number of animals, but in terms of how much damage to sustain” (43)
This focusing on a financial threshold risks blaming wolves for a system that is largely human designed and human managed. It legitimizes wolf‑free regions, and reduces conservation to fiscal management - “Instead of talking about how many animals, why don't we talk about How much conflict do we want to sustain? For example, Italy says I want I don't want to spend more than one million euros a year, 2 million, 5 million, 10millions, then you pass this target to the technician who manages the population so that is the level of conflict. Then that becomes the term of comparison - not how many animals, but how many conflicts can you allow yourself as long as they are eating sheep” (47)
He frames this as a pragmatic, technical, apolitical stance — though the implications are deeply political. Boitani claims he is “a technician. I'm a biologist. If you tell me to do this, I would like to add this goal, I'll achieve it for you, but you decide the objective. Politically, in the political sphere, it's not managed by the technician, the scientist” (43) but then he publicly advocates for specific management outcomes. This creates a technocratic monopoly over wolf policy, presented as neutral science, as if it is a conflict between science and emotion, but then science is also used selectively by pro cull interests. He is using this framing to distance himself from the ethical implications of management decisions, and risks absolving scientists from engaging with the moral dimensions of conservation.
Boitani positions wolf advocacy groups as
irrational “ultra animalists” (45) who he alleges lack scientific
understanding, and who obstruct necessary management when he considers that
the rise in numbers of wolves means they now don’t need protection but lethal
control – “we had to move quickly from the attitude of avoiding extinction
to the attitude of managing a success, which requires a completely different
set of values, set of techniques. The animal rights groups or animalists have
not changed that and so they keep defending every single wolf, every single
wolf should be protected, but this is not the way to coexist” (45). He
sets up a binary of scientists versus “animalists” that has no basis in
reality when it is my experience that wolf advocacy groups across Europe have
a much better understanding of the ecology of wolves and the legislation
protecting them:
“Some of the animals will have to be removed. And this should not be a
taboo. But for the moment until now it has been a taboo for all the
organisations on animal welfare, protectionist, not really advanced
conservation minded, and so every wolf is sacred. Let’s not speak of killing
any wolf” (37)
Lethal removal of large carnivores part of the conservation toolkit
Given all the above, it was with some trepidation when I saw last month that the LCIE had released a perspective paper prepared for the European Commission on coexistence with large carnivores in Europe, and which provides some guiding principles in a European context (48). As I note above, the wolves get no choice about losing their lives in Boitani’s definition of coexistence based on compromise, and this was echoed by Christian H. Schröder in his comment when the LCIE announced release of the perspective paper – “All your studies about coexistence are bullshit because the wolves cannot read it” (49)
The perspectives paper is an attempt to “conceptualise and operationalise coexistence”, defining coexistence not as a stable end-state but as a continuous, adaptive process of negotiation, but obviously not with the wolves (48). It argues that sustainable coexistence requires effectively addressing three key dimensions simultaneously: ecological, social, and governance. It could have just said its complicated, and then offer a way to decomplicate it, but then it suits the interests of the LCIE to portray it as such. It seems as always, though, that it is the large carnivores that create the conflict in the first place, but they are not part of the subsequent negotiation. I found the usual disregard for accepting, certainly in the case of wolves, that it is an illusion they want to live in close proximity to human habitations and activities, when increasing studies indicate the temporal and spatial avoidance strategies they adopt, a recent example being from Slovakia ((50) and see references in (1)). As you would expect, I looked for any overt evidence that Boitani’s twisted views had influenced the paper, and one of the things I found was under “Killing Carnivores” in a Table on conflict dimensions – “Restrictive legislation and legal challenges make lethal control/culling/hunting of large carnivores challenging, with impact on sense of control and ability to exploit large carnivores for hunting” (48). In addition, when considering that anthropogenic causes of mortality tend to dominate among all large carnivores, to say that in “the bigger picture large carnivores are able to tolerate relatively high levels of mortality” seems highly crass.
