The right to existence of a non-human species
Is it conceivable that wolves have any understanding that would cause them to deliberately seek out conflict with humans? The evidence is to the contrary, that their natural existence is anything other than meeting their needs for existence. The onus must be on humans to find ways to coexist with wolves, and not the other way around. However, everything points to an intolerance that sees only one option - that wolves are disposable.
Maurizio Fugatti, President of the Autonomous Province of Trento in northern Italy, issued a decree in July 2023 that authorised the indiscriminate killing of two wolves in the mountain pasture complex of Malga Boldera in the Lessini Mountains (1,2). The reason for the killing was allegedly to “prevent serious damage to livestock farming, with a consequent loss for the mountain economy sector and consequent negative impact on the ecosystem services connected to the current forestry-pastoral structure”. The preamble stated that there had been two donkeys and 16 calves killed by wolves in the preceding two months. Killing the wolves was justified in the decree over the alternative of capture and permanent captivity by the urgency of intervening to limit the recurrence of the damages. This was on the basis that capture did not allow for “timely action”, nor would it have had a “conditioning effect on the remaining wolves in the pack” as it would lack the “direct temporal and causal link between the predation activity on livestock and the contextual removal of the wolf that practices it” - it would not have the desired effect of “negatively influencing the behaviour of the pack”
Thus, the killing of two wolves was authorised to be carried out by the Forestry Corps of the Autonomous Province of Trento in “such a way as to also pursue negative conditioning towards any other wolves”. No attempt was required to determine whether these two wolves had been involved in livestock predation. The Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale (ISPRA - Italian Institute for Environmental Protection and Research) had apparently given a favourable opinion on this approach being an acceptable derogation from strict protection under the Habitats Directive, and particularly that it would not affect the conservation status of the wolf population in the Province of Trento, as was required of a derogation. It would be first time in Italy that wolves would be killed on the orders of a public administration.
Italian animal advocacy groups were quick to react
Ente Nazionale Protezione Animali (Enpa - National Animal Protection Agency) was reported to be preparing an “all-out legal offensive” to verify the claims in the decree on whether the prevention measures adopted were truly effective, and whether the opinions given by Ispra were correct. It would also scrutinise the veterinary reports carried out by the Forestry Department that allegedly established livestock predation (3,4). Enpa intended to challenge the decree in the regional court of administrative justice of Trento (Tribunale Regionale di Giustizia Amministrativa – TRGA). Lega Anti Vivisezione (LAV - Anti-Vivisection League) rejected the decree, calling it “immoral as well as useless in preventing predation on farms” indicating that it was political opportunism of the President, and that it would be "a trailblazer to start the massacre of wolves throughout Italy" – the “scientific literature is unanimous: it is always and only preventive measures such as fences, to be implemented and improved year after year, that ensure the coexistence between humans and wild species. Single violent and summary operations cannot balance years of serious shortcomings in management, planning and prevention"(4,5). LAV declared that "it will take all possible measures to stop this new wicked and unilateral war by Fugatti”. Lega Nazionale a Difesa del Cane (LNDC - National Dog Defense League) said the killing order was questionable given the total randomness with which the two wolves would be sacrificed - “In fact, it is not possible to trace the specific specimens that would have carried out the contested predations, and therefore the two animals will be killed in a totally random manner” (6). LNDC said that it had already taken action to evaluate all the legal options to stop this latest attack on a protected species.
Unfortunately, the regional administrative court rejected an initial request for suspension of the decree presented by animal rights associations (7) but this firmed their resolve to file a new appeal – “should shooting two wolves at random resolve the alleged 'emergency'? The current situation is the result of the lack or insufficient provision of preventive measures, which requires a continuous and serious analysis of the inefficiencies of the systems already implemented to understand how to improve them” (8,9). Subsequently, in early August, the regional administrative court demanded further clarification from the Province on the measures implemented in the Boldera area to prevent wolf predation so that it could evaluate whether to issue the suspension measure requested by the LAV and LNDC at a hearing that was scheduled for 14 September (10). A few days later, LAV observed that analysis of the documentation presented by the Province clearly highlighted the “insufficient level of maintenance of the electric fence used by the Boldera mountain pasture to prevent wolf predation. In fact, ISPRA itself found that in some of the five predatory events, the fence was poorly maintained, to the point of nullifying its effectiveness” (11). Given what LAV and LNDC described would be an “absurd situation in which the animals could have already been killed” its lawyers were successful in persuading the Council of State to suspend the killing of the wolves until the date of that hearing in September (12).
