Wolf protection without effective protection for people, animals and pastures

The return of the wolf is often presented by authorities and nature conservation associations as a success of species protection. In many rural regions, however, there is a far less idyllic reality. Grazing livestock farmers bear the direct consequences of a policy that protects the wolf as fully as possible, while the affected people face the damage, the costs and the growingUncertainty can largely be left alone. Between strict protection status, inadequate security and cumbersome compensation, a political failure arises, which is especially visible where sheep, goats, cattle and horses are not kept behind concrete walls, but on open pastures.

Protective measures that fail in reality

The competent authorities refer to missing or incomplete protective measures for each wolf crack. This conveniently shifts the responsibility to the holder. The state requires fences, electrical fuses, special stables and the use of herd protection dogs, although even extensive precautions do not ensure reliable protection.

A wolf cannot pass throughimpress political prescriptions. He checks fences, uses uneven terrain, overcomes obstacles and adapts his behavior to the actions of humans. If a fence is raised, the animal searches for a weak point. If a herd is protected by dogs, it can lead to dangerous encounters between dogs, wolves, humans and livestock.

The idea that every attack can beby even more effort, is unrealistic. Pastures are often located in confusing terrain, on the edges of forests, in moorland or on slopes that are difficult to access. No keeper can permanently monitor every metre of a sprawling pasture fence and immediately eliminate every possible weak point.

In addition, herd protection does not only consist of the construction of a fence.must be constantly checked, repaired, cleared and adapted to changing pasture areas. After storms, snowfall, fallen trees or damage caused by game, even professionally constructed fuses can lose their effect.

If a wolf then overcomes the pasture, the wolf is not considered to be the cause. Instead, the search for aalleged fault of the holder. This attitude is not only unjust, but also politically transparent. The state tries to hide its own inaction by accusing those affected of not having done enough.

The consequences of a wolf attack

For a pasture animal owner, a wolf attack means much more than the loss of a single animal. The herd panics, animals break out, injure themselves on fences or fall into ditches and embankments. Some livestock are torn, others are seriously injured and still others die from the consequences of fleeing.

It is particularly cruel that the animals do not always die immediately. Manyare found with deep bite wounds, suffer from shock or have to be euthanized later. The keeper must secure the herd, care for injured animals, recover dead animals and at the same time try to calm the rest of the herd.

The psychological burden is often completely hidden in political statements. Those who raise, care for and care for animals for years, experiencea wolf crack as an ordinary economic loss. He experiences a brutal intervention in his own work and in his relationship with the animals.

After an attack, the fear of the next incident often remains. The herd must continue to pasture, although it is known that there is a wolf in the area. Every night becomes a stress test, every unusual sound becomesReason for a patrol.

The affected people thus bear not only financial costs, but also a permanent psychological burden. While authorities treat the process as a manageable individual case, the entire everyday life of the holder changes.

The costs are passed on to the holder

The economic damage goes far beyond the market value of a torn animal. There are costs for veterinary treatment, medication, recovery, examination and disposal. In addition, there are failures when animals can no longer be used for breeding, milk production or agricultural use.

The additional working time is also hardly adequatethe owner often has to work for hours or days after an attack without being able to bill for this work separately. He must repair the fence, inspect the animals, notify authorities, secure evidence, and move the herd to another location.

The costs can be particularly high if several animals are affected. In the event of an attack,not only individual sheep or goats in danger. An entire herd can be dispersed, and the search for scattered animals can span vast areas.

For smaller companies, this burden can hardly be absorbed. They have neither large financial reserves nor additional staff. Any failure directly affects the ongoing operation and canInvestments, feed purchases or necessary repairs.

Nevertheless, political responsibility is not sought where the cause of the damage lies. Instead of an effective limitation of the wolf population, applications, evidence and funding conditions are offered. The person concerned receives paper work, while the wolf can continue to visit the pasture.

Compensation as a bureaucratic imposition

The procedures for compensation are experienced by many owners as lengthy and complicated. After a crack, numerous details must be given, photos taken, examinations awaited and evidence submitted. For the holder, a further load begins after the actual attack.

The authorities require precise information about the animal, the location, the fence, the timeof the incident and the protective measures taken. Any mistake can lead to queries. Any missing document may delay processing.

In the meantime, the costs remain. The holder cannot wait for an administrative procedure to be completed at some point. Injured animals need immediate treatment, dead animals need to be salvaged and disposed of, andthe damaged pasture must be secured again.

The authorities work according to the files, but the holder has to deal with the consequences in reality. For administration, a case is closed when a form is complete. For the affected operation, however, the actual work only begins after the attack.

It is particularly outrageous that the application is often submitted asa check of the holder is effective. The focus is not on the damage, but on the question of whether the person concerned has met every state requirement exactly. As a result, the compensation does not appear as compensation, but as a grace payment, which the injured party must first laboriously ask for.

The replacement does not cover the actual damage

Even if compensation is granted, it is often insufficient to compensate for the actual loss. The market value of an animal is only part of the damage. In addition, there is breeding value, workload, treatment costs, disposal costs and possible losses in further management.

A valuable breeding animal cannot be obtained simply by purchasing anyReplacement animals. Breeding lines, experience, age, health and performance cannot be restored at the push of a button. The loss can therefore have an impact over years.

Even the loss of a pregnant animal or a particularly efficient animal is only incompletely compensated by a lump sum payment. The administration often sets fixed limits, while theactual damage can be very different.

Many owners also complain that follow-up costs are not fully recognised. This includes treatment, examination, disposal, repair, additional working hours and loss of revenue. Anyone who is economically damaged after a wolf attack therefore does not automatically receive relief.

An indemnity thatdoes not cover the actual loss is not a fair compensation. It is a partial payment with which the state creates the impression that it is taking care of the problem, while a significant part of the burden remains with the person concerned.

Military restricted areas as retreats

Military restricted areas and certain nature reserves are particularly problematic. There, wolves can stay in large, hard-to-reach areas without effective inventory management.

In such areas, control by owners, hunters and authorities is severely limited. Paths are blocked, areas may not be entered and a regularObservation is hardly possible. There, the wolf finds retreats in which it can move and multiply largely undisturbed.

The protected areas thus become places where the consequences of a political decision are concentrated. The state creates shelters for the wolf, while the adjacent grazing farms bear the consequences.

For the holders concerned, theespecially absurd. They must protect their animals with increasingly elaborate measures, but must not influence those retreats from which the wolves regularly enter the cultivated landscape.

A protected area in which any stock control is practically excluded becomes an intensifier of the problem. Those who do not allow regulation there should not be surprised ifthe number of conflicts outside the protected area is increasing.

No effective inventory regulation

The possibilities for hunting and stock regulation are severely restricted or completely excluded in protected and restricted areas. Even if individual animals repeatedly become conspicuous, a lengthy procedure begins before any measures are even discussed.

The authorities refer to strict protective regulations and special evidence. For the local people,that numerous conditions must first be met before a problem wolf can be removed. Until then, the animal can visit more pastures and cause further damage.

This approach is politically irresponsible. The state not only protects an endangered species, but also individual animals even if they repeatedly trigger conflicts. The interests of grazing livestock farmersare generally subordinated to the idea of protection.

A sensible regulation would have to distinguish between shy animals, conspicuous animals and animals that have learned to overcome protective measures. Instead, the wolf is often considered an abstract species, while its concrete behavior has little impact on its legal treatment.

The protection status thus becomes aCarte blanche. An animal can repeatedly approach people, settlements or pastures without the state acting in time. Responsibility will only be assumed if the damage has already occurred.

The concern of the population

Many residents and users of rural areas feel increasingly insecure. Particularly where wolves regularly appear on paths, outskirts of settlements or near homes, there is a growing concern for children, pets and livestock.

The reaction of official bodies is often to put fear into perspective. It is explained that the wolf avoids humans and usually does notDanger. Such statements may be meant statistically, but they ignore the everyday experience of those affected.

Anyone who repeatedly observes wolves near courtyards, hiking trails or gardens does not perceive appeasement as a help. Rather, he experiences that his perception is devalued. The message then is that the concern is exaggerated and the policy does not have toreact.

Pets may also be at risk. Dogs that are led on paths or near the forest may encounter wolves. It is particularly problematic when wolves lose their shyness and regularly show up in areas used by humans.

The safety of the population must not be taken seriously only when a person has been injured.means limiting identifiable risks at an early stage and not hoping that the situation will calm down on its own.

The burden on grazing livestock farming

Grazing livestock farming relies on open areas. Sheep, goats, cattle and horses cannot be kept permanently in closed stables without fundamentally changing the way they are managed.

The demand for ever higher fences and ever more protective measures ignores the reality of many companies. Large pastures are not like small plots of landsecure. Paths, streams, ditches, hedges and uneven terrain make the construction of continuous systems difficult.

Shelter dogs incur additional costs and require experience, space and ongoing care. They can also lead to conflicts with walkers, riders, and other users of the landscape. Not every company can keep several dogs and train them professionally.The requirements for herd protection are thus becoming ever higher, while the economic possibilities of the farms remain limited. If you meet the requirements, you still have no guarantee that the herd is safe. Those who do not fully meet a requirement, on the other hand, risk staying on top of the damage.

Such a policy destroys the basis of many grazing operations. The owner shouldinvest more and more without being able to reliably plan whether the additional measures will actually work or be financed.