The multiple authorship besides Boitani and Linnel probably tempered their greater excesses ending up in the document, but fundamentally the paper can be criticized for having an anthropocentric bias because its proposed framework ultimately centres on human needs, values, and governance, rather than recognizing the intrinsic value or independent needs of large carnivores. There is an instrumental valuation of nature through its discussion of "positive values" and "benefits" of large carnivores in terms of their utility to humans, a common anthropocentric approach when describing ecosystem services in that it values nature for its use to humans, as opposed to its inherent worth (51). There is a prioritization of human interests in conflict management. While allowing that human practices may need to be adapted to large carnivore presence, it still seems to give the message that lethal control of large carnivores is necessary to maintain human tolerance i.e. “adaptive management of large carnivore populations” and “Lethal removal of large carnivores will often need to be a part of the conservation toolkit” (48). The document makes little mention of the intrinsic value of the large carnivores themselves. To say they are “ecologically important species” but then say that their ecological function varies with the “extent of human influence on different trophic levels” and “There will often be conflicts between ecological function and some stakeholder interests which will limit the extent to which the restoration of their ecological functionality is desired” is indicative of that. Don’t they realise that the temporal and spatial avoidance strategies, coupled with the evidence that wolves almost exclusively eat native, wild species (see above) is evidence of an ecological function existing, that wolves seek out and exhibit a wild existence even in modified landscapes? Perhaps this blindness is why there is no mention of a moral imperative to protect wolves for their own sake, rather than the bland statement that they “need to be reintegrated into a significant proportion of the European continent’s area”
You would have thought, also, with the large numbers of contributors to the perspectives paper, including Arie Trouwborst, a Professor of Nature Conservation Law at Tilburg University, and co-author of the report on Favourable Reference Values for the wolf in the Netherlands (see above) that they would have noticed a glaring error in the final version of the paper when it says that the manner in which social, economic, cultural and political considerations should be considered in practice when setting the legally mandated level of conservation ambition has been clarified through a recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the EU, and which is referenced as “CJEU ruling on case C-629-23 from June 2026”. I cited that case above, and could do so because Case C-629-23 was ruled on in June 2025 (16).
This has to stop
I am fed up with the pontifications of a technocratic monopoly over wolf policy, presented as neutral science, as represented by the LCIE guidance documents produced for both the European Commission and the Bern Convention, and which feeds the normalization of lethal control, when I know that I and others, including many wolf advocacy groups, disagree with it, and seek a better future for wolves in Europe. It should be remembered that an LCIE position statement was not against the downlisting of the protection of the wolf (52) Boitani considering it as a “signal of success because it means you know you have saved the animal” (37). A comment on the announcement by LCIE of a note on large carnivores and the EU Nature Restoration Law sums it up (53). Susanne Jacqúeline Gerda observed that she had previously asked LCIE to look into the illegal crimes against wolves and other large carnivores in Europe, the illegal hunting/poisoning, with its consequences for the social structures of family groups (and see (52)) and the direct impact it had on the expansion rate of populations into new areas. She had been told that LCIE was researching this, but asked if they were still pursuing it, thanking LCIE if they were. However, she went on “Until now all I have seen is you being busy indirectly supporting and promoting Hunting …..it would seem that the seriousness of Wildlife Crimes, how to fight it and how it impacts the survival rate of large Carnivores would be more relevant” (53)
Decisions on wolves in Europe are deeply political: lethal control is increasingly proposed as a solution by populist, centre-right politicians with wolves being used by populist parties to symbolize the rural–urban divide, their discourses centred on fear and emotion (55). It is a reaffirmation of human exceptionalism that lends itself to justifying the inevitable uptake and embrace of the violent wolf story where people feel targeted by their intelligence and complex behaviours (56,57). There has to be a counter balance, a voice for wolves that stands up for their right to existence, not a coexistence that is predicated on them scapegoated because the wolf above all challenges our exceptionalism. The obligation should thus be on humans to coexist, not on the wolves.
Mark Fisher 20 January 2026
(1) The right to existence of a non-human species, Self-willed land March 2025, June 2025
www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/shoot_shovel_silence.htm
(2) Ottburg, F. G. W. A., Lammertsma, D. R., Mergeay, J., Trouwborst, A., Jansman, H. A. H., & van Eupen, M. (2025). Favourable reference values for the wolf in the Netherlands: population size and range in accordance with the Habitats Directive. (Report / Wageningen Environmental Research; No. 3487). Wageningen Environmental Research.