I was contacted in early September 2023 by a
Hungarian colleague in Wild Europe, telling me about this authorisation of the
killing of two wolves in Trento, and how it was being challenged by local
advocacy groups. One of his Italian colleagues in the advocacy group Green
Impact was really passionate about saving the two wolves and had asked him to
help in issuing a scientific statement that would list various nature
conservation arguments for why the killing was not justified, such as most
farmers who claimed wolf predation did not have any prevention measures in
place. He asked whether I could recommend a wolf expert who he could contact
that would be supportive of the statement. He had initially contacted a member
of the IUCN Species Conservation Commission Large Carnivore Initiative for
Europe Specialist Group (13) and got a very dispiriting response:
“…there is a difference between wolf conservation and wolf
protection. Conservation of wolves is entirely possible even if many wolves
are killed…. From a conservation perspective there is no effect of killing two
wolves in Trento. In fact, you could probably kill 200 or 400 wolves in Italy
every year without having any serious impact on the status of the population.
There is plenty of experience from across Europe on managing the sustainable
hunting of large carnivores…. The Habitats Directive is not an animal
rights/animal welfare law, it is a conservation law”
Before replying to my Hungarian colleague, I checked for myself the most recent assessment of the status of wolves in Europe, the local press around Trento, and what advocacy groups like LNDC and LAV and their lawyers had been saying, the latter forcing suspension of the cull until 14 September (see above). I noted to him that wolves in Italy were strictly protected under Annex IV in the Habitats Directive (14). Because of signs of hybridisation with dogs, wolves in the western Alps and eastern Alps of Italy, and which includes the province of Trento, were assessed as Near Threatened (15). The population of wolves there were much less than in the Italian peninsula, and so a loss of two wolves in Trento would have an effect. Moreover, the killing of two wolves taken at random from the pack accused of predation would be population control, and not what the derogations from strict protection in the Habitats Directive were intended for (16). It was thus sheer prejudice, and I added that Bolzano, the province above Trento, had also latched onto it by approving a new local law to facilitate the capture and killing of wolves that bypassed the scrutiny of ISPRA so that the Province made the decision itself (17,18). LNDC had petitioned the EU at the legitimacy of this.
I suggested a few contacts that might be helpful, one of which was Italian WildWolf, an advocacy group that was formed with “the precise intent of defending the wolf from unjustified attacks by man, in particular from false information” by responding with observations in the field, with research, and with photographic and video documentaries (19). Italian WildWolf has a Charter of Wolf Rights, the first out of 10 rights being the “Right to life - Like every other creature on Earth, the wolf has the right not to be persecuted and to live its entire life in dignity” (20). This put a perspective for me on what the wolf expert had asserted as being the difference between protection and conservation. I refute conservation if its goal is just sustaining populations of animals at the barest minimum levels for the species' persistence, and killing off all the rest. Hence, why wild nature should be protected so that it may exhibit its natural life – the self-will of its existence (21). Moreover, given that the killings In Trento were aimed at “negatively influencing the behaviour of the pack” then I considered it tantamount to collective punishment, the indiscriminate killing of wolves without proof of individual culpability of predation. This seemed to me contrary to another of those Charter rights – “Right to proportionate defense - Interactions between wolves and human activities must be managed through non-lethal preventive measures, such as the use of adequate fencing and guard dogs, encouraging coexistence and avoiding culling” (20)
Another wolf expert
It was only a few days afterwards when an
equally dispiriting view of the wolf killing in Trento came from another
member of the IUCN Species Conservation Commission Large Carnivore Initiative
for Europe Specialist Group. One of the editors of a wolf book I had
contributed to (22) had contacted the other authors seeking their support for
the statement that had since been drafted. It was declined by this other
wolf expert:
“There are too many imprecisions, assumptions and statements that
lack support or evidence and some are plainly wrong. For example, I suspect
that Wild Europe did not check the information on the predation and prevention
measures put in place by the interested farms”
I responded to that by saying it was insulting
that the factual basis of the statement was being called into question, since
I had checked the details. I went on that I found it disturbing that there was
a trend amongst wolf experts to condone killing for conservation, and
which just played into the prejudice and scaremongering of political groupings
that had sought to have the strict protection removed in a joint motion in the
European Parliament in 2022 (and see (23)). I noted that the advocacy organisations saw the only viable path was coexistence through preventative
measures, the only one capable of guaranteeing safety for citizens, wolves and
the human activities that take place on their territories. Instead, those
farmers who don't protect their livestock were expecting the wolves to pay
with their lives. I referred this wolf expert to that primary right to
