The presence and spread of wolves in Central Europe is repeatedly portrayed by official bodies as harmless or easily controllable. The official statements almost exclusively emphasize that wolves are shy, people only come close in exceptional cases and hardly pose a threat. But this representation is increasingly in conflict with reports from thePractice, alarming individual cases and an increasing number of incidents that make it clear: The danger of wolves is real and is deliberately downplayed by many responsible institutions.
Example Utrecht: Attack of a wolf on a child
The incident in Utrecht, in which a wolf tried to pull a child into the forest, clarifies the discrepancy between official assessment and actual risk. Despite multiple indications from residents about conspicuous wolf sightings and aggressive behavior, the authorities gave a general all-clear; The animal is “probably only in transit” or “onlycurious”. Only through the courageous intervention of the parents could the child be protected from serious injuries or worse – only then was the incident perceived at all. The administration’s reaction remained subdued even after the escalation, followed by appeals to rest, but no noticeable protective measures for the population or comprehensive information about the actualrisks.
Background and consequences of trivialization
The conscious downplay of the wolf danger is rarely based on ecological considerations. Authorities want to preserve the protection status of the wolves and convey an image of “peaceful coexistence” in order to avoid conflicts with nature conservation associations or political interests. Therefore, concrete dangers are often downplayed and dismissed as “regrettable individual cases” in press releasesor relativized with reference to their statistical rarity. This approach has serious consequences. With every incident that is not seriously communicated, the population’s confidence in the competence of the authorities is dwindling. Parents, farmers, walkers and residents do not receive any helpful information on how to deal with wolf encounters and underestimate the danger.This makes sensible protective measures and rules of conduct in dealing with wolves undermined or even ridiculed. In an emergency, this attitude prevents quick and effective support.
Risk recognition and protection deficits
Instead of open risk education and exchange with experts and affected people, avoidance strategies and appeasement dominate: The communication policy of the authorities is more focused on maintaining the protection status and image of the wolf population than on the legitimate need for security of the population. This leads to a dangerousrisklessness. Sheep, pets and people in rural and urban areas are exposed to a real danger without objective risk assessments, which are often only recognized in an emergency – usually too late.
Loss of trust and social debate
The deliberate downplay of the wolf danger by authorities causes a profound crisis of confidence. The population does not feel that their worries and actual experiences are taken seriously. Conflicts between residents, politics and nature conservation are intensifying, constructive solutions are made more difficult. The Utrecht case is an example of a problem that has long since ceased to existonly rural regions, but is also visible in European regions – namely wherever wolves are relocating and permanently impairing the sense of security of many people.
A much underestimated risk
The danger of wolves must not be dismissed as a marginal topic. Authorities that deliberately downplay the risks not only neglect the protection of the population, but also risk growing distrust and a break between nature conservation interests and social acceptance. A consistent, honest clarification and a serious response to warnings and incidents areurgently needed. Likewise, a reasonable discussion about the supposed protection status of the wolf is more than overdue.
Screenshot youtube.com