(3) Biersteker, L., Planillo, A., Lammertsma, D. R., van der Sluis, T., Knauer, F., Kramer-Schadt, S., van der Grift, E. A., van Eupen, M., & Jansman, H. A. H. (2025) Habitat suitability for wolves in the Netherlands: a modelling approach. (Report/Wageningen Environmental Research; No. 3350 (English version)). Wageningen Environmental Research
(4) Naturräume und Großlandschaften Deutschlands, Bundesamt für Naturschutz
https://www.bfn.de/sites/default/files/2021-06/grossraum.pdf
(5) Vorkommen (besetzte Rasterzellen) von Wölfen in Deutschland im Monitoringjahr 2023/24, DBBW
https://www.dbb-wolf.de/Wolfsvorkommen/besetzte-Rasterzellen
(6) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, EUR-Lex
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj/eng
(7) DG Environment. 2023. Reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Guidelines on concepts and definitions – Article 17 of Directive 92/43/EEC, Reporting period 2019-2024. Brussels.
(8) Samenvatting: Nederland telt op dit moment elf wolvenroedels, Voortgangsrapportage wolf: activiteit 16 februari 2024 tot en met 17 mei 2024, BIJ12 24 September 2024
https://publicaties.bij12.nl/voortgangsrapportage-wolf-24-september-2024/samenvatting
(9) Samenvatting: Nieuwe wolvenleefgebieden en welpen vastgesteld, Voortgangsrapportage over de activiteiten van wolven in Nederland, Periode 1 februari – 23 mei 2025, BIJ12 15 September 2025
https://publicaties.bij12.nl/voortgangsrapportage-wolf-15-september-2025/samenvatting
(10) Het gaat nog niet goed genoeg met wolven om ze sneller te kunnen doodschieten, Job van der Plicht, NU.nl September 19, 2025
(11) Afschieten wolf pas optie als er 56 roedels in Nederland zijn: ‘Wat betekent dit voor kinderen die door bos fietsen?’ Edwin Timber, AD.nl 19 September 2025,
(12) De Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer: Betreft Onderzoek Staat van Instandhouding wolven in Nederland, Jean Rummenie Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Visserij, Voedselzekerheid en Natuur 19 september 2025
https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/9af1f1e1-cf66-424f-ba7c-0e95b99952b3/file
(13) Aan de Staatssecretaris van Landbouw, Visserij, Voedselzekerheid en Natuur, Nota bij aanbiedingsbrief onderzoek SvI wolven in Nederland, 3 September 2025
https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=2025D40354
(14) Universiteit boos over reactie Rummenie op wolvenonderzoek: 'Misleidend', Job van der Plicht, NU.nl September 20, 2025
(15) Ecological and legal framework for the wolf population in the Netherlands now available, VFP Koperdraat, Media Relations / Spokesperson WUR September 22, 2025
https://www.wur.nl/en/news/ecological-and-legal-framework-wolf-population-netherlands-now-available
(16) Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus – Estonia) – MTÜ Eesti Suurkiskjad v Keskkonnaamet (Case C-629/23_ Official Journal of the European union 8 August
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62023CJ0629
(17) In Nederland is ruimte voor twee tot vier keer zoveel wolven, Koos Dijksterhuis, Trouw January 2, 2026
(18) Far-right parties on the rise across Europe, Katya Adler, BBC News 30 June 2023
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66056375
(19) Drenthe wil actie van Brussel om wolfvrije regio te worden, Tim Everloo, Nieuwe Oogst 22 September 2023
(20) Nieuw plan van aanpak Drenthe; doel wolfvrije regio, Marjan Kornegoor, Het Schaap June 27, 2024
https://www.hetschaap.nl/nieuw-plan-van-aanpak-drenthe-met-doel-wolfvrije-regio/
(21) Er ‘verdwijnen’ wolven in Nederland. Experts zien aanwijzingen voor stroperij, Jean-Pierre Geelen, de Volkskrant 28 January 2025
(22) De actieve lobby van privé landgoederen voor beheer, nulzones en verlaging status wolf, Wolven in Utrecht 16 June 2025
(23) Commission proposes to align the protection status of the wolf in EU legislation to the Bern Convention, European Commission Press release Mar 7, 2025