life in the Charter of Wolf Rights. A rather bizarre response was forthcoming:
“Coexistence is indeed the solution but this implies compromise (as we do
every day in our family relationships): in our case, compromise means that
both humans and wolves accept some limitations, i.e. humans accept a certain
level of damages and wolf populations accept (!) some removal. The idea of a
coexistence where all wolves are left free to roam and grow naturally is
simply naive in our overcrowded continent…. I like and share the principle
that every wolf had the right to live its entire life in dignity. It is a
legitimate wish, like wishing there were no criminals in human societies. It
is an ethical position which I share. Then we have reality that needs to be
managed: like we have police, courts and jails to manage criminals, we try to
find pragmatic solutions to the never ending conflict between humans and
wolves. They are all partial, for sure, and we have not yet found the
solution. Killing two wolves is not a solution to anything, of course, but it
may help in a wider context of the political confrontation”
Green Impact finally submitted a signed version of the statement on 7 September 2023 in support of an administrative appeal filed by advocacy organisations against the request for the culling of two wolves in Trento (24). It is not in my nature to rely on the hearsay of email correspondence, as I have done here, although an attendee at a conference in January, where one of those wolf experts spoke, observed “I was taken aback by his acceptance of hunting and culling” (25) but this chain of events flushed out the views of two wolf experts who so lightly view the life of a wolf. I should not have been surprised, as they had published a paper in 2017 on interpreting the favourable conservation status for large carnivores in Europe where the subheading was “how many are needed and how many are wanted?” (26). Within the paper, these authors brushed off an important ecological factor in the definition of Favourable Conservation Status in the Habitats Directive, that a species be “a viable component of its natural habitats” (14) claiming that human influence and activity removed any possible benchmark of naturalness, and thus making it hard to assess what level of ecological interaction between predator and prey would be regarded as being sufficient. They were dismissive of any natural carrying capacity, and made it just about a numbers game through setting a “population level limit for the number of individuals that can be removed per year”
A casual disregard for the natural lives of wild carnivore species
All this casual disregard for the natural lives of wild carnivore species was trotted out again when these two authors delivered a report in January this year, contracted by the European Commission, on developing a methodology for setting Favourable Reference Values for large carnivores in Europe - a Favourable Reference Value for a species is a parameter to assess progress towards reaching Favourable Conservation Status (27). The methodology report shrugs off any serious attempt to identify a means to assess ecological effectiveness other than to come up with using a too simplistic approach in just taking a measure of the breeding population. The blindness to wild nature is epitomised firstly, by their dismissal that a large carnivore, such as the wolf, may exhibit a natural wild existence in a modified landscape, and instead that continental scale landscapes must therefore be viewed as socio-ecological ecosystems. This is contradicted by the many recent publications on the spatial and temporal avoidance strategies that wolves have adopted in both long-standing areas of presence and after settlement in newly colonised areas (28-34) a recent example being that while culling did not deter wolves, singles or packs, from conflict zones, wolf packs were more likely to avoid culling zones, whereas single wolves still risked these areas (35). Overall, wolves shifted temporally to avoid daytime human activity and were predominantly nocturnal in high-culling areas. It is also at odds with the evidence that the predominant proportion of the diet of settled wolves is wild herbivores and small wild mammals, and not domestic livestock (i.e. (36)).
Secondly, their capitulation to what they term Social Carrying Capacity, and which led them to express a subjective opinion that because of the conflicts associated with large carnivores, the long-term tolerance for large carnivores and their long-term conservation were best achieved by considering social, economic and cultural need when “setting realistic goals for conservation”. So, is Favourable Conservation Status a measure based on ecology or the intolerance of people to a wild species? Thirdly, they dismiss the need to better determine the ecological effectiveness, or role in the food chain, which comes back to that important ecological factor in the definition of Favourable Conservation Status in the Habitats Directive, that a species be “a viable component of its natural habitats” (see above). Fourthly, there was nothing in the methodology report about how wolves naturally regulate their populations, just a pejorative allusion to “maximising densities” creating intolerance. Intrinsic regulation, characterized as population self-regulation by wolves, encompasses mechanisms that moderate growth rates before reaching maximum food-dependent densities (37). Conversely, extrinsically regulated populations are constrained by environmental variables such as food availability, predation, and disease. Territoriality is a main factor with wolves, home ranges expanding and contracting depending on food availability, and with juvenile dispersal being a mechanism to prevent over density.
I should point out that these two wolf experts were also amongst the authors of a recent appalling paper on the recovery of wolves in Europe that goes into detail about "Challenges for coexistence" by which they meant livestock predation; "The economics of wolf recovery" which was about the costs for compensation of damages; and “European policy instruments and controversies” that was bracketed by the assertion that “wolves are a conflict-prone and controversial species” (38). What a dreadfully anthropocentric view that borders on disdain, and worrying when, overall, 21 of the 30 co-authors of this paper are members of IUCN Species Conservation Commission Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Specialist Group. I have checked this paper for citing of any relevant sources, and there is nothing about the intrinsic wild natures of wolves, their life history, or their temporal and spatial avoidance strategies to keep clear of nasty humans. Instead, there is a brushing off of evidence that there is no relationship between the number of wolves killed through lethal control and livestock losses (36). No acknowledgement that lethal control unbalances the behavioural dynamic by disrupting social behaviour and social relationships within wolf packs (35) that breeding wolves were disproportionately killed during the breeding season, perhaps because their behaviour during that season may have increased their vulnerability to lethal control (39) and that the group living of wolves builds sociality, their social ecology, and which should be a key factor when considering protection ((40). The sociality of wolves ensures offspring learn vital behaviours that directly link to individual fitness (hunting or foraging specializations) or culture (preferred locations or routes, and how to interact appropriately with group mates) as well as to collective protection, and provisioning for the group. Because social structure directly defines wolf fitness, lethal removal of individuals can have deleterious consequences, such as group fracturing, which will weaken behaviours that reinforce social structure and learning.
A severe failing of the Habitats Directive
The European Commission is losing no time in forging ahead with the downlisting of wolves under the Habitats Directive (41,42) now that it is free to do so because the downlisting under the Bern Convention has become effective after insufficient objections were made to the proposal for amendment that was passed last December – the UK was one of only three countries that lodged an objection (43) as it was also one of only five countries that had voted against the amendment (44). Under Article 19 of the Habitats Directive, changes to Annexes I, II, III, V and VI can be adopted by the Council of European Ministers acting by qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission (14). However, amendments for changing Annexe IV where the wolf currently sits as a strictly protected species and placing it in Annex V requires that the Council act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission. Thus any one member state of the EU could prevent the downlisting from strict protection. However, oddly, the proposal for downlisting doesn't mention Article 19 as its legal basis (42) which could be a means of sidestepping that need for a unanimous vote. There is also no mention of amending Annex II on the requirement to designate special areas of conservation for listed species, and in which the wolf is listed as a priority species, as it is regarded that Member States have a particular responsibility in view of the proportion of their natural range that falls within the EU (14).
It should be noted that in the report of the vote on downlisting under the the Bern Convention, the Standing Committee reminded the Contracting Parties to the Convention that despite the change in the wolf’s protection status, the rules of the Convention still applied and needed to be observed, such that “wolf populations need to be maintained at, or brought to, a level which corresponded to ecological and scientific requirements….their populations kept out of danger” using measures such as “local prohibition of exploitation”. Compare that to the tone of the European Commission’s explanatory notes that launched straight in to the prejudice that was used to justify the downlisting of protection of wolves – “While the impact is small at EU level and overall damage to livestock appears as tolerable at country level, its concentration at a local level leads to strong pressure on certain areas and regions” (45). That was followed by a distinction that a “’protected' (as opposed to ‘strictly protected')” species can be hunted as long as the “favourable conservation status is achieved and maintained for the populations in their biogeographical regions”. It then said that the conservation status of the wolf in the nine EU biogeographic regions is based on information from Member States on a six-yearly cycle, although I doubt a number of countries will bother to wait for the next reporting round that comes later this year before they develop plans to cull wolves.
This exposes 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 (see Fig. 2 in (15)) that do not tally with the nine biogeographic regions (see Map 3.1 in (46)). Nor would they, as the biogeographic regions lump together similar climatic geographies but which aren’t necessarily adjacent so that there is no connected landscape through which a wolf could disperse. For example, the Alpine biogeographic region is made up of at least 10 distinct and isolated land areas stretching from the Pyrenees straddling the border of France and Spain, to the Rhodope mountains in Bulgaria. As an exercise, the Red List status of wolves in each bioregion was assessed in a pan-European assessment of the conservation status of the wolf commissioned by the Bern Convention when the Standing Committee voted on downlisting in 2022 (15). Seven of the bioregions qualified in a Red List category of Least Concern, but the Pannonian bioregion would likely qualify for the category of Vulnerable as it is only marginally occupied by wolves as wolf numbers are still building up; and the Black Sea biogeographic region would probably qualify as Endangered or Critically Endangered as they are marginal to wolf ranges in Europe. However, when it was based on transboundary subpopulations, only three were of Least Concern (Baltic, Carpathian, Dinaric-Balkan) five were Near Threatened (Central European, Iberian, Italian Peninsula, Karelian, Western-Central Alps ) and one was Vulnerable (Scandinavia). The findings of a recent paper on estimating the effective size of European wolf populations that were sufficient in numbers to maintain genetic diversity had similar findings when it concluded that half of the European wolf subpopulations did not yet fulfil that criterion (47).
Coming back to that methodology report (27) the European Commission claimed it was not a Commission guidance document but provided a contribution to the wider and ongoing discussion on Favourable Reference Values within the Reporting expert group, whoever they may be (48). This should nevertheless ring warning bells if it is adopted by the European Commission. With the potential downlisting of wolves, the determination of some limit to population control of a protected species becomes ever more important. As I noted above, the methodology report shrugs off ecological effectiveness as a parameter in determining Favourable Reference Values. My overwhelming impression is that the proposed methodology is complex and will be reliant on there being an overall arbiter body that polices the efforts of individual countries to come up with the various metrics proposed, presuming that they will wish to comply with what is required in the way it is required. Thus, while subpopulations were recognised in the proposed methodology, the varied Favourable Reference Range and Population Values required that member states make their own judgement about what they contribute to the different subpopulations - the methodology report recommends only a voluntary transboundary forum to oversee this.
My worry is that it means that Member States can determine individually that they have reached all the parameters and can thus justify slaughter. Without an arbiter body in place, the situation will arise that the dispersal of wolves into those countries on the peripheral of sub-populations will be affected if the country they are dispersing from uses lethal control to manage its population. An example will be if it was judged that the Central European subpopulation had reached favourable status (which it hasn’t) and culling occurred in Germany, then the supply of dispersing wolves to Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium will be cut off, thus cutting off genetic dispersal and portending inbreeding amongst the currently small populations of those latter countries. There is already evidence of this in the transboundary Iberian subpopulation of wolves in Spain and Portugal and no transboundary plan in place (49). A binding supernational directive must therefore put 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.
The European Commission gave no indication when the change to the protection status of the wolf in the Habitats Directive would come into effect, only that it had to be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of European Ministers who would set their own timelines for action (45). I suspect the Commission may be nervously watching the progress of an appeal from five advocacy organisations that was accepted for consideration in mid-February by the General Court of the European Union (50). The appeal seeks the annulment of the original Council of European Ministers decision last September to accept the submission of a proposal to downgrade the listing of the wolf at a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention (51) as well as annulment of the vote cast by the EU last December at that Standing Committee Meeting (see above). Arguments given for the appeal were that the Council approved the contested decision without having adequate regard to the available scientific and technical data, particularly ignoring evidence that subpopulations of wolves in Europe were still at significant risk (see above) and that it referred to the same scientific data which, in 2022, had led the EU to vote to the oppose a similar proposal put forward by Switzerland (23). In addition, principles of proportionality and the precautionary principle were violated, that there was abuse or misuse of powers, that the principle of “best available science” was ignored, and that the principles set out by the EU Court of Justice on derogations from the wolf protection regime were violated. It noted that these principles for derogations established by the Court showed that it was absolutely necessary to maintain “the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range” and that the choice of protection must follow a “preventive approach aimed at guaranteeing the effective protection of the populations of the species concerned”. The contested decision also conflicted with the Guidelines established by Recommendation No. 56 (1997) (52) adopted by the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention that recommended that amendments to the protection status of a species in the Convention must be made in a coherent manner, based on the best available science. I would point out that those guidelines also recommended that account be taken of “the ecological role of the species, such as their position or role in the food chain … their structural role in ecosystems … or the fact that endangered species or endangered ecosystems may be highly dependent on them”
A shameful subterfuge
We face a moral dilemma when the right to existence of a non-human species is constantly denied and its reinstatement is resisted, leaving an incomplete trophic assembly, or the species is at an insufficient population level to be ecologically effective. The moves to downlist the protection of wolves in Europe so that their populations can be controlled, the unsuccessful but overweening attempts to forestall further reintroduction of wolves to Colorado (53,54,55) and the egregious reversal of the short-lived strict protection of all wolves in Spain where, in addition, the Natural Heritage and Biodiversity Law has been amended to allow hunting of protected species if it hinders the "efficiency of the production system" (56,57) have left me deeply depressed at the cupidity of people. Before you say that this is just an issue of securing social acceptance for wolves, explain to me why farmers in both Europe (such as in the Netherlands (58)) and Colorado (59) make no attempt to adjust their practice, leaving their livestock unprotected, but expect to have their grievance uncontested?
How insidious this attitude is can be tracked by the prevalence of the invocation by these wolf haters of a shameful subterfuge of “SSS” “shoot, shovel, silence” “Schiessen, Schaufeln, Schweigen” in countries such as Austria (60) Switzerland (61) Denmark (62) Germany (63) the Netherlands (64) Italy (65) and in Colorado (66) and which shows a complete contempt for protection legislation. It seems to me that the expression imperious immediacy of interest coined by American sociologist Robert Merton in 1936, fits with the situation that the paramount concern of wolf haters with the foreseen immediate consequences just excludes the consideration of further or other consequences of the same act (67). For some reason, the UK defended the right to existence of wolves when it voted against the downlisting of protection under the Bern Convention (for a list of the UK representatives at the meeting see pg. 83 in (44)) and then objected when the vote was passed, an action that means the downlisting doesn’t apply to the UK (43). I would like to think this concern for the wolves in Europe by the UK is because they are regarded as the gene pool from which our wolves were derived, and could still be again.
Mark Fisher 22 March 2025
(1) Fugatti ordina: abbattere due lupi. Nel mirino gli autori delle predazioni a Malga Boldera, l’Adige 26 luglio 2023
(2) DECRETO DEL PRESIDENTE N. 41 DI DATA 24 Luglio 2023, PROVINCIA AUTONOMA DI TRENTO
(3) Abbattimento lupi, le reazioni degli animalisti. Enpa: «Pronti all’offensiva legale» Sara Alouani, ilT Quotidiano 26 Luglio, 2023
(4) Abbattimento dei lupi, Lav contro Fugatti: “Decreto immorale”. L’Ue apre alla caccia di questi animali, l’Adige 26 luglio 2023
(5) Ordinanza abbattimento lupi, Lav risponde: «Atto immorale e inutile. Serve prevenzione» Sara Alouani, ilT Quotidiano26 Luglio, 2023
(6) Dopo gli orsi, Fugatti prende di mira i lupi. LNDC Animal Protection pronta ad azioni legali, Lega Nazionale a Difesa del Cane Animal Protection 26 Lug, 2023
(7) TRGA e lupi, Fugatti: “Riconosciuto il valore del patrimonio zootecnico ed ambientale del Trentino”, Comunicato 2253, Ufficio Stampa della Giunta provincial, Provincia autonoma di Trento 28 Luglio 2023
(8) LNDC Animal Protection, LAV e WWF preparano nuovo ricorso contro Fugatti per proteggere i lupi, La Lega Nazionale a Difesa del Cane 28 lug, 2023
(9) Decreto uccisione due lupi: Associazioni preparano nuovo ricorso, 28 luglio 2023
(10) TAR di Trento chiede approfondimenti alla Provincia. Nessuno tocchi i 2 lupi, LAV 1 agosto 2023
https://www.lav.it/news/ordine-uccisione-due-lupi-trentini-protetti-leggi/nessuno-tocchi-i-lupi
(11) Il TAR non sospende l'uccisione dei due lupi. Le Associazioni ricorreranno al Consiglio di Stato, LAV 8 agosto 2023
(12) Il Consiglio di Stato sospende fino al 14 settembre l'abbattimento dei lupi nel mirino di Fugatti, LAV 11 agosto 2023
https://www.lav.it/news/ordine-uccisione-due-lupi-trentini-protetti-leggi/esito-consiglio-di-stato
(13) Who we are, LCIE - IUCN Species Conservation Commission Specialist Group
https://www.lcie.org/About-LCIE/-Who-are-we
(14) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206 22.7.1992, p. 7)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A01992L0043-20130701
(15) Assessment of the conservation status of the Wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe. T-PVS/Inf(2022)45. Standing Committee 42nd meeting 28 November - 2 December 2022, CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS, Council of Europe Strasbourg, 2 September 2022
https://rm.coe.int/inf45e-2022-wolf-assessment-bern-convention-2791-5979-4182-1-2/1680a7fa47
(16) Guidance document on the strict protection of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive, Commission notice C(2021) 7301 final, European Commission 12.10.2021
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=PI_COM:C(2021)7301
(17) Bolzano: via libera per l’uccisione di due lupi. Lndc ricorre al TAR, IMGPress Agosto 13, 2024
https://www.imgpress.it/attualita/bolzano-via-libera-per-luccisione-di-due-lupi-lndc-ricorre-al-tar/
(18) LNDC in difesa dei lupi della Val Venosta, La Lega Nazionale a Difesa del Cane 13 Ago, 2024
https://www.lndcanimalprotection.org/animali-selvatici-lndc/lndc-difende-lupi-della-val-venosta/
(19) CHI SIAMO, Italian Wild Wolf
(20) CARTA DEI DIRITTI DEL LUPO, Italian Wild Wolf
https://italianwildwolf.com/cartadeidirittidellupo/
(21) A natural life – the self-will of existence, Self-willed land August 2024
http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/intrinsic.htm
(22) The Wolf: Culture, Nature, Heritage, Eds Ian Convery, Owen Nevin, Erwin van Maanen, Peter Davis and Karen Lloyd, Boydell Press July 2023
https://boydellandbrewer.com/9781837650156/the-wolf/
(23) Downgrading the protection of wolves in Europe, Self-willed land December 2022
www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/wolf_bern.htm
(24) SCIENTIFIC STATEMENT - CASE: WOLVES, PROVINCE OF TRENTO, ITALY, Green Impact 7 September 2023
https://www.greenimpact.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Versione-firmata-Caso-Trento-EN-e-IT.pdf
(25) Christopher Price (@RareBreedChris) Mark Fisher (@markwilderness) Twitter 17, 18 January 2025
https://x.com/RareBreedChris/status/1880574211166806054
(26) Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L. & Linnell, J.D.C. (2017) Interpreting ‘favourable conservation status’ for large carnivores in Europe: how many are needed and how many are wanted? Biodivers Conserv 26, 37–61
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-016-1238-z
(27) Linnell, J. D. C. and Boitani, L. (2025) Developing methodology for setting Favourable Reference Values for 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. Task B.3 – Assessment of large carnivores’ conservation status”. IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE) and Istituto di Ecologia Applicata (IEA)
(28) Mancinelli, S., Falco, M., Boitani, L., & Ciucci, P. (2019). Social, behavioural and temporal components of wolf (Canis lupus) responses to anthropogenic landscape features in the central Apennines, Italy. Journal of Zoology, 309(2), 114-124
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jzo.12708
(29) Grilo, C., Lucas, P.M., Fernández-Gil, A., Seara, M., Costa, G., Roque, S., Rio‐Maior, H., Nakamura, M., Álvares, F., Petrucci-Fonseca, F. and Revilla, E., (2019) Refuge as major habitat driver for wolf presence in human-modified landscapes. Animal conservation, 22(1): 59-71.
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/acv.12435
(30) Rio-Maior, H., Nakamura, M., Álvares, F., & Beja, P. (2019). Designing the landscape of coexistence: Integrating risk avoidance, habitat selection and functional connectivity to inform large carnivore conservation. Biological Conservation, 235: 178-188
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718314381
(31) Petridou, M., Benson, J. F., Gimenez, O., & Kati, V. (2023) Spatiotemporal Patterns of Wolves, and Sympatric Predators and Prey Relative to Human Disturbance in Northwestern Greece. Diversity, 15(2), 184
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/15/2/184
(32) Vorel, A., Kadlec, I., Toulec, T., Selimovic, A., Horníček, J., Vojtěch, O., Mokrý, J., Pavlačík, L., Arnold, W., Cornils, J. and Kutal, M., (2024) Home range and habitat selection of wolves recolonising central European human-dominated landscapes. Wildlife Biology, p.e01245.
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wlb3.01245
(33) Blount, J.D., Green, A.M., Chynoweth, M., Kittelberger, K.D., Hipólito, D., Bojarska, K., Çoban, E., Kusak, J. and Şekercioğlu, Ç.H., (2024). Seasonal activity patterns and home range sizes of wolves in the human-dominated landscape of northeast Türkiye. Wildlife Biology, p.e01257
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wlb3.01257
(34) Sunde, P., Kjeldgaard, S. A., Mortensen, R. M., & Olsen, K. (2024). Human avoidance, selection for darkness and prey activity explain wolf diel activity in a highly cultivated landscape. Wildlife Biology, e01251
https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wlb3.01251
(35) Preiss-Bloom, S., Shamon, H., Ben-Ami, D., & Dayan, T. (2025). Landscape of risk: responses of grey wolves to lethal control in a mosaic landscape. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 71(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-025-01910-x
(36) Kutal, M., Duľa, M., Selivanova, A. R., & López‐Bao, J. V. (2024). Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses. Conservation Letters, 17(1), e12994.
https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12994
(37) 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
(38) Di Bernardi, C., Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Álvares, F., Andrén, H., Balys, V., Blanco, J.C., Chiriac, S., Ćirović, D., Drouet-Hoguet, N. and Huber, D., Iliopoulos, Y., Kojola, I., Krofel, M., Kutal, M., Linnell, J.D.C, Skrbinšek, A.M., Männil, P., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mengüllüoğlu, D., Mergeay, J., Mysłajek, R.W., Nowak, S., Ozoliņš, J., Ranc, N., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Salvatori, V., Schley, L., Sunde, P., Trajçe, A., Trbojević, I., Trouwborst, A., von Arx, M., Zlatanova,.D., & Boitani, L. (2025). Continuing recovery of wolves in Europe. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation, 4(2), e0000158
https://journals.plos.org/sustainabilitytransformation/article?id=10.1371/journal.pstr.0000158
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wsb.1553
(40) 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, biae134
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae134
(41) 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
(42) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 92/43/EEC as regards the protection status of the wolf (Canis lupus) 2025/0058(COD), European Commission 7 March 2025
(43) Modification of wolf protection under the Bern Convention enters into force, Council of Europe Media Release DC 045(2025) & March 2025
https://search.coe.int/directorate_of_communications/fre?i=0900001680b4ad28
(44) Meeting Report, 44th meeting of the Standing Committee, T-PVS(2024)21 - CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS, Council of Europe 23 December 2024
https://rm.coe.int/tpvs21e-2024-report-44th-standing-committee-2761-0196-4299-1/1680b40bc9
(45) 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
(46) State of nature in the EU Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013-2018, EEA Report No 10/2020
(47) Mergeay, J., Smet, S., Collet, S., Nowak, S., Reinhardt, I., Kluth, G., Szewczyk, M., Godinho, R., Nowak, C., Mysłajek, R.W. and Rolshausen, G., 2024. Estimating the effective size of European wolf populations. Evolutionary Applications, 17(10), p.e70021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eva.70021
(48) Favourable Reference Values (FRV) for large carnivores in Europe, Species Protection, Large carnivores, European Commission
(49) Quevedo, M., Echegaray, J., Fernández-Gil, A., Leonard, J.A., Naves, J., Ordiz, A., Revilla, E. and Vilà, C. (2019) Lethal management may hinder population recovery in Iberian wolves. Biodiversity and Conservation, 28: 415-432
https://digibuo.uniovi.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10651/50622/Lethal%20management.pdf
(50) Action brought on 6 December 2024 – Green Impact and Others v Council and Commission
(Case T-634/24) (C/2025/922) Official Journal of the European Union 17 February 2025
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/922/oj/eng
(51) COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2024/2669 of 26 September 2024 on the submission, on behalf of the European Union, of a proposal for the amendment of Appendices II and III to the Convention on the conservation of European wildlife and natural habitats and on the position to be adopted, on behalf of the Union, at the 44th meeting of the Standing Committee to that Convention
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2024/2669/oj/eng
(52) Recommendation No. 56 (1997) concerning guidelines to be taken into account while making proposals for amendment of Appendices I and II of the Convention and while adopting amendments, Standing Committee, Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 5 December 1997
(53) Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts staff recommendation regarding citizen petition to delay gray wolf restoration, Colorado Parks and Wildlife News Release January 8, 2025
(54) A group has filed a draft proposition to repeal Colorado’s wolf reintroduction law, the first step to returning the issue to voters, Ali Longwell, PostIndependent Jan 7, 2025
https://www.postindependent.com/news/could-wolves-be-back-on-colorados-ballot/
(55) An anti-wolf group’s map indicates Colorado is unfit for the animals. It’s full of inaccuracies, Tracy Ross, The Colorado Sun Mar 6, 2025.
https://coloradosun.com/2025/03/06/an-anti-wolf-group-map-indicates-colorado-is-unfit-for-wolves/
(56) El Congreso elimina la prohibición de cazar lobos al norte del Duero, Europa Press, El Confidencial 03/20/2025
(57) Desproteger al lobo, un error histórico, INTERcids Noticias 20 de marzo de 2025
https://intercids.org/desproteger-lobo-error-historico/
(58) Schade door de wolf in 2024: 95 procent van de aanvallen géén wolfwerend raster, Eef van Bommel, Omroep Gelderland 20 december 2024
(59) Denial to Chronic Depredation Permit Request, Colorado Parks and Wildlife 31 July 2024
(60) Weiter wie bisher und schweigen, Kurt Kotrschal, Der Pragmaticus 6. April 2023
https://www.derpragmaticus.com/r/gefaehrdete-arten-oesterreich
(61) «Sehen, schiessen, schaufeln, schweigen» sda/dpa, TierWelt 15.10.2013
https://www.tierwelt.ch/artikel/wildtiere/sehen-schiessen-schaufeln-schweigen-415998
(62) Video captures killing of one of the first wolves in Denmark in more than 200 years, Ashley Mak and Kevin Ball, CBC Radio May 04, 2018
(63) Anleitung zum Wölfe töten: Schießen – Schaufeln – Schweigen, Dr. Martin Steverding, Wildtierschutz Deutschland 19. Feb. 2024
https://www.wildtierschutz-deutschland.de/single-post/illegaler-abschuss-wolf
(64) De Faunabescherming (@faunabeschermin) Twitter Dec 28, 2024
https://twitter.com/faunabeschermin/status/1873000370441715800
(65) Der 3-S-Code, Artur Oberhofer, Tageszeitung ONLINE 66. Oktober 2024
https://www.tageszeitung.it/2024/10/06/der-3-s-code/
(66) Guest column: Counties don’t get to opt out of Colorado’s wolf recovery effort, Erik Molvar, PostIndependent Feb 10, 2025
(67) Merton, R.K. (1936) The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American sociological review,1(6): 894-904
url:www.self-willed-land.org.uk/articles/shoot_shovel_silence.htm
www.self-willed-land.org.uk mark.fisher@self-willed-land.org.uk