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_711
(24) Questions and answers on Commission proposal to align the protection status of the wolf in EU legislation to the Bern Convention, European Commission Mar 7, 2025
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_25_712
(25) Meeting of the Group of Experts on Large Carnivores 10-11 June 2025, CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS T-PVS(2025)11, Strasbourg, 28 August 2025
https://rm.coe.int/tpvs11e-2025-report-group-of-experts-on-large-carnivores-10-11-june-27/4880286c9b
(26) Meeting Report, 44th Standing Committee meeting, CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS T-PVS(2024)21, Strasbourg, 23 December 2024
https://rm.coe.int/tpvs21e-2024-report-44th-standing-committee-2761-0196-4299-1/1680b40bc9
(27) Linnell, J. D. C. and Boitani, L. (2025) Best practices for management of protected and strictly protected populations of large carnivores in Europe Version 1. Report to the Bern Convention secretariat as an additional contribution to contracts 1742024 and 1752024 from the COUNCIL OF EUROPE Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law (DGI), Bern Convention to the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA)
https://rm.coe.int/best-practice-integrated-v1-for-goe-lcs/1680b5fa41
(28) Kutal, M., Duľa, M., Selivanova, A.R. and López-Bao, J.V., 2024. Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses. Conservation Letters, 17(1), p.e12994
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12994
(29) Treves, A., Ben-Ami, D., Cornman, A.M., Dul'a, M., Khorozyan, I., Krofel, M., Kutal, M., López-Bao, J.V., Valency, R.N., Preiss-Bloom, S. and Santiago-Ávila, F.J., (2025) Inadequate evidence that removing wolves prevents domestic animal losses. agriRxiv, p.20250243183.
https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.31220/agriRxiv.2025.00327
(30) Linnell, J. D. C. and Boitani, L. (2025) Best practices for management of large carnivores in Europe with respect to lethal and non-lethal management measures. Report to the Bern Convention secretariat as an additional contribution to contracts 1742024 and 1752024 from the COUNCIL OF EUROPE Directorate General Human Rights and Rule of Law(DGI), Bern Convention to the IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA)
https://rm.coe.int/inf19e-2025-best-practices-for-management-of-large-carnivores-in-europ/4880293b62
(31) LIST OF DECISIONS AND ADOPTED TEXTS, Standing Committee 45th meeting, CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS, Strasbourg, 12 December 2025
https://rm.coe.int/misc-e-2025-45-standing-committee-clean-final/488029d956
(32) LCIE, Facebook 18 December 2025
(33) Ecological flow, nature protection, and the wolf, Self-willed land July 2020
www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/ecological_flow.htm
(34) Boerema, L., Freriks, A.A. and Brink, D.B. (2021) The legal protection of the wolf in the Netherlands and in a number of other European countries; a legal study to support the formulation of Dutch wolf policy in the light of the implementation of nature legislation, Boerema & Van den Brink B.V., Houwerzijl/Element Advocaten, Best (English version, translated from original Dutch report1 )
(35) Rechter wil snel besluit over bescherming van wolven op de Veluwe, Frank Janssen, Omroep GLD 1 augustus 2025
https://www.gld.nl/nieuws/8346980/rechter-wil-snel-besluit-over-bescherming-van-wolven-op-de-veluwe
(36) Who we are! Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe
https://www.lcie.org/About-LCIE/-Who-are-we
(37) Bad Idea #7 "We Can't co-exist with wolves" with Luigi Boitani, Saving the World from Bad Ideas, WePlanet and Mark Lynas 1 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvF7DEzxtg
(38) Boitani, L. 2025. Canis lupus (Europe assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2025: e.T3746A216872082.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2025-1.RLTS.T3746A216872082.en.
(39) What is the Role of Wolves in Europe? Luigi Boitani, REWILDING FUTURES - Shaping Tomorrow's Wild, 17th to 18th January 2025
https://sites.google.com/citizenzoo.org/2025rewildingconference/sessions
(40) MacNulty, D. R., D. Stahler, T. Wyman, J. Ruprecht, L. Smith, M. Kohl, and D. W. Smith. 2020. “ Population Dynamics of Northern Yellowstone Elk after Wolf Reintroduction.” In Yellowstone Wolves. Science and Discovery in the world's First National Park, edited by D. Smith, D. Stahler, and D. MacNulty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
(41) Vucetich, J. A., D. W. Smith, and D. R. Stahler. (2005) Influence of Harvest, Climate and Wolf Predation on Yellowstone Elk, 1961-2004. Oikos 111: 259–270
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2005.14180.x
(42) Hobbs, N. T., Johnston, D. B., Marshall, K. N., Wolf, E. C., & Cooper, D. J. (2024). Does restoring apex predators to food webs restore ecosystems? Large carnivores in Yellowstone as a model system. Ecological Monographs, 94(2), e1598
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ecm.1598
(43) Luigi Boitani - The return of the wolf: the challenge of coexistence, Festa Scienza Filosofia, Foligno, Italy 11 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu_Xd9UWFK4
(44) Baranowska, W., Bartoszewicz, M., Nowak, S., Stępniak, K. M., Kwiatkowska, I., & Mysłajek, R. W. (2025). Low contribution of livestock in the grey wolf diet in the area with high availability of free-ranging cattle and horses. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 71:48
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-025-01926-3
(45) Episode #219 Luigi Boitani - A History of Wolf Research in Italy, Wolf Connection 28 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k-zw_Ghkb0&t=109s
(46) Smith, D. W., & Cassidy, B. J. (2024). Do wolves control their own numbers? Understanding and updating the long debate. Wildlife Biology, 2024(6), e01299
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wlb3.01299
(47) Luigi Boitani - Conflitti e coesistenza con orsi e lupi | De Rerum Natura, 26th Gran Paradiso Film Festival, themed "The Art of Balance" Cogne, 27 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw_tNWgGXqA
(48) Linnell, J. D. C., Boitani, L., Blanco, J. C., Álvares, F., Andrén, H., Bath, A., Chapron, G., Chiriac, S., Ćirović, D., Drouet-Hoguet, N., Groff, C., Hatlauf, J., Hovardas, T., Huber, D., Ionescu, O., Jerina, K., Kaczensky, P., Kindberg, J., Kojola, I., Krofel, M., Kutal, M., Majić Skrbinšek, A., Mannil, P., Marsden, K., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mengüllüoğlu, D., Mergeay, J., Molinari Jobin, A., Nowak, S., Ozolins, J., Quenette, P. Y., Ranc, N., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Salvatori, V., Schley, L., Selva, N., Sunde, P., Swenson, J. E., Trajce, A., Trbojević, I., Trouwborst, A., von Arx, M., Wölfl. M. & Zlatanova, D. (2025) Conceptualising coexistence with large carnivores in Europe. Report to the European Commission under contract N° 09.0201/2023/907799/SER/ENV.D.3 “Support for Coexistence with Large Carnivores”. IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA).
(49) LCIE Facebook 15 December 2025
(50) Guimarães, N.F., Álvares, F., Kropil, R. and Smolko, P. (2025) Where the wolves wander? Habitat selection of grey wolves in relation to anthropogenic pressure in the Western Carpathians. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 71,101
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10344-025-01974-9
(51) Washington, H., Piccolo, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Kopnina, H., & Alberro, H. (2021). The trouble with anthropocentric hubris, with examples from conservation. Conservation, 1(4), 285-298.
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7159/1/4/22
(52) Statement on the proposed downlisting of the wolf under the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive, LCIE 13 November 2024
(53) LCIE Facebook 22 December 2025
(54) Vonholdt, B. M., Blumstein, D. T., Berger, J., & Carroll, C. (2025). Species recovery as a half empty process: the case against ignoring social ecology for gray wolf recovery. BioScience, 75(4), 307-316
https://wolfwatcher.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/biae134.pdf
(55) Kutal, M., Duľa, M., Haring, M. and López-Bao, J.V., 2025. Deeply Political and Populist Decisions on Large Carnivores in Europe in Recent Times. Conserv. Lett. 18, e13125 (2025).
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.13125
(56) Classen, C. L., & Monje, D. (2023). We are not raised by wolves: Decentering human exceptionalism in nature. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 26(4), 465-480
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/13678779231153425
(57) Jürgens, U. M. (2022). “I am wolf, I rule!”-attributing intentions to animals in human-wildlife interactions. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 3, 803074.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/conservation-science/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2022.803074/full
url:www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/killing_wolves.htm
www.self-willed-land.org.uk mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk