25 Years of Wolf Presence in Switzerland: an Interim Assessment

Home , Calanda (mountain), Eischoll, Evolution of the wolf, Masein, Tamins, Zwischbergen

KORA Bericht Nr. 91e December 2020 25 Jahre Wolf in derISSN 1422-5123 25 years Schweizof wolf presence in Switzerland: Eine Zwischenbilanz an interim assessment

RAUBTIERÖKOLOGIE UND WILDTIERMANAGEMENT

RAUBTIERÖKOLOGIE UND WILDTIERMANAGEMENT Impressum

KORA Bericht Nr. 91e 25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment

Authors Kristina Vogt, Manuela von Arx, Ralph Manz, Fridolin Zimmermann, Florin Kunz and Urs Breitenmoser

External authors AGRIDEA: Daniel Mettler, Daniela Hilfiker, Riccarda Lüthi and Felix Hahn (Chapter 4.2 and associated Boxes; revision of Chapter 3.1 and Box 3.1.1) Laboratory for Conservation Biology, University of Lausanne: Luca Fumagalli (Box 2.2.1) Conservation Genetics Group, Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum: Carsten Nowak (Box 3.4.3)

Editors Kristina Vogt und Urs Breitenmoser

Translation Malini Pittet, revised by Kristina Vogt and Manuela von Arx

Layout Kaspar Breitenmoser

Publication Document available in PDF format at www.kora.ch 02 Print document of the German and French versions for a fee, to be ordered from KORA Foundation, Thunstr. 31, CH-3074 Muri, by phone +41 (0)31 951 70 40 or by e-mail: [email protected]

Cover photo Members of the first Swiss wolf pack in the Calanda massif, photographed on 16.10.2013. © René Gadient, game warden, "Office for Hunting and Fishing Canton of Grisons"

Suggested citation: KORA Foundation. 2020. 25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment. KORA Report Nr. 91e, 80 pp.

ISSN 1422-5123, © KORA Foundation December 2020

Gender-neutral wording KORA considers that each of the professions mentioned in this report includes both women and men.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the MAVA Foundation (Learning & Sharing Grants) and the Lottery Foundation of the canton of Bern for their financial support for this report. We would also like to thank Niklaus Blatter and Arie Trouwborst for proofreading various texts, as well as Nicolas Bourquin, Mirjam Pewsner, Franziska Scheuber and Andrea von May for their help in processing the data. Our thanks also go to Caroline Nienhuis and Christian Stauffer for proofreading the entire original report in German. Thanks are also due to all those who provided photographic material for this report. Finally, we would also like to thank the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) for its financial support of the Swiss wolf monitoring programme, as well as all the cantonal hunting administrations, game wardens and people who, since the wolf’s return to Switzerland, have sent us their observations, photos and genetic samples.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment Table of contents

Table of contents

1. Introduction...... 04 Box 1.1 Portrait of the wolf...... 07 Box 1.2 The KORA Foundation...... 08 2. The wolf story so far...... 09 2.1 Developement of wolf populations in Europe...... 09 2.2 Chronology of the recolonsation of Switzerland by the wolf ...... 11 Box 2.2.1 Genetic analyses...... 14 Box 2.2.2 Monitoring methods...... 17 3. Challenges...... 19 3.1 Livestock predation...... 19 Box 3.1.1 Development of sheep and goat farming in Switzerland...... 21 3.2 Fear of the wolf...... 23 3.3 Competition with hunters...... 26 Box 3.3.1 The role of wolves in the ecosystem...... 28 3.4 The wolf in law and society...... 30 Box 3.4.1 The wolf in law – major milestones...... 31 03 Box 3.4.2 The Swiss Wolf Concept...... 32 Box 3.4.3 Wolf-dog hybrids – fake news, myths and scientific facts...... 37 4. Possible solutions...... 39 4.1 Compensation for attacks on livestock...... 39 4.2 Livestock protection measures ...... 40 Box 4.2.1 Planning alpine sheep grazing in the canton of Valais...... 42 Box 4.2.2 Livestock protection on Alp Ramoz – a success story...... 45 4.3 Legal killing of wolves...... 49 4.4 Collaboration with stakeholders and interest groups...... 52 Box 4.4.1 Wolf working group in the canton of Bern...... 54 4.5 Communication about the wolf...... 57 5. Perspectives...... 61 5.1 How many wolves should live in Switzerland?...... 61 5.2 How is Europe managing the wolf populations?...... 64 5.3 Wolf, lynx, bear and golden jackal in the same habitat...... 66 6. Conclusions and recommendations...... 68 Box 6.1 What is biodiversity?...... 69 References...... 72

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 1. Introduction

1. Introduction

In 1994 and 1995, suspicions built up that a wolf may have indeed perceive the wolf as the irrevocable reflection of his been responsible for attacks on sheep herds in the Lower Va- most devoted and faithful companion, which we even use to- lais. In February 1996, a photograph of the "Beast of the Val day for the protection of our herds against their wild brethren Ferret" finally provided evidence of this (Fig. 1.1; Landry 1997). (see Chapter 4.2). Since twenty-five years, the wolf is once again resident in Switzerland (see Chapter 2.2). It is now time to take stock of In any case, wolves were hunted relentlessly and were extir- the situation. pated from Switzerland towards the end of the 19th century (Fig. 1.2; Etter 1992). All means were used to achieve this: ri- No other animal arouses the spirits or causes such a rift in fles, traps and poison. However, the wolf (and other large car- the population as the wolf. There has been much speculation nivores) would probably not have been extirpated so quickly about the reasons why it affects us so much (see Chapter 3.2). if its habitat and prey populations had not been destroyed at Until the end of the Middle Ages, the worst atrocities were at- the same time. Towards the end of the 19th century, Switzer- tributed to wolves, often in connection with acts of witchcraft land's large mammals were practically eradicated: ibex, wild and werewolves (for example Bretscher 1906). Since the Age boar, red deer and roe deer had almost disappeared, even of Enlightenment, the descriptions on the subject have become before lynx, wolves and bears (Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser- more objective and stories of attacks against humans have be- Würsten 2008). Only chamois survived in small populations come rarer. Nevertheless, the wolf has been denigrated up to scattered across the Alps. The few remaining predators there- modern times: “The wolf occupies a lower rank in the animal fore had no prey other than livestock, which intensified con- series. Even among predators, it is one of the most repugnant flicts with humans and accelerated their final extirpation. The to us. It is always hungry, eats rotten flesh and does not give forest, the ancestral habitat of most of our large wild animals, into any in fact of trickery and perfidy, he has no trace of the was also in a very poor state in Switzerland in the second magnanimity of the lion, the bravery of the polar bear, the good half of the 19th century. The over-exploitation of the forest for humour of the brown bear, the loyalty of the dog. Heavier than firewood, building timber and grazing by livestock, as well as the fox, he is as false and defiant; he is impudent with bold- the lack of maintenance led to a sharp reduction in woodland 04 ness, but he is not cunning, has nothing beautiful in his whole area and turned the remaining forests into "miserable bushes" being, and rightly passes for one of the most detestable ani- (Tscharner, in Wullschleger 1974). mals. With the dog he has only an outward resemblance, and it cannot be claimed that he is the wild dog, the dog in its The first Federal Forestry Law came into force in 1876, banning most primitive state. Rather, it is the degenerate, corrupt dog, the clearing of forests, thus bringing about a reversal. Since the caricature of the dog, for it has all the bad sides, with- then, Swiss forests have been recovering and their surface out possessing the qualities, and as such it is an interesting area has continued to grow. The improvement of habitat, es- animal, for nature does not often amuse itself by parodying tablishment of non-hunting zones, introduction of appropriate its own creatures” (von Tschudi 1859). Friedrich von Tschudi hunting legislation and several reintroduction programmes knew little about the wolf from own experiences, he resorted have also led to the return of wild ungulates in the 20th cen- to peddle the vision of his time. His comparison of the wolf tury. Their populations have grown rapidly over the last 100 with the dog is noteworthy: he introduces a Yin and Yang type years (Fig. 1.3). duality in which the wolf represents the dark side. Man may This decline followed by a recovery of wild ungulate populations in the 19th and 20th centuries has been observed at different rates across western and central Europe (Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). Today, populations of red deer, roe deer, wild boar and moose are once again present in Europe, in numbers which have not been seen since primeval time. The increase and spread of wild prey has greatly facilitated the return of large predators, especially the wolf. The strict legal protection that the wolf enjoys today in most European countries has of course also contributed greatly to its return. But in some countries, populations started to recover even before the wolf was placed under protection. According to Pimlott (1975), in the first pan-European survey on the status of the wolf, viable populations in the west of the USSR existed only in Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia. In Fig. 1.1. Photo of the first wolf in the Val Ferret, taken by all other countries, the wolf had completely disappeared or, an infrared photo trap on 5 February 1996, above Liddes as in Italy, Spain and Poland, only small, endangered popu- (VS). © J.-M. Landry & A. Perrion lations remained (see Chapter 2.1). Today, the wolf is again

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 1. Introduction

present throughout continental Europe, and even in densely The relationship between man and wolf is actually the most populated countries such as France and Germany about 100 decisive element in this story. While the wolf does not present packs each have established themselves over a span of three a significant danger to humans (see Chapter 3.2), it is known decades (see Chapter 2.1). At the time of Pimlott and his col- to attack livestock such as sheep, goats and more rarely cattle leagues, this development would have been considered uto- and horses. The damage it causes can be considerable (see pian if not impossible. Chapter 3.1) and prevention of wolf attacks requires substan- tial effort (see Chapter 4.2). Although the wolf is a protected This astonishing revival is not only due to the improvement species, it has generally become accepted in Switzerland and of environmental and legal conditions and the emergence of in neighbouring countries that a coexistence with this species nature conservation principles since the beginning of the 20th is impossible without a management of its populations. This century, but mainly also to the intrinsic biological and eco- would include the killing of wolves under certain conditions logical characteristics of the wolf itself. The wolf is a highly (see Chapter 5.2). The need for compromise is recognised but adaptable species that can live under almost any climatic the question of the right balance between total protection and and environmental conditions and has no trouble to survive renewed extermination is currently the subject of heated de- in a world dominated by man. As a highly evolved social ani- bates in the social and political spheres. These discussions are mal (Box 1.1), this predator is also remarkably adaptive. In often very emotional and are not always based on facts. After addition, subadults show a pronounced dispersal behaviour, 25 years of experience with wolves in Switzerland, it therefore which en-ables them to quickly colonise new habitats. The seems the right time to summarise the observations and re- wolf's diet is varied: it hunts both small and very large prey, sults obtained to date. A great amount of knowledge has been and also feeds on carrion and garbage left by humans. For a acquired during this period, not only in Switzerland but also in large mammal, the wolf has a remarkable reproductive rate: Italy, France and Germany, which should allow decisions to be under favourable conditions, litters of eight pups are not un- made based on facts and accumulated experience. The task of common. The ecological carrying capacity of the modern cul- KORA is to collect reliable information on large carnivores in tural landscape is therefore high (see Chapter 5.1) and it is Switzerland and to interpret this information objectively and obvious that both habitat quality and food availability would according to scientific criteria (Box 1.2). The 25th anniversary allow for much larger wolf populations than what humans of the return of the wolf to Switzerland is an opportunity for seem willing to tolerate. us to look back at the evolution of the Swiss wolf population 05

up to 1800 1800-1849 1850-1899 after 1900

Fig. 1.2. Historical evidence of wolves (mainly killed individuals) in Switzerland up to 1910 (Capt et al. 2005, wildlife database of the CSCF [Centre Suisse de la Cartographie de la Faune], Neuchâtel; www.cscf.ch).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 1. Introduction

to date, to gather facts and experiences and to compare them among Swiss politicians, for a long time to come. This report with the expectations and fears of the people. The wolf will aims to provide a sober and objective basis for future discus- continue to occupy people's minds, both in the public and sions.

45000 red deer 40000 roe deer

chamois 35000 wild boar 30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0 06 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Fig. 1.3. Evolution of hunting bags (regular + special hunting bag) of the most important ungulate game species in Switzerland according to the Federal Hunting Statistics (www.jagdstatistik.ch). The dotted lines represent the approximate trend of the evolution since 1912 (data according to Göldi 1914).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 1. Introduction

Box 1.1 Portrait of the wolf (Canis lupus)

Appearance: Similar in shape and size to a German Shepherd, but taller and leaner. Its tail is black at the tip and reaches the ankle joint. The tips of its ears are rounded. In the Alps, its fur is greyish beige with a light-coloured muzzle and a dark stripe on the front legs. In North America, there are also wolves with white and black fur.

Weight: About 30 kg in Central Europe, but very variable according to the subspecies.

Lifespan: Up to about 10 years (in the wild), up to 17 years (in captivity).

Mating season: January to March.

Gestation period: ~63 days.

Offspring: 3–8 pups. Between the ages of 10 months and two years, young wolves migrate over long distances (up to 1500 km).

Social behaviour: Lives in family groups (packs). Communication through vocalizations (howling), body language and scent marks (scats, urine).

Space requirements: Each pack defends a territory (in Central Europe, about 200-300 km²).

Habitat: Highly adaptable, it is present in forests, steppes, deserts, arctic tundra and even in highly urbanised areas. 07 Diet: Hunts red deer, roe deer and chamois in Central Europe and also wild boar in southern Europe. It occasionally kills livestock, small predators or small mammals and can also eat carrion.

History CH: Disappeared from Switzerland at the end of the 19th century. Natural recolonisation starting in 1995 from Italy.

Distribution: From North America to Europe and Asia.

Distribution CH: Today mainly in the Alps and the Pre-Alps. Since recently, also present in the Jura Mountains.

Fig. 1.1.1. This wolf from the canton of Grisons shows the typical appearance of the descendants of the French-Italian Alpine population. © L. Caviezel

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 1. Introduction

Box 1.2 The KORA Foundation

The lynx was reintroduced to Switzerland in 1971. From 1995 onwards, wolves from the French-Italian Alps began to migrate to Switzerland and since 2005, bears have been recolonising from Italy. Faced with the conflicts generated by the return of these species, it became apparent that solutions had to be found, which required scientific support using sound methods and pragmatic approaches. The "Swiss Lynx Project" worked on this task since the 1980s. From this project, the association KORA (Coordinated Research Projects for the Conservation and Management of Carnivores in Switzerland) was founded in 1994. On behalf of what was then the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL – now the FOEN), KORA no longer focused solely on the lynx, but began to monitor and study other predator species, in particular wolves and bears. In 1999, KORA was commissioned by the SAEFL to launch the first pilot projects for the protection of livestock. From 2003, this task was taken over by AGRIDEA (Association for the Develop- ment of Agriculture and Rural Areas), which set up a national coordination unit for livestock protection.

Since 2017, KORA has been a non-profit in state foundation called "KORA - Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Manage- ment". On behalf of the federal government and the cantons, KORA conducts the monitoring of large carnivores (lynx, wolves and bears) and realises research projects on the ecology of predators in today's cultural landscape and on the coexistence between humans and predators. KORA's projects aim to ensure the conservation and management of carnivores in order to guarantee their long-term survival as part of our native fauna. The results of KORA's research also aim to contribute to conflict resolution.

KORA's main tasks are as follows:

Monitoring: monitoring the evolution of carnivore populations in Switzerland using the most reliable (and scientifically robust) methods possible. 08 Research: research into the ecology and behaviour of carnivores in the modern cultural landscape and their interactions with humans and other species.

Information: informing authorities, interested parties and the general public through KORA-News, reports, scientific publications, conferences, a website and personalised responses to enquiries.

Advice: advice and support provided to authorities in the implementation of national legislation as well as participation in national and international working groups.

KORA’s main client is the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), which is responsible for the large carnivores protected under the National Hunting Act (ChPA; RS 922.0). KORA works closely with the cantonal hunting authorities and game wardens. In various national and international projects, KORA also receives support from scientific and nature conservation foundations.

For more information on the KORA Foundation and its projects, please visit www.kora.ch. All KORA reports are available there and can be downloaded in PDF format. Information on the occurrence of the monitored species can also be found in the KORA Monitoring Centre at www.koracenter.ch.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

2. The wolf story so far

2.1 Development of wolf populations in Europe

Evolution of the wolf populations in Europe In 1973, the newly founded Wolf Specialist Group of the Inter- national Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) held its first conference on the preservation of the wolf in Europe. At that time, the situation did not look very promising: by 1970, the wolf had almost completely disappeared or was even extinct in 14 European countries. In some central European countries (e.g. Great Britain, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland) the extirpation was largely completed already by the 19th century. In Scandinavia, the number of wolves had declined considerably after the Second World War, so that by the early 1970s, wolves that were still detected were probably dispersing individuals from the USSR. In southern and eastern Europe, and in the Baltic States, only small populations remained and were threatened (Fig. 2.1.1). Only Romania, Greece and countries of the former Yugoslavia still held viable wolf populations (Fig. 2.1.1; Pimlott 1975). Although their former range had already been reduced significantly, wolves were still hunted in almost all the countries where they still existed using every means possible. State-funded bounties for killing wolves were for instance common in Bulgaria, Poland, Greece, Romania and 09 Slovakia (Pimlott 1975). Fig. 2.1.1. Wolf distribution in Europe around 1950–1970 As a result of a growing public awareness of the effects of (source: Chapron et al. 2014, map by KORA). environmental degradation and species extinction, various international conventions on species protection were created and ratified during the 1970s and 1980s (Box 3.4.1). The wolf was also placed under protection after almost all European states signed the 1979 Bern Convention (see Chapter 3.4). As a result of the new legislations and an increase of wild prey, wolf populations recovered and spread again across different parts of Europe (Fig. 2.1.2). More and more countries that were previously free of wolves were repopulated (e.g. France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria), a development also owing to the wolf's ability to migrate hundreds of kilo- metres and colonise new territories (Andersen et al. 2015, Valière et al. 2003).

About fifty years after the first report on the status of the wolf in Europe (Pimlott 1975), the negative population trend was reversed in many regions (Table 2.1.1). However, some populations are still small and isolated (e.g. Scandinavia) and some even went extinct (Sierra Morena, Spain). Conflicts with livestock owners and hunters (Chapters 3.1 and 3.3) exist in all European countries and currently pose the greatest threat to growing wolf populations (Boitani 2018, LCIE 2019a).

Evolution of wolf populations in Switzerland's neighbouring Fig. 2.1.2. Current distribution of the wolf in Europe (data countries from 2012 to 2016). Dark violet squares = permanent pre- Italy – The wolf never disappeared completely in Italy, but it sence of wolves, light violet squares = sporadic presence was highly endangered. Around 1970, the remaining popula- of wolves (source: LCIE 2019a, map by KORA).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

Tab. 2.1.1. Status of the wolf populations in Europe (LCIE 2019a). Number of wolves Wolf population Countries Trend (Status 2012-2016) Scandinavian Norway, Sweden around 430 increasing Karelian Finland around 200 stable – increasing Baltic Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland 1700–2240 stable Central European lowlands Germany, Poland 780–1030 increasing Carpathian Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, 3460–3849 stable Hungary, Serbia Dinaric-Balkan Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, around 4000 unknown Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, Kosovo, Greece, Bulgaria Alpine Italy, France, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia 420–550 increasing Italian peninsula Italy 1100–2400 slightly increasing Iberian Spain, Portugal No recent update; 2007: unknown estimated at 2500 Sierra Morena Spain 0 extinct

tion in the Apennines was estimated at only about 100 indi- Austria – The last wolves disappeared around 1882 from viduals (Zimen & Boitani 1975). However, as a result of legal Styria (Zedrosser 1996). However, wolves from the Italian, 10 protection from 1971, the rural exodus, the expansion of forests the Dinaric-Balkan or the Carpathian population continued and the increase in prey populations, the Italian wolf popula- to migrate through Austria, so that even in the 20th century, tion recovered and spread northwards into the Alps (Breiten- solitary wolves were regularly observed or hunted there (Ze- moser-Würsten et al. 2001, Lucchini et al. 2002). The French drosser 1996). As the populations of the Alps and the Central and Swiss Alps were then repopulated from the Italian Alps European lowlands (Germany, Poland) continue to grow, Aus- in the 1990s. In 2012, the male wolf "Slavc", equipped with tria is becoming a sort of "melting pot" of wolves from various a radio-collar in Slovenia, migrated to the province of Verona, origins. The first pack was formed in Lower Austria in 2016. where he formed a pack with the Italian female wolf "Giulietta" In 2019, two packs were confirmed in Lower Austria and two (Regione Veneto 2014). This was the first time that the Italian more packs were suspected to have been formed along the wolf population, which had remained isolated for a long time, border region of Upper Austria. In addition, several single mixed with individuals from the Dinaric-Balkan population. The wolves have been genetically identified across the country Italian wolf population currently numbers between 1100 and (Rauer 2019). 2400 individuals (Table 2.1.1). In 2017/2018, 46 wolf packs and five pairs were detected in the Italian Alps, which according to Germany – In many parts of Germany wolves were exter- a minimum estimate, corresponds to about 290 wolves (Maruc- minated as early as the 18th century. Although the last wolf co et al. 2018). was killed in 1904 in the Lusatian region of eastern Germany, solitary individuals, probably immigrants, were occasionally France – The last wolves in France probably disappeared bet- killed thereafter (Blazek 2014). It was only after the reuni- ween 1930 and 1939 (de Beaufort 1987). However, since 1992, fication of Germany in 1990 that the wolf was protected wolves from the Italian Alpine population have migrated to throughout the country. At the end of the 1990s, Saxony was France. The first packs were formed in the Mercantour Natio- once again colonised by wolves from western Poland which nal Park in the 1990s (Poulle et al. 1999). Since then, there has subsequently had their first litter there in 2000 (Reinhardt et been a constant increase in the wolf population in the French al. 2019). From there, the wolf population has been spreading Alps, followed by an expansion into the Pyrenees and the Mas- to other parts of Germany and individuals have migrated to sif Central from the early 2000s. Since the beginning of the neighbouring countries (e.g. Denmark and the Netherlands). 2010s, wolves have also started to spread to the Vosges and Genetic analyses have shown that a large proportion of Ger- the Franco-Swiss Jura Mountains (Louvrier et al. 2018). In win- man wolves are descended from the two females "Sunny" ter 2018/2019, the French wolf population has been estimated and "One-eye", daughters of the first pack of Saxon wolves to be around 530 individuals. In summer 2019, 80 wolf packs (Nowak & Harms 2014). Military training areas have evident- were observed in France, most of them in the Alps (ONCFS ly played an important role in the surprisingly rapid growth 2019). of the population, as wolves found sufficient prey there and

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

140 pairs 120 packs

100

60 Number

monitoring year

Fig. 2.1.3. Development of the wolf population in Germany (confirmed packs and pairs) (source: DBBW 2018, 2019a). were protected from human persecution (Reinhardt et al. wolves are increasingly likely to repopulate Liechtenstein. At 2019). In 2018/2019, 105 wolf packs and 25 pairs lived in Ger- the end of 2018, a wolf was identified genetically for the first many (Fig. 2.1.3). time. It turned out to be a young female wolf stemming from 11 the Calanda pack in the canton of Grisons (Landesverwaltung Liechtenstein – The last wolf in Liechtenstein was killed in 1812 Fürstentum Liechtenstein 2019). (Broggi 1979). With the increase of the population in the Alps,

2.2 Chronology of the recolonisation of Switzerland by the wolf

Individual observations of wolves following their extirpation 1995–2003: first migrations from the Franco-Italian Alps The wolf is thought to have been extirpated from Switzerland By the 1970s, the wolf had disappeared from all the neigh- at the end of the 19th century. However, during the 20th cen- bouring countries of Switzerland with the exception of Italy tury, solitary individuals of unknown origin were observed on (see Chapter 2.1). However, thanks to legal protection in Italy several occasions (Etter 1992). These sightings have always from 1971 onwards, the population in the Apennines gradually been the subject of extensive media coverage ("Monster of recovered and spread to the western Alps. In the mid-1980s, the Valais", 1947) and have provoked strong emotional reac- wolves were observed for the first time in the Apennines at tions. In 1978 in Lenzerheide, the school was even closed after the level of Genoa. In 1992, two wolves were observed in the a wolf was seen near the village during the day (Dufresnes French Mercantour National Park (Houard & Lequette 1993). et al. 2019a, Fessler 2012). Whenever wolves were observed From October 1994, rumours began to circulate about the and attacks on livestock increased, large hunting parties were mysterious "Beast of the Val Ferret" in the canton of Valais. organised (Etter 1992, Fessler 2012). Four wolves shot in the Livestock had been killed and several people claimed to have 20th century, which were preserved in Swiss museums, could observed a wolf. Predation of livestock occurred again in the be genetically analysed. The results showed that two individu- summer of 1995 in the same region. Genetic analysis of scat als that were shot shortly after the Second World War, were samples found in September 1995 in the vicinity of predated last remaining descendants from the original Alpine popula- sheep revealed the presence of wolf of French-Italian origin tion which had migrated to Switzerland. The two other wol- (Landry 1997). In February 1996, the first picture of a wolf was ves (killed in 1978 and 1990) genetically originated from the finally taken above Liddes in the Val Ferret (Fig. 1.1). In the populations in Eastern Europe and the Middle East (Fig. 2.2.1; following years, single male wolves continued to migrate to Dufresnes et al. 2019a). The wolf shot in Hägendorf in 1990 the cantons of Valais, Ticino and Grisons (Fig. 2.2.2). However , was probably an animal that escaped from captivity. it was not until 2002 that the first female wolf (F01) was de-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

in Switzerland, settling in a region for a longer period. In order to monitor the growing wolf population, methods other than genetic monitoring became increasingly important (Box 2.2.2). Hägendorf, 1996 Examples of wolves detected over several years in the same area include the males M09 (Surselva, GR), M11 (Leventina, TI) and M20 (Entlebuch, LU/OW) and the female F05 (Gan- Lenzerheide, 1978 trisch, FR/BE). Measures to protect livestock were increasingly used along the axes of expansion of the population and in Puschlav, 1954 areas where wolves were resident (see Chapter 4.2). In 2010, Eischoll, 1947 the first confirmed pair of wolves in Switzerland was formed

Population of origin in the Montana-Varneralp region in the canton of Valais. How- Alps ever, this pair consisting of the female wolf F06 and the male Eastern Europe M16, could not produce any offspring. As they predated cattle, Middle East the authorities issued a permit to shoot them. At that time, Fig. 2.2.1. Between the extirpation at the end of the 19th there were no suitable protection measures for cattle in place century and the re-colonisation from 1995 onwards, solitary yet and political pressure was very intense. Roberto Schmidt, wolves were observed or killed at several occasions in Switzer- a Valaisan member of the National Council for the PDC, may land. Genetic analyses of four wolves killed in the 20th century, be remembered for his landmark statement "Today cattle, to- all museum specimens, provided information on their origins morrow children" (Schmidt 2010). Thus, the male M16, which (source: Dufresnes et al. 2019a, map by KORA). had already been detected in the cantons of Bern, Fribourg and Vaud before its arrival in the Valais, was legally shot on tected in the Italian-Swiss border area (Fig. 2.2.3). This is a the Alp Scex in the early morning of 11 August 2010 (Canton typical pattern observed in wolves: the males migrate first to du Valais 2010). Shortly after the legal shooting, some further new areas, followed by females (Fabbri et al. 2014). Thanks to damage to livestock occured in the region, but the female wolf an exchange of genetic samples between laboratories in Swit- F06 could no longer be identified genetically and henceforth zerland, France and Italy, the exact origin of various individu- disappeared from the area. 12 als detected in Switzerland could be clearly determined (Box 2.2.1). For example, the female wolf F01, came from the Valle 2012–2019: formation of packs and development of the popu- Pesio pack from Piedmont, Italy (Marucco & Avanzinelli 2010). lation Other Swiss wolves had also been previously identified gene- Switzerland's first wolf pack formed in 2012 in the Calanda tically in the region of the two national parks of Mercantour (F) massif in the canton of Grisons. The responsible game war- and Alpi Marittime (I) (J.-M. Weber, personal communication). dens had already detected the presence of two wolves in the area as early as autumn/winter 2011–2012. Genetic eviden- 2004–2011: spreading of solitary wolves and first mating pairs ce of the female wolf F07 and the male M30 was provided From 2004 onwards, more and more male wolves, but increasing- in summer 2012. Both individuals had already been detected ly also females, migrated to Switzerland. Figure 2.2.2 clearly during the summer of 2011 in the Vispertal in the canton of Va- shows the trend of expansion from south-west to north-east lais. On 8 May 2012, a private person managed to photograph along the main valleys of the cantons of Valais, Ticino and Gri- a clearly pregnant wolf, but it was not until 27 August 2012 sons and along the Pre-Alps. Solitary wolves became resident when a hunter, using a camera trap, was able to photograph

1996–2003 2004–2011

Fig. 2.2.2.Signs of wolf presence in Switzerland 1996‒2003 (left) and 2004‒2011 (right). Grey circles = all certain detections (SCALP category 1: photos, DNA evidence). Squares = genetic evidence of solitary male wolves. Triangles = genetic evidence of solitary female wolves. For each individual, only the last genetic record of that period is indicated (source: KORA).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

Fig. 2.2.3. Photo of the first female wolf (F01) in the Swiss/Italian border area, taken on 25.05.2005 on the Alpe Monscera (I). © R. Bionda a wolf pup near Untervaz, thus providing the first evidence of After the first reproduction in the Calanda massif, other wolf successful reproduction of the wolf in Switzerland since its packs began to form. In 2016, three packs already had litters extirpation (Fig. 2.2.4). From 2012 onwards, the Calanda pack in Switzerland: in the Calanda massif (GR), in the Augstbord successfully reared offspring every year. A total of 38 pups region (VS) and in the valley of Morobbia (TI). In the region were documented genetically (17 females, 21 males; see Box of Gantrisch (FR/BE), a female wolf (F13) and a male (M64) 13 2.2.1 for genetic analyses). Many of these pups migrated to were also seen together (Fig. 2.2.5). However, the female wolf other cantons (Zurich, Schwyz, Bern, Ticino, etc.), into neigh- F13 was poisoned in June 2017 and was found in the vicinity bouring countries (e.g. Germany, Liechtenstein and Italy) or of six foxes, a badger, a domestic cat and a red kite, which disappeared, while ten pups were demonstrably killed (traffic, had all also died from poison (sda/ andj 2017). The autopsy poaching and injuries). Also other wolves, whose presence suggested that the female wolf had had at least one pup (E. had been confirmed in Switzerland, subsequently migrated Pesenti, personal communication). The Gantrisch pack was elsewhere. For example, a shooting authorisation was issued thus destroyed by poaching. In 2017, the female wolf of the for the male wolf M58 which had killed 32 sheep in the can- Augstbord pack (F14) also disappeared. The male (M59) subse- tons of Uri and Nidwalden (Kanton Uri 2015). However, before quently roamed through the Central Valais region with two of the wolf could be shot, it migrated first to Vorarlberg and then his daughters (F23, F24) and a newly immigrated male (M73). to Bavaria. They, however, did not reproduce in 2018; in that same year a

Fig. 2.2.4. This camera trap photo taken in 2012 in the Calanda massif provided the first proof of wolf reproduction in Switzerland. © O. Galliard

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

Box 2.2.1 Genetic monitoring of the wolf population in Switzerland

From the beginning of the recolonisation of the Swiss Alps by the wolf in the mid-1990s, it was obvious that only the development of non-invasive genetic analyses had the potential to provide accurate, reliable and continuous information on the identity and presence of different wolf individuals across the territory. Non-invasive genetic analyses use biological samples left behind by animals in the field, such as droppings, saliva, hair, urine, etc. By analysing these samples, it is possible to determine to which species they belong and even to identify different individuals, their population of origin and their kin relationships. These analyses are therefore ideal when studying an elusive animal such as the wolf, whose identification by direct observation or capture is problematic or often impossible. However, the small amount of DNA in non-invasive samples (often in the order of a picogram, i.e. a thousand times lighter than a billionth of a gram) and its generally advanced degradation make their analysis considerably more complex and time-consuming than for conventional biological samples (blood, tissue). Moreover, the risk of contamination by genetic material of another animal species (‘foreign DNA’) is higher (Fig. 2.2.1.1). The Laboratory for Conservation Biology of the University of Lausanne (LBC) is an institution combining both fundamental and applied research programmes on a large number of species. Since 1999, special logistics dedicated to non-invasive genetic analyses were set up (physically separate laboratories exclusively devoted to the analysis of samples with low DNA content) and specific analysis protocols were developed to minimise the issues mentioned above (namely by repeating certain steps several times to reduce error risks). The analyses that are carried out can be divided into two main types: (i) a genetic analysis to identify the species; (ii) a genetic analysis to identify the individuals (‘genotyping’). The latter type of analysis is much more sensitive to the low quantity and quality of DNA, resulting in a lower success rate. From 1999 to 2018, the Laboratory for Conservation Biology has analysed around 4’000 biological samples collected non-invasively in the field by the responsible cantonal authorities and under the coordination of KORA, with a constant annual increase. Ap- proximately 1’900 samples were assigned to the wolf, out of which 136 different individuals were identified (91 males and 45 females). This figure represents an underestimation of the total number of wolves that have transited our country. The reasons for this are in particular that sampling is not conducted exhaustively on the Swiss territory and that a significant proportion of samples will not give an individual DNA profile that can be correctly interpreted due to the technical reasons 14 mentioned above. Non-invasive genetic analyses allow for the confirmation of the origin, presence and movements of a particular wolf in the field and its possible involvement in the attack on livestock, as well as for the description of pack composition. From a practical point of view, these results contribute to the monitoring and management of the wolf in Switzerland, by providing additional information for decisions on financial compensation of killed livestock, authorised shootings of wolves or legal investigations in suspected poaching caseworks. Thanks to numerous international scientific collaborations, genetic analyses have confirmed that the wolf has naturally recolonized the Alps from the surviving Italian wild population in the Apen- nines. In the first decades of wolf recolonisation, only one genetic variant was identified for all wolves in the French and Swiss Alps, which is only present in the Apennine population and nowhere else in the world (Valière et al. 2003). Population genetic analyses have also determined that this recolonisation originates from a small number of individuals (mostly males) dispersing over long distances and that there was a loss of genetic diversity during this multi-step recolonisation process (Fabbri et al. 2007). In recent years, some individual wolves have been genotyped in Switzerland that are crosses between wolves from the Italian genetic lineage and wolves from other populations (e.g. Central Europe/Balkans) (L. Fumagalli, pers. comm.). This shows that the Alpine population is getting reconnected to other European wolf populations (see Chapter 2.1). A recent study also indicates that only a negligible proportion of all wolves identified genetically in Switzerland over the past 20 years show signs of recent crossbreeding with dogs ("hybridization") (Dufresnes et al. 2019b). In order to follow the ongoing technological developments, the Labo- ratory for Conservation Biology is developing a new genotyping system based on recent high-throughput DNA sequencing techniques, which, unlike the current system, will in particular make it possible to compare data produced at different time periods and by different laboratories.

Fig. 2.2.1.1. Meticulous lab work is essential for non- invasive genetic analyses in order to prevent contamination with ‘‘foreign DNA’’ and minimise the risks of errors. © L. Fumagalli

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

15 Fig. 2.2.5. Signs of wolf presence in Switzerland 2012–2019. Grey circles = all certain detections (SCALP category 1: "hard facts" such as photos, DNA evidence). Red ellipses = confirmed wolf packs. Red ellipses (dotted lines) = confirmed wolf packs that disbanded during this period. Mar = Marchairuz, Cha = Chablais, Gan = Gantrisch, M-W = Central Va- lais/Mittelwallis, Aug = Augstbord, Mor = Morobbia, Gro = Val Gronda, Rin = Ringelspitz, Bev = Beverin, Cal= Calanda. Squares = genetic evidence of solitary male wolves. Triangles = genetic evidence of solitary female wolves. For each individual, only the last genetic record of that period is indicated (source: KORA). total of four wolf packs lived in Switzerland (Calanda (GR), Rin- portant role in the development of the wolf population during gelspitz (GR), Morobbia (TI), Central Valais/ Mittelwallis (VS)). the initial phase of recolonisation. As the wolves there were The following year, the number of packs had already increased protected from human persecution (Reinhardt et al. 2019), a to eight (Fig. 2.2.6). Three of the new packs formed in the Gri- population nucleus was established adjacent to the first pack. sons, near the Calanda massif. In the case of the Ringelspitz The wolves' main migration route to Switzerland is through pack, a daughter born to the alpha female of the Calanda pack the main valleys of the Valais. It took 21 years for the first in 2017 (F33) had mated with the male M56 which was an pack to be confirmed in this canton. From the first repopulation individual known to inhabit the region since 2015. In 2019, the phase, however, there were numerous killings recorded there: wolves F24 and F73 from the Central Valais (Mittelwallis) pack six individuals were legally shot between 1998 and 2010 in mated. The first formation of a pack in the Jura Mountains the canton of Valais, and one was poached (Table 2.2.1). These also occurred in 2019, in the Col du Marchairuz region on the early losses along the main migration route are probably one border with France (Fig. 2.2.5). of the reasons for the slow growth of the wolf population in Switzerland. It is possible that the special topography of the From 2015 onwards, the number of wolf packs in Switzerland Alps, with its valleys interspersed with high mountain ranges, began to increase rapidly. A similar development had already may have been an obstacle to the extensive settlement of been observed in Germany and France, where wolves were wolves, too. In any case, the first three wolf packs in Switzer- steadily spreading into new areas (Fig. 2.1.3). In contrast to land were established completely independently of each other the situation in Germany, where the first pack was formed two (Calanda (GR), Morobbia (TI), Augstbord (VS)). years after the first wolves appeared and where the number of packs had already risen sharply ten years later, it took 20 years Wolf mortality causes from 1995–2019 before pack formation gained momentum in Switzerland. In The discovery of a dead wolf is subject to report in Switzer- Germany, military training areas apparently played an im- land. All dead wolves are examined at the Centre for Fish and

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

Tab. 2.2.1 Wolves found dead that are known from the Swiss wolf monitoring (1998–2019). No. Date Canton Place Sex Wolf Cause of death 1 21.11.1998 VS Reckingen male M01 poaching 2 14.01.1999 VS Simplon male M02 traffic 3 25.08.2000 VS Evolène male M06 legally shot 4 25.08.2000 VS Unterbäch ?? legally shot 5 29.09.2001 GR Bregaglia male M07 legally shot 6 23.03.2006 BE Gsteigwiler male M13 traffic 7 26.10.2006 VS Goms female F03 legally shot 8 21.11.2006 VS Collombey male M15 legally shot 9 21.08.2009 VS Val d'Illiez male M21 legally shot 10 11.08.2010 VS Mollens male M16 legally shot 11 22.06.2013 TI Ranzo male M36 traffic 12 02.09.2013 VS Obergoms male M35 legally shot 13 03.01.2014 GR Tamins male M42 poaching 14 28.01.2014 GR Domleschg male M44 accidentally shot 15 18.06.2014 ZH Zürich male M43 traffic 16 05.04.2015 TI Albumo female F15 deadly injured 17 22.06.2015 D Lahr (BW) male M53 traffic 18 26.11.2015 D Merklingen (BW) male M48 traffic 19 07.03.2016 VS Raron male M63 poaching 20 14.03.2016 GR Sils i.D male M67 poaching 21 28.07.2016 UR Attinghausen male M68 legally shot 16 22 22.12.2016 VS Ergisch female F22 legally shot/pack regulation 23 22.02.2017 VS Val d'Annivers female F16 poaching 24 09.06.2017 FR Jaun female F13 poaching 25 05.02.2018 VS Blitzingen female F28 accidentally shot 26 15.02.2018 GR Tamins female F29 traffic 27 04.04.2018 SG Bad Ragatz male M71 legally shot 28 03.07.2018 GR Fläsch male M86 disease, legally shot 29 14.09.2018 TI Bellinzona female F08 disease 30 22.09.2018 GR Trin male M90 fallen 31 05.10.2018 GR Trin male M91 fallen 32 12.10.2018 GR Trin female F39 fallen 33 21.11.2018 GR Landquart female F47 traffic 34 19.02.2019 GR Flims female F48 traffic 35 09.04.2019 VS Grengiols male ? poaching 36 09.06.2019 GR Surses male F51 traffic 37 04.10.2019 GR Ilanz female F58 legally shot/pack regulation 38 04.10.2019 GR Ilanz male M102 legally shot/pack regulation 39 23.11.2019 GR Masein male M120 legally shot/pack regulation 40 25.11.2019 GR Cazis male M104 traffic 41 15.12.2019 GR Tamins male ? traffic 42 26.12.2019 GR Brigels female F55 traffic 43 27.12.2019 GR Trin female F52 traffic

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

Box 2.2.2 Monitoring methods

Why do we need to monitor wildlife? In wildlife biology, monitoring involves the continuous observation of the evolution of animal populations and their living conditions. It is important to know the status and evolution of a population over time to ensure the conservation of a species and to detect changes or threats as quickly as possible. Monitoring serves as a basis for management measures and for the evaluation of their effectiveness. Monitoring programmes can also help involve stakeholders in the conservation or management of species (Jones et al. 2011).

What is monitored? Different parameters can be monitored depending on the question and the objective of the monitoring programme (Zim- mermann 2019). Wolf monitoring, for example, includes measuring parameters such as distribution range, number of packs, population size, pack size and pack composition, as well as the confirmation of successful reproductions and evaluation of health status. As it is difficult to produce accurate estimates of the size of a wolf population, indices that are easier to determine, such as the number of packs (families), pairs and resident single wolves, are generally used.

What are the monitoring methods used for the wolf? Generally speaking, a distinction is made between passive and active monitoring. In the case of passive monitoring, coincidental reports are documented, e.g. dead wolves, predated livestock and/or wild animals, chance observations such as sightings (with photos), tracks or scats. Passive monitoring has the advantage that it is inexpensive and can be carried out over a large area and over a long period of time. On the other hand, it relies on the willingness of the population to report their observations of animals, and it is more susceptible to false species identification, as less experienced people may, for example, confuse wolf and dog tracks. It is therefore recommended to classify all data according to their reliability, using the three SCALP categories (Molinari-Jobin et al. 2012): Category 1) "Hard facts", e.g. dead wolves, photos, genetic evidence; Category 2) Evidence confirmed by trained persons; Category 3) Unconfirmed evidence, e.g. visual observations without a photograph. 17 Active monitoring refers to the targeted and systematic collection of data in order to achieve the objectives defined in the monitoring programme (Breitenmoser et al. 2006). This type of monitoring is more time-consuming and expensive but provides systematic data on specific issues. Four monitoring methods are particularly suitable for the wolf:

1) The systematic tracking of wolves in winter along predetermined transects is an established but relatively expensive method that is used in areas where wolves are permanently present, to determine the minimum pack size and composition. For example, this method is used in Scandinavia, Italy and France (Manz et al. 2014). As soon as a possible wolf track is detected, the transect is abandoned and the track is followed until it can clearly be confirmed to be that of a wolf's and the minimum number of wolves can be determined (at least 3 km; Liberg et al. 2012). In addition, samples for genetic analysis can be collected. The optimal solution would be to do all transects in one area simultaneously. However, this would require a large number of people to be available simultaneously to carry out the fieldwork. In addition, the snow conditions of the rather mild winters in our latitudes rarely meet the requirements of this method. Consequently, the idea of carrying out all transects simultaneously has been abandoned. However, the effort spent in the field should be as similar as possible for each expected wolf territory (Zimmermann 2019).

2) The collection of samples such as tissue of dead wolves, saliva collected from killed prey or scats provide material for the genetic monitoring. This method is discussed in more detail in Box 2.2.1.

3) In recent years, camera trapping which is an established method used for the lynx has proved its worth also for the wolf. Camera traps are set up on paths regularly used by wolves or around prey animals killed by wolves. This method makes it possible, for example, to detect pups (Fig. 2.2.2.1), or to collect data on minimum pack size and distribution range (Reinhardt et al. 2015). However, wolves cannot be identified individually on camera trap photos. Therefore, unlike the lynx, the size of the wolf population cannot be estimated using the "capture-mark-recapture" method (KORA 2020).

4) Acoustic monitoring: wolves howl spontaneously or may be induced to howl by humans imitating them or by playing a sound recording. Computer analysis of sound recordings of howling provides information on the presence of pups and the minimum number of individuals in the pack (Zimmermann 2019). Elicited howling works best between July and Octo- ber (Gazzola et al. 2002), when the pups can still be recognised as juveniles by their high-pitched voices and do not move

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 2. The wolf story so far

with the adults yet (Nowak et al. 2007, Gazzola et al. 2002). However, because howling simulations are time-consuming and success rates are low (wolves do not respond every time), this method has been somewhat overshadowed by the use of camera traps (Reinhardt et al. 2015). New technical tools such as acoustic sensors (e.g. the "Songmeter") allow the systematic recording of spontaneous howling. Although the effort for fieldwork is considerably reduced since the acoustic sensors automatically record the sounds (Suter 2019), hours of sound recordings must then be analysed in order to find the wolf howls. However, considering the increasing automation of these types of data analysis, this method has a promising future (Zimmermann 2019).

Monitoring wolves in Switzerland The Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) has commissioned the KORA Foundation (Carnivore Ecology and Wildlife Management) to carry out the national wolf monitoring. KORA documents all signs of wolf presence and coordinates the collection of genetic samples, which are analysed at the Laboratory for Conservation Biology at the University of Lausanne (Box 2.2.1). The presence of a wolf in a region is mainly confirmed by genetic samples, photos and predated game or livestock. If there is indication of the formation of a pair or pack, KORA supports the cantons to intensify monitoring of the respective area (e.g. by means of camera traps), in order to confirm the formation of packs with reliable evidence. All signs of wolf presence can be reported to KORA (forms: https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=158&L=1) and can be viewed and downloaded from the KORA Monitoring Centre website (https://www.koracenter.ch).

Fig. 2.2.2.1. Camera traps can be used to demonstrate reproductive success – here the pups from the Calanda pack in 2017. © R. Gadient, game warden, Office for Hunting and Fishing, Canton of Grisons

Wildlife Health (FIWI) at the University of Berne to determine return (DBBW 2020), compared to 14 so far in Switzerland. The the cause of death. By the end of 2019, 43 wolf mortalities most frequent cause of known wolf mortality in Switzerland were reported in Switzerland, most of which were caused by is legal shooting in correspondence with the Federal Law on humans (Table 2.2.1). It should be noted, however, that natural the Hunting and Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds (LChP; deaths often go unnoticed. Individuals that are victims of road SR 922.0). This law states that wolves causing damage may and train collisions are more likely to be found. Nevertheless, be killed under certain conditions (see Chapter 4.3). Since the it can be said that traffic accidents still represent one of the recolonisation, 15 wolves were legally killed in Switzerland, most important mortality factors for wolves in Europe. In Ger- seven were poached and two were shot accidentally during many alone, 340 wolves have been killed by traffic since their fox hunt-ing (Table 2.2.1).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

3. Challenges

3.1 Livestock Predation

Conflicts due to wolf predation on livestock Across Europe, conflicts between agriculture and the return the losses during the summer season are caused by large of the wolf are mainly related to extensive livestock farm- carnivores (mainly wolves). Diseases and accidents such as ing, in particular sheep and goat grazing in hilly and moun- falls, rock slides or lightning are far more frequent causes of tainous regions (Mettler 2019). Today, this type of livestock death (Werder 2012). Nevertheless, for farmers individually farming is of little importance in the Swiss economy and, as affected, attacks by wolves on sheep can cause considerable it is no longer profitable, it is often only practised as a side- damage (financial and emotional loss). For rare breeds of do- line occupation. However, for landscape management and mestic animals in particular, the death of a breeding animal biodiversity conservation purposes, sheep and goat farming can lead to the loss of valuable bloodlines. Depending on the in Switzerland is supported by public subsidies (Box 3.1.1). region, sheep and goat breeding are part of a long tradition More than 90% of the livestock killed by wolves in Central which is deeply rooted in local customs (Box 3.1.1). The wolf Europe are sheep, 6–8% are goats and only 2% are cattle is seen as a threat to this custom, which is already subject to or horses (Mettler 2019). Most wolves are therefore not a upheavals in this period of modernisation and restructuring major problem for the economically more important cattle or of agriculture (Lauber et al. 2014). Moreover, wolves often horse breeding. In some areas, however, localised damage kill several sheep when they attack. Generally, sheep do not on cattle can be much greater. In the Lessinia region of Italy, flee in the event of danger but gather in the shelter of the for example, attacks on calves became more frequent from flock. The wolf's killing instinct is then triggered several times 2012 onwards after a pack of wolves settled there. Lessinia and it attacks more animals than it can consume. Livestock is characterised by special conditions compared to the rest of which are seriously injured are often left behind. Under natu- the Alps: the number of sheep and goats grazing freely there ral conditions, a wolf pack rarely manages to capture more is very low compared to the number of cattle (Vareschi 2016). than one animal, but when it does (e.g. if there is deep snow), the pack will then consume the carcasses over time (Kruuk 19 In Switzerland, the increase in the wolf population correlates 1972). However, as any attack on sheep is usually followed with an increase in the number of livestock compensated as by a massive disturbance due to humans examining the car- wolf kills. It is to be noted, however, that annual losses do not casses, the wolves do not return. This behaviour is equated depend only on wolf numbers; in some years losses have been with "wanton and cruel killing" and further intensifies con- particularly high despite a low wolf population – or vice versa flicts with livestock farmers. (Fig. 3.1.1), which shows that other factors (e.g. the use of livestock protection measures) also play a significant role in Attitude of livestock farmers towards protection measures the development of damage to livestock. As in the rest of Eu- Approximately 90% of the damage caused to livestock in rope, sheep are mainly predated on in Switzerland (Fig. 3.1.2). Switzerland occurs in pastures that are not protected by live- However, if we consider the mortality of sheep during sum- stock guardian dogs (AGRIDEA 2019a). In addition, herds that mer grazing on alpine pastures in Switzerland, the wolf is are fully surrounded by an electrified fence only rarely suf- a factor of minor importance numerically; only about 6% of fer from predation (Hansen 2018). If this is the case, why not

600 100

livestock compensated 90 genetically identified wolves Fig. 3.1.1. Development of the 500 80 number of genetically identified wolves and the number of 70 400 livestock compensated as wolf 60 kills in Switzerland from 1999 300 50 to 2019. Only those wolves that 40 could be identified individually number of wolves number of livestock 200 by genetic analyses were taken 30 into account (sources: KORA, 20 100 Laboratory of Conservation 10 Biology, GRIDS (accessed on

0 0 20.07.2020)).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

forms have also led to major changes in agriculture in recent decades (Schweizer Bauernverband 2019). Livestock protection measures are therefore sometimes perceived as a "new hassle" by the state.

In many places, the conflict between wolves and livestock is also an indicator of the discord between the urban population, which is environmentally sensitive and favourable to wolves, and the traditional values of the rural population which is directly concerned and is sceptical of wolves (Caluori & Hunzi- ker 2001, see Chapter 4.5). According to a survey conducted by Pro Natura in 2019, 79% of Swiss people do not want wolves Fig. 3.1.2. A sheep killed by a wolf: the other side of the to be killed if the farmers do not protect their livestock (GFS coin of the wolf’s return to Switzerland. © K. Schweizer Zürich 2019). For the farmers affected, the return of the wolf is a threat to their familiar daily and professional lives (Met- tler 2019). It is therefore not surprising that the attitude of the protect all livestock? In countries such as Switzerland, where national livestock breeders' associations towards protection large carnivores have disappeared since the beginning of the measures is critical (Federation suisse d'elevage ovin 2017, 20th century, livestock protection was reduced to a minimum Societe suisse d'economie alpestre 2018). The demands of for economic reasons. Farms in alpine areas were increas- the associations range from greater financial support for live- ingly run on a sideline basis, where sheep grazing provided stock protection measures and a simplification of the condi- a labour-saving way of maintaining poorly accessible pas- tions for shooting wolves to the outright withdrawal from the tures originally used for cattle (Bürgi et al. 2014). Moreover, Bern Convention (Federation suisse d'elevage ovin 2017). a reduction in production costs, for example for lamb meat, was more beneficial to farmers' incomes than an increase in Differences between cantons slaughter revenues (Gazzarin 2018). As a result, in order to Not all Swiss cantons are affected by wolf attacks on live- 20 minimise labour costs, many animals were left on the alpine stock in the same way. Between 2016 and 2018, for exam- pastures grazing freely and for the most part unattended; ple, almost half of the damage to livestock occurred in the thus, the knowledge about effective livestock protection canton of Valais (Fig. 3.1.3). This canton was the first to be measures was lost (Landry 1999, Mettler 2019). When the recolonised by wolves (first verified evidence in 1995), and wolf recolonised Switzerland, livestock protection measures since then has been the most important immigration route for were not yet in place and state advisory services were lacking wolves stemming from the French-Italian Alpine wolf popula- or poorly developed. Since then, the situation has improved tion. This explains the regular presence of several wolves in (see Chapter 4.2). However, the implementation of livestock the canton (see Chapter 2.2). However, it appears that the protection measures is still a major challenge, especially for equation "more wolves = more damage" does not always small farms and sheep farms run on a sideline basis, since the work; Figure 3.1.3 shows that extensive damage can also oc- cost of protection is considerable in relation to the size of the cur in cantons where there are only solitary wolves, in which farm (Mettler 2019). Some sheep farmers therefore refuse to case this damage can be caused by both transient (Uri) and apply protective measures even after wolf attacks. In some resident (Bern) animals. Similarly, there are cantons where cases, alpine pastures may be abandoned after attacks on attacks on livestock are rare despite the permanent presence livestock, in order to avoid further damage (Seidl et al. 2014). of territorial solitary wolves (Schwyz) or even packs (Vaud).

Scepticism or refusal by livestock farmers to use protective In this context, the comparison between the cantons of measures for their herds varies from region to region. Among Grisons and Valais is particularly interesting. Two wolf packs the possible reasons are: increased workload and costs, and several solitary individuals lived in each of these two can- categorical rejection of the wolf ("protecting livestock also tons between 2016 and 2018. During this period, 18 wolves means accepting the wolf") or general rejection of changes were genetically identified in the Valais and 37 in the Grisons. in agricultural policy (D. Mettler, personal communication). At the same time, more than 36,000 sheep were kept in the As a result of falling prices and international competition, Valais and 41,000 sheep in the Grisons (SFSO 2019b). How- Swiss agriculture has become increasingly dependent on ever, although the number of wolves and sheep was higher in state subsidies such as direct payments. Depending on the the Grisons, around twice as many attacks were recorded in region, for example, the share of direct payments can consti- the Valais (Fig. 3.1.3). Why was this the case? tute between one third and three quarters of the total income from sheep farming (Gazzarin 2018). However, state subsidies There are several possible reasons for this: the most obvi- (e.g. summer pasturing subsidies for grazing animals) are sub- ous are the differences between the two cantons in terms of ject to certain conditions (see Chapter 4.2) which limit the farm structures and in the implementation of livestock pro- entrepreneurial autonomy of farmers. Several agricultural re- tection measures. Compared with the rest of Switzerland, in

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

the canton of Valais more sheep are kept on permanent pas- Little is known about the role of the wolf as an individual tures and fewer on rotational pastures or under permanent or a pack as a distinct entity in the occurrence of damage. shepherding, which means that more sheep are grazing freely Figure 3.1.3 shows that not all wolves appear to cause the on pastures without fencing or the permanent presence of a same amount of damage. However, it is not known whether shepherd than in the rest of Switzerland. This is partly due to there are real "sheep specialists" or whether it is the particu- the inaccessibility and difficult topography of alpine pastures in lar conditions in certain regions (e.g. lack of livestock protec- the Valais. By contrast, electrified Flexinets are used on many tion) that make any wolves living there kill livestock sooner alpine sheep pastures in the canton of Grisons (D. Hilfiker, per- or later. Various studies indicate that stable situations with sonal communication). The breeding of Valais blacknose sheep, well-established wolf packs that cause little damage should which is widespread in the Upper Valais, also has some special not be disturbed (Imbert et al. 2016). Changes in pack struc- features. For most breeders, it is an ancillary activity carried ture may even be counterproductive, as the remaining wolves out on small farms with no economic objective (tradition, iden- could disperse unpredictably or even cause more damage to tification). Sheep shows and sheep markets are organised as livestock the following year (Fernández-Gil 2014, Treves et al. part of regional folklore festivals, and the Valais blacknose is an 2016). In this context, the comparison between the wolf pack important symbol of the identity of the Upper Valais (Mettler et in the Calanda region of the cantons of Grisons and St Gal- al. 2014). In this context, financial incentives for the conversion len and the wolf pack in the Augstbord/Central Valais region of the grazing system (from free grazing to rotational grazing or is interesting. The mating pair of the Calanda pack had their permanent shepherding) only have a limited effect. Moreover, first offspring in 2012 and stayed alive until at least 2019. from 2016 to 2018, fewer sheep were protected by livestock They reproduced every year, but the livestock suffered lit- guardian dogs in the canton of Valais than in the canton of tle damage in the pack territory. In contrast, the pack in the Grisons (ø 7,375 sheep VS, ø 12,181 sheep GR; data AGRIDEA) Augstbord/Central Valais region, which had its first offspring and wolf acceptance is particularly low among the population in 2016, caused considerable damage (GRIDS 2019 data). (Behr et al. 2017). The implementation of livestock protection In this area, the composition of the adult wolves changed measures has therefore progressed less in the canton of Val- several times; one female was poached, and another disap- ais than, for example, in the canton of Grisons. So, it is not peared (see Chapter 2.2). As the situation regarding livestock surprising that, in 2019, around 87% of the livestock predated protection also differs greatly between the two regions, no by wolves in the Valais were killed in unprotected situations conclusions can be drawn on the effects of a disturbance of 21 (Canton du Valais 2019). pack structure without further assessment.

18 600 cantons with transient single wolves cantons with resident single wolves cantons with wolf packs/pairs 500 2018)

400

300 37

200

8 2

Number of livestock Number livestock of compensated (2016 - 100 11 2 9 2 2 2 ≥1 1 1 2 3 0 AR BE FR GL GR LU NW OW SG SZ TG TI UR VD VS

Cantons

Fig. 3.1.3. Number of livestock compensated as wolf kills by canton from 2016 to 2018. Numbers above the bars = number of genetically identified wolves per canton during the same period. Genetic evidence of wolves was found in the canton of Ap- penzell Ausserrhoden (AR), but the individual wolf could not be identified. (Source: KORA, Laboratory for Conservation Biology, GRIDS (visited on 04.02.2020)).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Box 3.1.1 Development of sheep and goat farming in Switzerland

Traces of sheep and goat farming can be found in Switzerland as early as the Neolithic period, around 5000 BC. Both small ruminants were used for their meat and milk. Wool production subsequently developed, primarily to meet personal needs, and was only of regional importance. Until the Late Middle Ages, Swiss agriculture was based on sheep farming and cultivation of fields (Lehmann & Stopp 2012). In modern times, particularly in the Alps and the Pre-Alps, cattle and horse breeding became more important, with sheep and goats being displaced to less productive areas. Until the 19th century, as the prices of livestock and dairy products rose more than those of cereals, livestock farming developed strongly, even in the cereal-producing area of the Central Plateau. Large farmers intensified horse and cattle breeding, while the growing lower class could only keep small livestock (Lehmann et al. 2015).

Goats, in particular, were raised by day labourers or work- 500 sheep 100 ers who had no land. They grazed on common land or in 450 farms 90 the forest and provided milk for poor families. The goat 400 80 350 70 population increased in Switzerland during the second 300 60 half of the 19th century, reaching its peak at the end of the 250 50 200 40

century. At that time, the goat population totalled 415,000 Population[x1000] 150 30 Number of farms Number of farms [x1000] animals. During industrialisation, poor families began 100 20 to migrate to urban centres in large numbers. Addition- 50 10 ally, the Federal Forestry Law of 1902 banned grazing in 0 0 Swiss forests, making it almost impossible to raise goats

without owning land. The "poor man's cow" thus lost all 500 goats 160 450 significance (Fig. 3.1.1). Increased salaries and the stag- farms 140 400 120 nation of milk prices also contributed to the continuous 350 100 decline of goat numbers during the 20th century (Lehmann 300 & Rehazek 2015). 250 80 200 22 60

Population[x1000] 150 40 farms of Number [x1000] In contrast, the Swiss sheep population reached a peak as 100 20 early as 1830. The first national survey conducted in 1866 50 estimated the number of sheep to be 450,000. The sheep 0 0 population then declined until 1926. The reasons for this

decline are twofold: the abolition of fallow land on which 2250 cattle 250 the sheep were formerly grazed, and competition from im- farms portation of cheap lamb meat, wool and cotton from over- 200 1500 seas. Sheep farming in Switzerland was therefore no longer 150 profitable. After the slump in the beginning of the 20th cen- 100

tury, the Swiss sheep population suddenly experienced a Population[x1000] 750 Number of farms Number of farms [x1000] renewed increase between 1960 and mid-1990s, reaching 50 a new peak in 2006 (Fig. 3.1.1). What were the reasons for 0 0 this? This was the time when targeted public aid for sheep farming in mountain areas in the form of direct payments started. Sheep grazing was supposed to stall the over- Fig. 3.1.1.1. Evolution of the sheep, goat and cattle pop- growth of pastures that had become unprofitable for cattle ulations in Switzerland from 1866 to 2016 (source: Brei- farming and thus preserve the traditional open landscape tenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008, SFSO 2019a). of the Swiss Alps (Breitenmoser & Breitenmoser-Würsten 2008). Only in the last decade has there been a slight decrease in the number of sheep, which followed the adjustment of direct payments (see Chapter 4.2) and the reduction in the number of farms. Today it is difficult for farmers on many Alpine sheep meadows to find successors (Schiess & Martin 2008).

In comparison, cattle farming (especially milk production) was further intensified from the second half of the 19th century to the end of the 20th century due to increasing demand in Switzerland and abroad (Lehmann et al. 2015). The number of farms keeping cattle decreased, while the size of the farms increased (Fig. 3.1.1). Since the end of the 1990s, the cattle population in Switzerland has remained stable, but the number of farms has continued to decline. Falling milk prices have further accentuated this structural change (FOAG 2018, FSO 2019a).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

3.2 Fear of the wolf

Where does the fear of the wolf come from? several of which have been fatal (Linnell et al. 2002). Never- People's perceptions towards wolves has changed in history, theless, being killed by a wolf was a rare event in Europe over time and across cultures. Among Germanic and Scandi- (Etter 1992, Linnell & Alleau 2016, Schöller 2017). However, navian peoples, the wolf was originally highly respected and these incidents have caused great sensation and have been mostly positively portrayed. Among the Romans, the symbol- peddled from region to region and often exaggerated to the ism of the wolf was ambivalent and contained both positive extreme, especially since the 18th century. and negative aspects (R. Trachsel in Grob 2020). On the other hand, Christianity regarded the wolf as the devil, who symbol- The fear of the wolf today could be explained by the lack of ex- ised evil by excellence. From the Middle Ages onwards (ca. perience with this species since its extirpation in Europe. Fear 900–1000 AD), negative representations became the norm is a problem that is especially acute in regions where wolves across Europe (Ahne 2016, R. Trachsel in Grob 2020, Schöller are returning (e.g. in Norway: Røskaft et al. 2003, in Sweden: 2017). In Europe, the bad reputation of the wolf was also due Johansson & Karlsson 2011 or in Finland: Bisi & Kurki 2008, to attacks on livestock, the loss of which was serious for farm- Hiedanpää et al. 2016). On the other hand, people living in ers, and game, which was reserved for the nobility (Schöller areas where wolves have always been present hardly seem to 2017). The nobility and the church instrumentalised the wolf be afraid of it (Huber et al. 2016). Even in recently repopulated to assert their power: The nobility forced the people to hunt areas, getting used to wolves seems to take place over time. wolves to protect their game while the church described the In Norway, for example, it has been shown that people living in wolf as the symbol of evil and incited the people to adhere to areas with a high presence of large predators were less afraid Christian morality with the threat of evil (Ahne 2016, Schöller than those living in areas without large predators (Røskaft et 2017). The descriptions of the animal were now strewn with al. 2003), and in Finland, the fear of wolves was particularly elements of fear and hatred and supported by rumours, myths pronounced in areas where only a few wolves were present and legends, which then permeated public opinion. In these (Bisi et al. 2007). stories, it was common to present the wolf as a dangerous beast (Ahne 2016, Linnell & Alleau 2016). Even idioms and Finally, the way a topic is reported on also has an impact on phrases of daily language use have been negatively associ- the insecurity in the population. Many authors cite the nega- 23 ated with the wolf, e.g. "as hungry as a wolf" or "a wolf in tive influence that wolf stories published in the media can sheep's clothing" (Dingwall 2001, Schöller 2017). Fairy tales have (e.g. Hiedanpää et al. 2016, Huber et al. 2016, Linnell & as well as stories about werewolves (people turning into Alleau 2016, Penteriani et al. 2016, Røskaft et al. 2013; and wolves to attack others) could partly be the result of actual see Chapter 4.5). Those who do not like wolves deliberately attacks by (rabid) wolves on people, as this example illus- use the fears and uncertainties of the population to influence trates: "Everywhere wolves did a lot of damage; their bite wolf policy. With strong emotions – and fear is one of them – was so poisonous that the wounded people started howling it is easier to mobilise crowds for political purposes. like wolves and had to die" (reported in 1537 in Walser's Ap- penzeller Chronik of 1740, quoted in Bretscher 1906, trans- How dangerous is the wolf to man? lated from German). However, these stories can also rather be Wild animals can pose risks to humans through disease trans- interpreted as an attempt by man to explain his world and his mission, physical injury and damage to property (Decker et al. difficult living conditions (high infant mortality, poor harvests, 2002). People generally overestimate the risk of rare events loss of livestock, wars), denying man's bad sides and attribut- that provoke strong emotions, and therefore also the danger ing them to the wolf or the werewolf (Ahne 2016, Schöller posed by large predators (Linnell & Alleau 2016, Penteriani 2017). As an example, Ahne (2016) vividly illustrates, how the et al. 2016). In a study in Montana in the United States, for Little Red Riding Hood tale changed from its origins in France example, 20% of respondents felt that the risk from cougars in the 16th and 17th centuries to the early 19th century version was higher than the risk of driving a car. In reality, several of the Grimm brothers' which is the most widely known today. hundred people per million inhabitants in Montana were In the early versions, the girl was threatened by a wolf-man killed in car accidents every year at that time, whereas in the and defended herself vigorously and successfully, whereas in space of a century only one person had been killed by a cou- the Grimm brothers' version, the wolf-man driven by his im- gar (Riley & Decker 2000). pulses is replaced by the animal and Little Red Riding Hood is reduced to a defenceless child. In the 20th century, an average of 150 people per year were killed worldwide by large carnivores of all species (Løe & The negative symbolism of the wolf is due, at least in part, Røskaft 2004). In the last decade, there have been an average to actual attacks by wolves on humans. It is very difficult to of 24.1 attacks and 3.9 deaths per year in North America and separate facts from fictions, as many historical reports are Europe altogether as a result of large predators – the vast ma- poorly documented and their veracity can no longer be veri- jority of them each in North America (Penteriani et al. 2016). fied (Linnell & Alleau 2016, Schöller 2017). Over the centuries, Attacks therefore remain extremely rare events and Penteri- wolves have without doubt perpetrated attacks on humans, ani et al. (2016), like Linnell & Alleau (2016), point out that

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

during the same period, thousands of interactions between year old) and healthy. When they appeared near the villages humans and large carnivores took place without anyone be- a few months before the attacks (in February/March), they ing injured or killed. Many species other than large carnivores were already largely habituated to the presence of humans (e.g. mosquitoes, snakes, dogs, tsetse flies, reduviids, snails and their food. They fed on leftovers thrown in rubbish bins and others; Statista 2020) are more often responsible for the and were deliberately fed by the inhabitants. Following the death of humans, partly because they transmit dangerous dis- first attacks, the decision was made to shoot the animals and eases or are venomous. both wolves were killed within two weeks (Sabina Nowak & Robert Mysłajek, personal communication). In North America, 47 wolf attacks on humans were recorded between 1955 and 2014, and the trend is decreasing: The num- It is very important to examine the respective context in which ber of attacks fell from ten in the years 1975 to 1984 to two or the attacks occurred. Four factors have been identified that three per decade from 1985 onwards (Penteriani et al. 2016). may facilitate wolf attacks on humans (Linnell et al. 2002): Thereby, two people died (in 2005 in Saskatchewan, Canada, 1.) Rabies: is the main cause of human injuries by wolves and McNay 2007, and in 2010 in Alaska, USA, Butler et al. 2011). resulting deaths. Switzerland and most European countries are nowadays rabies-free (OSAV 2020). In the Middle East and Linnell et al. (2002) summarised the wolf attacks in Europe Asia, however, rabid wolves still occasionally attack humans. since the 18th century, defining an attack as an event involv- 2.) Habituation to humans: many cases in North America are ing violent contact (person knocked over, scratched, bitten or due to wolves being habituated to humans, especially those killed). Despite the increase in wolf populations and the high that are fed, but this does not mean that wolves habituated human density in the wolf range in Europe (Chapron et al. to humans per se attack them. 2014), wolf attacks on humans have declined sharply since 3.) Provocation: provoked and cornered wolves can defend the mid-20th century. The last known fatal cases in Europe themselves by biting, however, they can usually be driven concern four children killed between 1957 and 1959, and in away. Most cases of provoked attacks have involved shep- 1974 in Spain. Two wolves were then killed in 1959 and one herds who wanted to kill a wolf to defend their sheep and female in 1974, after which no further attacks took place. were thereby bitten. The causes of these attacks are unclear. The female wolf, 4.) Highly modified environments: attacks by non-rabid and 24 which was probably responsible for the 1974 attacks, was unprovoked wolves are extremely rare; the wolf does not con- heavily infested with parasites, which could indicate it had sider humans as prey. Those predatory attacks that have oc- a disease (Linnell et al. 2002). Subsequently, no such inci- curred (e.g. in Europe before the 20th century or in India today) dents were observed in Europe until 2018 (Linnell et al. 2002, were mainly due to the destruction of wildlife habitat and Huber et al. 2016, Penteriani et al. 2016). In that year, two thus the absence of natural prey. In these situations, wolves cases were reported in Poland in separate locations involv- then fed exclusively on waste and livestock. Such attacks oc- ing injuries to humans. The two solitary wolves, which came curred often in regions where people lived in extreme poverty from local packs, were not fearful and were very young (one (Linnell et al. 2002).

Fig. 3.2.1. This wolf was sighted above Belp (BE) on 13 September 2017. © S. Hubacher

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

wolves were "losing their instinctive fear of humans". This behaviour, perceived as "unnatural", increased concern about the risk that wolves might pose to humans. In recent years, wolves have also been observed in the vicinity of settlements in other parts of Switzerland (e.g. Canton du Valais 2016, Ser- vice des forêts et de la faune État de Fribourg 2017, Direction de l'économie du Canton de Berne 2017, Fig. 3.2.1). In these situations, the authorities were inundated with questions about the inherent danger caused by the presence of wolves (see Chapter 4.5). Even in urban areas, where the majority of the population has a positive attitude towards wolves (Hun- ziker et al. 2001), many people are concerned if an animal is observed in their vicinity. As wolves approach settlements, they become real and no longer correspond to the image of an invisible and fearful inhabitant of a faraway wilderness – an image which most people have adopted, especially where wolves have no longer been present for some time.

However, it is important to emphasize that the presence of wolf near human habitation and its encounters with man are not exceptional, as Huber et al. (2016) showed in a pan- European survey. This study revealed that in the 28 European countries that have wolf packs, their territories are close to or even include settlements. Almost everywhere, wolves regularly pass in front of or approach inhabited homes, and in about 40% of the countries, inhabitants reported close encounters between wolves and humans. In 14 countries there 25 were repeated incidents of wolves approaching humans and in 12 countries there were cases of aggression of wolves towards humans. The experts questioned attributed the aggres- sive behaviour mainly to rabies (in eight countries) or to self- defence on the part of wolves (in four countries). In no case Fig. 3.2.2. Leaflet explaining the correct be- was confirmed aggression towards humans directly related haviour to adopt when encountering wolves. to the observation of wolves repeatedly showing up near “Wolves on our doorstep. Encountering settlements or repeatedly approaching humans (Huber et al. wolves.” © KORA 2016). Wolves are thought to approach human settlements (1) because they choose the easiest way to move through their territory, (2) because they follow wild prey feeding in The risk of being attacked by a wolf is therefore not zero, nearby fields or pastures (especially in winter), (3) because but clearly so low that it is impossible to quantify it (Linnell they discover livestock near dwellings, or (4) because they are et al. 2002). On the other hand, the known risks incurred in attracted by other possible food sources. Particularly in young everyday life (traffic, household activities or lifestyle, etc.) are wolves, it may also be simply curiosity (Huber et al. 2016). generally clearly underestimated by society and the propen- The presence of dogs may also explain why wolves stay in sity of the population to accept them seems to be greater inhabited areas (Reinhardt et al. 2020). The phenomenon of than the acceptance of a minimal risk of being attacked by a wolves that are "bold" is still poorly understood (Huber et al. large predator. 2016). Qualifications such as "unshy", "fearless" or "unafraid" imply that a normal wolf would be shy and fearful. But what Are wolves near settlements dangerous? is a "normal" wolf? Wolves are very intelligent and versatile Since the winter of 2012/13, wolves from the Calanda pack animals, capable of adapting to new or changing conditions (see Chapter 2.2) have been increasingly observed during the thanks to individual learning and group experiences. Learning day and close to human settlements. Some individuals have to live in a human-dominated world would therefore be rather even ventured into inhabited areas and approached humans, "normal" – although obviously not desirable from the perspec- passing by at short distances (Amt für Jagd und Fischerei tive of the people (Huber et al. 2016). Graubünden 2013, 2014, 2016). Some but not all of these observations involved young animals. The wolves did not Germany has developed a detailed concept for dealing with behave aggressively, but the population became concerned wolves displaying unusual behaviour towards people (Rein- and these events triggered a nationwide debate on whether hardt et al. 2020), and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Eu-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

rope (LCIE) expert group has also drafted a Policy Support as soon as it notices the presence of the human. It usually Statement about this (LCIE 2019b). According to Reinhardt retreats trotting away unhurriedly (Reinhardt et al. 2020). et al (2020), it is extremely important to let the public know When wolves tolerate the presence of humans from a cer- about the behaviour of wolves that does not pose a problem: tain distance without taking an interest in them, there is no "Many people expect a wolf to flee immediately when it sees problem (OFEV2016). The behaviour of wolves is considered a human or even a vehicle. Awareness raising is needed here problematic when they come regularly close to settlements to give the population a feeling for what behaviour is part while displaying behaviour directed towards humans or of the normal, unproblematic behaviour of animals living in their dogs (OFEV 2016). In Europe the most likely cause of the cultural landscape". The Swiss Wolf Concept (OFEV 2016) wolves displaying a problematic behaviour towards humans contains a table of criteria assessing the danger of wolf be- is related to a high degree of habituation to humans, usually haviour and the measures to be taken, ranging from inform- combined with positive stimuli such as food (Reinhardt et al. ing the population (see Chapter 4.5; Fig. 3.2.2) and increased 2020). Feeding and attracting wolves (or bears) can indeed surveillance of the wolf, through GPS-collaring and aversive trigger unwanted reactions in animals. This should therefore conditioning, to killing the wolf (Box 3.4.2, Chapter 4.3). Any be avoided at all costs (Reinhardt et al. 2020, LCIE 2018, LCIE situation in which wolves are perceived to be behaving atypi- 2019b), requiring a change in human behaviour in order to cally should be reported quickly to the cantonal authorities avoid direct encounters and potential conflicts (e.g. by not responsible (usually the game wardens). It is crucial for the placing lures for the hunting of foxes and not depositing ani- classification and interpretation of observations made at mal waste near dwellings). However, it must be emphasised close range whether the wolf recognised the human as such that in the 25 years since the wolf recolonised Switzerland, and how the wolf behaved (Reinhardt et al. 2020). In most there has never been an incident in which a human somehow cases of encounters between man and wolf, the wolf leaves has been threatened by a wolf.

3.3 Competition with hunting 26 Acceptance of the wolf by the hunting community Demonstrable influence of wolves on the hunting of ungulates In a modern society that is increasingly concerned about ani- Wolves can influence their prey in different ways (Box 3.3.1). mal welfare and sometimes critical of hunting, the absence The effects of hunting on the development of ungulate popu- of large carnivores has long served to legitimise the prac- lations are different from those of predation by wolves. For tice of hunting by humans. Now that large predators such example, wolves mainly hunt young and old deer, whereas as wolves and lynx are returning to native ecosystems, other hunters often shoot adults in their prime (Fig. 3.3.1). Old and arguments must be found to justify hunting to society. Some young deer naturally have a lower survival rate. The age class hunters regard the wolf as a direct competitor for prey and of adult deer, on the other hand, is the most important for fear that its presence may make hunting very difficult or im- population growth, as they generally have a high chance of possible (Wotschikowsky 2019a). This is due to the wolf's di- survival and reproduce most successfully (Wright et al. 2006). rect influence on wildlife populations, but also to its indirect effects (Box 3.3.1). It is often said that the wolf makes prey It would appear that the influences of hunting and wolves species more wary, so they stay more in the forest, where it may add up leading to a limitation of ungulate populations is more difficult to hunt and where damage to forest crops (Jedrzejewski et al. 2000). Is it therefore necessary to adjust is greater. Attacks by wolves on hunting dogs (see below) hunting quotas in the presence of wolves? In-depth studies give rise to fears that drive hunts will no longer be possible have been carried out on moose in Scandinavia. Kindberg et in areas where wolves are present and that hunting quotas al. (2013) calculated that with the current hunting system, for certain wildlife species can no longer be met (Wotschi- hunting quotas would have to be reduced in areas where the kowsky 2019a). These expected difficulties can also lead to wolf is present in order to prevent the moose population from cincrete financial concerns, since compensation to farmers declining. At the same time, the authors proposed two ad- for damage caused by wild boar, for example, is partly borne justments to the system that would allow high quotas to be by hunters in some Swiss cantons (e.g. in the canton of So- maintained despite the presence of wolves: 1) A sharp reduc- lothurn). Some hunters therefore view the return of the wolf tion in the hunting quota for a few years after recolonisa- with suspicion and demand a downgrading of its protection tion by wolves would allow moose populations to grow to a status. The umbrella organisation of the Swiss hunting asso- higher density which subsequently could sustain a combined ciations "Chasse Suisse" for example has issued a statement harvest by hunting and wolves. 2) A surplus of females in the demanding that wolf populations be regulated by shooting, moose population would lead to higher reproductive rates, so so they remain acceptable to the population concerned and that wolf predation would be partially compensated. Indeed, the protection of their prey is guaranteed ("Chasse Suisse", Scandinavian hunters have reacted to the expansion of the JagdSchweiz 2016). wolf population into new areas with the two proposed mea-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

70% hunters

60% wolves

50%

40%

30%

20% Fig. 3.3.1. Age categories of

Percentage Percentage of kills/hunting wolf bag female wapiti killed by wolves 10% and hunters in Yellowstone, Wyoming, United States (source: 0% Wright et al. 2006). fawn yearling adult (2-9 years) old (≥10 years)

age classes of wapiti sures. They even overcompensated for the wolf's influence influence of hunting on wapiti in the United States is gener- by reducing their hunting quotas more than would have been ally much stronger than the influence of wolves (Brodie et necessary in the event of the wolf's reappearance (Wikenros al. 2013). Nevertheless, hunters may have to accept certain et al. 2015). Decreases in hunting bag after wolf recolonisa- additional difficulties such as increased effort or restrictions tion in previously wolf-free areas are therefore also linked on the use of hunting dogs in the presence of wolves. Hunt- to the perception and behaviour of hunters. For example, the ing dogs have been known to be killed in various European visibility of deer decreases disproportionately as population countries. In Norway and Sweden together, between 25–30 density decreases, which means that the effort required to hunting dogs are attacked by wolves every year (Odden & see a deer increases more and more. This can lead to lower Krange 2018). In other countries, such as Germany, cases of 27 hunting success as well as give the impression of a greater hunting dogs killed by wolves are very rare (Wotschikowsky population reduction than has actually occurred (Van Deelen 2019a). The risk to dogs depends on the way of hunting and & Etter 2003). Changes in the behaviour of wild animals can the distance between them and their masters (Fig. 3.3.2). Cer- also influence the success of hunting. When the first wolf tain codes of conduct should be observed in areas colonised pack in Switzerland was established in the Calanda massif, an increase in hunting success was initially observed around the wildlife protection areas located in the pack's territory. The red deer were less aggregated inside protected areas during the hunting season than before the wolves arrived (Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden 2014). With time, however, the red deer became more wary and difficult to hunt (Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden 2017) and there was a spatial shift in hunting sites. In some areas the hunting bag decreased, while it increased in others (Imesch 2020). How- ever, in the entire area of influence of the Calanda pack, both the population and the total number of red deer shot have remained stable (Imesch 2020). Moreover, it is not only wolves that have an influence on the behaviour of wild animals, but also humans. In a study carried out in the province of Alberta, Canada, it was found that human activities, particularly hunting itself, had a much greater influence on the level of alert- ness in wapiti (= North American deer species similar to red deer) than the presence of predators (Ciuti et al. 2012).

It should also be noted that the influence of wolves on their Fig. 3.3.2. Wolf attacks on hunting dogs are prey is greater in northern Europe than in the highly produc- rare. Dogs that move further away from their tive habitats of Central Europe (Box 3.3.1). In wolf areas of masters (e.g. the Bernese Hound in the pic- Germany, for example, there has so far been no need to ad- ture) tend to be more at risk than those that just hunting quotas for roe deer, red deer and wild boar (Wot- stay close to humans (e.g. pointing dogs). © schikowsky 2019a). Other studies have also shown that the K. Engimann

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Box 3.3.1 The role of wolves in the ecosystem

Predation, the act of eating and being eaten, is an essential component of any natural ecosystem. Large carnivores such as wolves, bears and lynx are top predators: they eat other animals but have virtually no predators themselves. Wolves are coursing predators and prey mainly on wild ungulates, e.g. red deer, moose, roe deer, reindeer or wild boar, depending on the local availability of prey (Fig. 3.3.1.1). In the case of species such as moose or wapiti (= North American deer species similar to red deer), which are considerably larger than them, wolves mainly attack young, old and weakened animals (Peterson et al. 1998, Wright et al. 2006). They are therefore important selective factors in evolution and their presence has influenced the appearance and behaviour of their prey over thousands of years. In general, the effects of wolf predation on prey are described at two different levels:

Fig. 3.3.1.1. A red deer doe predated by a wolf in the Jura Mountains of the canton of Vaud. The wolf is the main predator of red deer. Both species have a long history of co-evolution. © P. Deleury, game warden, Biodiversity and landscape division, Hunting, fishing and surveillance section, Canton of Vaud.

1) Wolves influence their prey by eating them ("lethal effects"), thus potentially reducing their population density to below the ecological carrying capacity. Various studies show, for example, that wolf-free areas have more moose than compa- rable areas with wolves present (Ripple & Beschta 2012). In other ungulate species (e.g. wapiti), however, a strong effect of predation on survival rates could not be observed (Brodie et al. 2013). How strong the limiting effect of wolf predation is also depends on food availability for prey in a given area. In boreal habitats, the impact of wolves tends to be greater than in highly productive habitats (Melis et al. 2009), implying that with a rich food supply, high reproduction and survival rates of prey can compensate for wolf predation. Within the same habitat, phases during which wolves limit populations of their prey can alternate with phases during which no such effects can be observed. During a given phase, a population of ungulates can be controlled by predation (top-down control) while at a later moment in time food supply and climate may play a more important role (bottom-up control). External influences (e.g. epidemics) can tip the predator-prey system from one phase to another (Vucetich et al. 2012).

2) Wolves also influence the behaviour of their prey ("non-lethal effects") in that the spatiotemporal behaviour of prey is no longer determined solely by food availability. Prey animals must also take predation risk into account, e.g. by being more vigilant, by forming larger groups or by retreating into areas that are difficult for wolves to access (e.g. rocky areas). How- ever, there are costs to these anti-predatory behaviours, for example, less time can be spent on feeding (Lima & Bednekoff 1999). Some scientists therefore believe that non-lethal effects may have an even greater impact than lethal effects (Brown & Kotler 2004).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Both lethal and non-lethal effects can cascade to lower levels of the food chain, for example through a reduction of population density or by modifying the spatial behaviour of ungulates, which can promote the regeneration of certain tree species. These effects, known as trophic cascades (Fig. 3.3.1.2), are felt at several levels of the food chain: top predators kill smaller predators (golden jackal, red fox, etc.) for example, thus exerting an indirect influence on the prey of the latter (Heurich 2019). Wolves can also exert a positive influence on other predators (Heurich 2019), which can for example take advantage by scavenging on wolf kills (Wilmers and al. 2003). Although the influence of wolves on the ecosystem has been studied for several decades, scientists still do not always agree on how often wolves actually trigger trophic cascades, mainly because ecosystems are very complex and the influence of wolves in nature can never be studied independently of other factors, such as climate change or human influences (Kujiper et al. 2016). Moreover, the bulk of such studies come from North American national parks. In Europe, agriculture, forestry and hunting have a major influence on forests and wildlife (Fig. 3.3.1.2). The number of large carnivores is also regulated by man – they are hunted or fall victim to traffic accidents. The question therefore arises as to whether wolves are actually able to influence their prey in our habitats sufficiently to trigger trophic cascades (Heurich 2019, Kupferschmid & Bollmann 2016). As these are long-term processes, long data series would be necessary, especially in the slow-growing mountain forests of the Alps, to measure any influence of wolves on forest regeneration.

Abb. 3.3.1.2. Plants, herbivores and carnivores influence each other in a food web via so- called “top-down” and “bottom-up” effects (= dotted arrows). Humans influence all levels of the food web, and also have an impact on trophic cascades (influences of carnivores propa- gating along the food chain). Black arrows = lethal effects, grey arrows = non-lethal effects, open arrow = human influences on vegetation (figure according to Kujiper et al. 2016). by wolves when hunting and searching for injured animals, in the start of a drive hunt to give the wolves time to leave the order to increase the dogs' safety. For example, it is recom- hunting area (Deutscher Jagdverband 2018). mended that the dogs are not released until sometime after

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

3.4 The wolf in law and society

In a democracy, socio-political views and their change over The legal framework for wolf management time find expression in the legal foundations (Box 3.4.1). The Bern Convention – The 1979 "Convention on the Conservation concepts of landscape, nature and species protection have of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats" (Bern Convention; been gradually integrated into our legislation since the end of RS 0.455) is an international treaty of the Council of Europe. the 19th century. Predators, which were long ostracised, were The purpose of this convention is to ensure the conservation the last to be rehabilitated and recognised as worthy of protec- of wild flora, fauna and their natural habitats and to promote tion. In Switzerland, the bearded vulture has been protected cooperation between European countries in order to achieve since 1925, the eagle and the otter since 1953, the bear and the this aim. Almost all European countries have ratified the Bern lynx since 1962. The wolf has only been protected since 1986. Convention. The wolf is listed in Appendix II as a strictly pro- In the case of the eagle, its protection enabled the population tected species (Council of Europe 2019a). Species listed in to recover. The measures taken came too late for the other five Appendix II must not be deliberately disturbed, captured or species, but they have enabled their subsequent return. The re- killed. It is also prohibited to trade in them and to damage or immigration of the wolf to Switzerland has had a major impact destroy breeding or resting sites (Art. 6 of the Bern Conven- on our society over the last two decades, triggering numerous tion). Once a country – such as Switzerland – has ratified the political initiatives and parliamentary interventions (Box 3.4.1). Bern Convention without reservation, it adopts the provisions This chapter summarises the legal framework applicable to set out therein for all species in Appendix II and can no longer wolf management in Switzerland and outlines the debates that amend them. However, Article 9 of the Convention allows have marked society over the last 25 years. certain exceptions to the rules laid down in Article 6. For ex-

BC Appendix II BC Appendix III BC no Appendix

Fig. 3.4.1. The legal status of the wolf in Europe. The maps show in which appendices of the Bern Convention (top) IV and the Habitats Directive (bottom) the wolf is listed in each country. BC= V HD Annex II & IV V Bern Convention, HD= Habitats Direc- HD regimes V tive, Roman numerals= Annex numbers, HD regimes= the wolf is listed in other II & V Annexes than Annexes II and IV. The II & V Habitats Directive only applies to EU Member States (source: Trouwborst et V IV / V II & V al. 2019, © O. Neumann & J. Dubrulle, IV (& II?) V IUS CARNIVORIS 2015).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Box 3.4.1 The wolf in law – major milestones

1971 The wolf is protected in Italy. As a result, the population in the Abruzzo region can recover and spreads northwards. 1974 Switzerland ratifies the "Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora" (CITES), which regulates international trade of endangered animal and plant species. The wolf is listed in Ap- pendix II of the Convention, which means that the Contracting States must ensure that it is not threatened by international trade. 1981 Switzerland ratifies the Bern Convention (SR 0.455). The wolf is included in Appendix II of the strictly protected species. 1986 The Swiss parliament enacts the Federal Hunting Law (LChP; SR 922.0), which protects the wolf. Measures against protected animals may be ordered by the cantons with the consent of the federal government in the case of considerable damage or a significant threat. The LChP is based on Article 9 of the Bern Convention. 1988 The parliament adopts the Ordinance on Hunting (OChP; SR 922.01), which clarifies the Hunting Law. Exception- ally, the Confederation may authorise the killing of wolves causing unacceptable damage. 1992 The European Union adopts the Habitats Directive, which provides strict protection for wolves in Switzerland's neighbouring countries. 1998 Switzerland ratifies the Alpine Convention, one of the objectives of which is to preserve Alpine fauna and flora, including their habitats. 2004 The Federal Office for the Environment (at that time SAEFL) implements the first "Swiss Wolf Concept", which serves as an implementation aid for wolf management in Switzerland (Box 3.4.2). 2004 In response to the Maissen motion "Experience Nature. Without Wolves" (01.3567), Switzerland requests the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention to downgrade the wolf from "strictly protected" to "protected". 2006 The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention rejects Switzerland's proposal. 2010 The Fournier motion "Revision of Article 22 of the Bern Convention" (10.3264) requires Switzerland to request the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention to amend Article 22 of the Bern Convention. A State should at any 31 time be able to express reservations about its initial commitments. This amendment would allow Switzerland to retroactively relax the protection status of the wolf. 2012 The Standing Committee of the Bern Convention rejects Switzerland's application. 2012 The OChP is revised following the submission of various motions. It is now possible to intervene into wolf populations in the event of "significant damage to livestock" and "severe losses in the use of cantonal hunting prerogatives". 2013 The Hassler motion "Federal support for the protection of livestock in the context of large carnivores" (10.3242) is adopted and leads to amendments in the LChP and OChP. The Confederation is obliged to promote and coordinate measures for the protection of livestock. Cantons must offer consultancy on livestock protection to farmers. 2015 The criteria for the regulation of wolf packs and the shooting of solitary wolves are now included in the OChP but no longer in the Wolf Concept. The decision-making process for the shooting of solitary wolves passes entirely over to the cantons. 2016 The "Swiss Wolf Concept" is revised following amendments to the LChP and the OChP (Box 3.4.2). 2017 In response to the Engler motion "Coexistence of wolf and mountain people" (14.3151), the LChP is revised. The cantons shall now be empowered to regulate wolf populations after consultation with the Federal Office for the Environment in the event of a threat of "significant damage" or "concrete danger to humans". The scope of action offered by the Bern Convention for the killing of strictly protected species are thus exploited to the fullest. 2018 In response to the initiative of the canton of Valais "Wolf. Fun's over!" (14,320), Switzerland again requests a downgrading of the wolf's protection status at the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention. Treatment of the application is postponed, as the Contracting States must first complete the reports on the status of their wolf populations. 2019 The popular cantonal initiative "For the regulation of large carnivores in the Canton of Uri" is accepted by the voters of Uri. 2019 The parliament adopts the partial revision of the 2017 LChP and goes even further than the Federal Coun- cil's proposal. It is not necessary for the damage to be "serious", for the damage to have already occurred, or for reasonable protection measures to have been taken. Wolf packs can also be regulated within protected areas. 2019 The environmental associations Pro Natura, WWF Switzerland, BirdLife Switzerland, Gruppe Wolf Schweiz, and zoosuisse disagree with the revision of the LChP and call for a referendum. 2020 The revision of the Hunting Law is rejected in a referendum by 52% of Swiss voters.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Box 3.4.2 The Swiss Wolf Concept

What is the purpose of the Swiss Wolf Concept? The Swiss Wolf Concept is based on the principle that it is possible (under certain conditions) for humans and wolves to live together in our country. Wolves should be able to live and breed in Switzerland as part of the Alpine population. The objectives of the concept are as follows: • Raise awareness about wolf behaviour and ecology among the general public • Minimise conflicts with agriculture, hunting, tourism and the affected population • Formulate principles for damage prevention and compensation of losses • Avoid unacceptable restrictions in the field of livestock farming • Formulate criteria a) for the shooting of solitary wolves that cause damage and b) for the regulation of wolf populations.

How did the first Wolf Concept come into being? According to the Hunting Ordinance (Art. 10bis OChP), the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN, formerly SAEFL) is obliged to develop guidelines for dealing with lynx, bears and wolves. In 1996, what was then the SAEFL (Swiss Agency for Environment, Forest and Landscape) organised the "Large Predators Working Group", which brought together representatives of the Confederation, Cantons, various interest groups (agriculture, hunting and nature conservation) and experts. In the following years, this working group drew up the first Wolf Concept, which was subsequently subject to a controversial consultation procedure. In 2003, the National Council accepted the postulate "Wolf Concept Switzerland" (02.3393) of the ESPEC-N (Environment, Spatial Planning and Energy Committees of the National Council) and instructed the Federal Council to implement the Bern Convention by fully exploiting its room for manoeuvre and design the Swiss Wolf Concept in such a way that traditional animal husbandry in mountain areas can continue to be practised without unacceptable restrictions. In 2004, the first Wolf Concept was implemented by the SAEFL (OFEFP 2004). It was then revised in 2008 and 2016 to take account of developments and experience gained, and various amendments that were introduced into the Hunting Law (LChP; SR 922.0) and the Hunting Ordinance (OChP; SR 922.01) (Box 3.4.1). 32 Main changes introduced by the 2008 revision The 2004 concept focused on the presence of solitary wolves; the 2008 revision took account of the possibility of pack formation and provisions for livestock protection were specified (OFEV 2008). Appendices to the concept were introduced (e.g. definitions of shooting perimeters, details on financial contributions for livestock protection), which can be annually adapted by the FOEN (e.g. revision of the Appendices in 2010).

Main changes introduced by the 2016 revision The most important changes in 2016 concern the implementation of various parliamentary motions (Box 3.4.1; OFEV 2016). The cantons now have greater power to decide on the shooting of damage-causing single wolves. Additionally, the regulation of wolf packs has become possible. However, such measures can only be envisaged if there has been significant damage to livestock, or if there are high losses on cantonal hunting prerogatives or a considerable danger to people. Criteria for shooting are no longer defined in the concept, but in the Hunting Ordinance (Art. 4bis and Art. 9bis OChP). De- tails of livestock protection are removed from the concept and detailed in a separate document entitled "Enforcement aid for livestock protection" (OFEV 2019). The annexes to the Wolf Concept are supplemented by definitions of social status (single wolf, pairs, packs) and by a table evaluating the behaviour of wolves towards humans and dogs (harmless, atypical, undesirable, problematic).

What significance does the Wolf Concept have? The concept is an enforcement aid for the Federal Office for the Environment. It puts laws and ordinances into concrete terms and is intended to promote a uniform enforcement practice. If the enforcement authorities take the concept into account, they can assume that they are implementing federal law in conformity with the legislation. However, other solutions are also conceivable as long as they comply with the law.

What are the tasks of the Confederation and the cantons? The FOEN is responsible for supervising the management of the wolf. It draws up guidelines and supports the cantons in monitoring wolf populations and informing the public. The FOEN finances the organisations responsible for monitoring (KORA Foundation, Laboratory for Conservation Biology) and for analysing wolf kills or dead wolves (FIWI – Centre for Fish and Wildlife Health) and coordinates the management of the wolf population in the Alps with neighbouring countries.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

The cantons enforce the management of wolves on their territory, and are responsible for the monitoring of wolves and of damage to livestock on their territory. They implement livestock protection in accordance with the FOEN enforcement aid and are responsible for communication in consultation with the FOEN. The cantons may issue and execute shooting authorisations for individual wolves in consultation with the Inter-cantonal Commission (IKK). For the regulation of wolf packs, they must obtain the approval of the FOEN. If the revision of the Hunting Law of 2017 had been adopted, the cantons would have been given more competences to regulate wolf packs. However, the revision was rejected by Swiss voters in 2020 (Box 3.4.1).

Cantonal Wolf Concepts Thirteen cantons (e.g. Bern, Fribourg, Schwyz and St. Gallen) have developed their own wolf concepts based on the national concept, which define responsibilities at the cantonal level. Some of these concepts deal exclusively with the issue of damage to livestock (procedures, compensation, protection of livestock, etc.).

The Swiss Wolf Concept (2016) can be downloaded on the following link: www.bafu.admin.ch/uv-1605-F.

A list of cantonal wolf concepts can be found at: https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=145&L=2. ample, individuals of strictly protected animal species may be tion and sustainable development of the Alps as a natural, killed to avoid serious damage to forests, agricultural crops or cultural, economic and living space. It has been ratified by all livestock, provided this does not threaten the survival of the Alpine countries. The framework agreement contains princi- population concerned and that there is no other satisfactory ples of nature protection and landscape conservation, which solution to the problem. In the 1970s, the wolf was extirpated are detailed in an additional protocol "Nature Protection and or highly endangered in almost all European countries (see Landscape Conservation". This protocol contains amongst Chapter 2.1). The countries in which the wolf had almost or others measures for international cooperation and species entirely disappeared, ratified the Convention with the wolf in protection. The parties therein commit to promote the reintro- 33 Appendix II without reservation. On the other hand, most of duction and spread of native species of wild fauna and flora. the countries that still had wolf populations made a reserva- Switzerland has ratified the framework agreement, but not tion concerning the wolf (e.g. Spain, Finland, Poland). The wolf the associated protocols (Alpine Convention 2019). Neverthe- was not listed in these countries or was moved to Appendix less, Switzerland participates in the "Large Carnivores, Wild III (protected fauna species) and can therefore be treated as a Ungulates and Society" Working Group (WISO), which oper- game species (Council of Europe 2019b; Fig. 3.4.1). ates within the frame of the protocol on "Nature protection and Landscape Conservation" and has drawn up recommen- Habitats Directive – EU Member States are bound by the dations for the management of large carnivores in the Alps "Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conser- (Schnidrig et al. 2016a,b; Cerne et al. 2017). vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora" (Habi- tats Directive), which serves to transfer the Bern Convention Swiss legislation – The protection of the wolf in Switzerland into laws of the European Union. Switzerland is not part of is governed by the "Federal Law of 20 June 1986 on the hunt- the EU, but our neighbouring countries, with whom we share ing and protection of wild mammals and birds" (Hunting Law, our wolf population, are members. In a country, the wolf can LChP; RS 922.0) and the associated "Ordinance of 29 Febru- be listed in Annex II of the directive (species whose conserva- ary 1988 on the hunting and protection of wild mammals and tion requires the designation of special areas of conservation) birds" (Hunting Ordinance, OChP; RS 922.01). The hunting law and is also included either in Annex IV (species in need of and the ordinance define federally protected animal species strict protection), or in Annex V (species whose taking in the and apply throughout Switzerland. Although there are also wild and exploitation may be subject to management meas- cantonal hunting laws, these only govern the handling of spe- ures). Again, the countries without wolves included the wolf cies that are allowed to be hunted. The Swiss Hunting Law in Annexes II and IV, whereas some countries with wolf pres- was adopted in 1986 to transpose the Bern Convention into ence only listed it in Annex V (e.g. Spain and Finland (north- Swiss law and replaced the "Federal Law of 10 June 1925 on ern parts), Latvia, Lithuania; European Commission 2019; Fig. hunting and the protection of birds". The wolf is a protected 3.4.1). If the wolf is listed in Annex IV of the strictly protected species under the LChP, but in accordance to Article 9 of the species, it may only be killed in exceptional cases. The condi- Bern Convention, it may be killed under certain conditions tions to be met are similar to those of the Bern Convention, (see Chapter 4.3). Since 1986, the conditions and responsi- but are interpreted more strictly (see Chapters 5.1 and 5.2). bilities for shooting wolves have been modified several times in revisions of the LChP and the OChP and adapted to current Alpine Convention – The Alpine Convention is an internation- circumstances. Parliamentary initiatives have often been at al treaty established in 1991 that aims to ensure the protec- the origin of these amendments (Box 3.4.1). Finally, the provi-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

sions of the LChP and the OChP are detailed in the Swiss Wolf The postmodern wolf proponent strives to live in harmony Concept (OFEV 2016), an enforcement aid from the Federal with nature. His world view is ecological and critical of pro- Office for the Environment (Box 3.4.2). gress and society. He sees the wolf as a symbol of resist- ance to the harmful consequences of civilization such as the The social debate about the wolf destruction of the environment and welcomes its presence, The wolf stirs up powerful emotions like no other animal even if it causes problems in practice. He advocates a restruc- (Fig. 3.4.2). On the one hand, many Swiss people welcome turing of the cultural landscape towards more "nature". the return of the wolf, but on the other hand, the interests of various groups are affected (livestock farmers, Chapter 3.1; The ambivalent wolf proponent questions traditional values hunters, Chapter 3.3) and wolves are causing deep-rooted but is also critical of postmodern values. As long as he himself fears among many people (see Chapter 3.2). Whether or not is not concerned, his attitude towards wolf is generally posi- a person approves the return of the wolf is influenced, on the tive. However, if he is directly confronted with concrete prob- one hand, by the direct affectedness of the person and, on lems, his positive attitude towards wolf can turn to rejection, the other hand, by his or her understanding of nature and the because in crisis situations the ambivalent wolf proponent values she or he holds. A sociological study investigated sub- orients himself on traditional values. The authors of the study jective interpretations of the wolf through interviews (Caluori assume that a large part of the Swiss population falls into the & Hunziker 2001). Three types of attitudes were identified in category of ambivalent wolf proponents (Caluori & Hunziker this study: (1) the modern wolf opponent, (2) the postmodern 2001). Many people live in urban areas and are therefore not wolf proponent and (3) the ambivalent wolf proponent. The directly affected by the presence of wolves. This observation modern wolf opponent sees the wolf as an intruder who no may explain why national surveys often show a high propor- longer has a space to live in Switzerland. As a symbol of the tion of wolf supporters (e.g. OFEFP 1998, Hunziker et al. 2001, wilderness, the wolf is seen as a hostile element towards Institut für Markt- und Sozialforschung Luzern 2006), whereas civilisation and an inhibitor of progress, threatening the rural the attitude of the local population in areas where wolves existence. The modern wolf opponent is resolute in refusing are present is mostly negative (Behr et al. 2016). The conflict the presence of wolves. around the wolf is therefore representative of the conflict between different value systems and is part of a wider debate 34 on the use and development of rural areas. Formation of groups with a pronounced pro-wolf or anti-wolf position Agricultural, forestry, hunting and nature conservation associations defend their interests with regard to the management of wolves in Switzerland. Some of them also work together in various working groups (see Chapter 4.4). In addition to these actors, however, groups with extreme pro-wolf or anti-wolf positions have also formed in recent years.

Anti-wolf – Switzerland has recently been confronted with major geopolitical changes and new challenges. Issues such as globalisation, relations with the European Union, immigration and climate change are of concern to the society (Credit Sui- sse Worry Barometer 2019). In particular, rural populations see the liberalisation of markets and the opening of borders as a threat to their very existence. In this context, the return of the wolf is suitable as a scapegoat for various external threats. It takes on the role of the illegal immigrant who does not respect national borders and does not conform to traditional rules (Fig. 3.4.3). It also becomes the symbol of the social and economic devaluation of the agricultural community (Schraml 2019). Traditional small livestock farming, for example, cannot keep up with production from abroad and can often only be practised as a sideline occupation. Many farmers on Alpine sheep meadows nowadays have difficulties finding a successor (Box Abb. 3.4.2. On the night of 18 April 2020, unknown vandals 3.1.1). The wolf, which makes Alpine farming even more dif- put a bloody sheep in the mouth of the wolf sign that can be ficult and accelerates the abandonment of mountain pastures, seen on the path to the Nature Reserve and Wildlife Park Gol- thus becomes an immediate economic threat and a symbol dau. © Nature Reserve and Wildlife Park Goldau. of the impending wildness of a cultural landscape that has

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

35 Fig. 3.4.3. The wolf taking the naturalisation test. Winner of 4th place in the “Cartoons for wolves” comic competition organised by the German Federation for Nature Conservation in 2007. ‘‘Your stomach is rumbling and you encounter a shepherd with his flock. What will you do? A: Brutally hunt down. B: Turn away in disgust.’’ © M. Wilke. been cultivated for generations. This rewilding is advocated Pro-wolf – There are various pro-wolf groups opposing the by "green" city dwellers (Caluori & Hunziker 2001). Mobilising anti-wolf groups who believe in a peaceful coexistence be- together against the wolf helps people in rural communities tween man and wolf. For these wolf advocates, the accept- formulate and develop a defence against threats to their tra- ance of the wolf and other large carnivores presupposes a ditional way of life (Schraml 2019). Thus, in 2015 the umbrella necessary rethinking in society, which has been overexploit- organisation "A Switzerland without large predators" (http:// ing nature for centuries (Caluori & Hunziker 2001). Various www.lr-grt.ch/fr/) was founded in Bern. It is mainly made up small pro-wolf groups are active on social networks; their of representatives from the agricultural sector and is organised members tend to come from urban areas and often from the in various cantonal sections. The association advocates for a dog owner scene. Many of these groups use the wolf as a relaxation of the wolf protection, an increase in the cantons' symbol of an unspoilt wilderness and of the lost relation- competences and eased conditions for the shooting of wolves ship of man to nature. They often use mythical and esoteric (Un Suisse sans grands prédateurs 2019). Some cantonal sec- symbolism to represent the wolf (e.g. elements from Native tions go even further and demand that large carnivores be American or Nordic cultures, elves, "wolf women"). Most of eliminated from all living and settlement areas (Lebensraum these small groups have a less dense political network than Wallis ohne Grossraubtiere 2019). The sections of the asso- anti-wolf groups. For example, the 2012 popular initiative "For ciation are well organised, connected and politically active. the protection of large carnivores (bears, wolves and lynx)" They draft position papers and resolutions and organise events by the organisation profauna.ch failed to gather enough sig- with a high media visibility. Attacks by wolves on livestock or natures. There are, however, larger, well-organised groups sightings of wolves in the vicinity of settlements give them the with a strong media presence (Groupe Loup Suisse, http:// opportunity to spread their messages and claims in the media www.gruppe-wolf.ch; CHWOLF, https://chwolf.org). These (see Chapter 4.5). In doing so, they make their own analyses of associations want to better inform the public about the wolf, current events and challenge the assessment of the competent maintain well-documented websites and position themselves authorities and recognised professional institutions. For exam- in the media as wolf specialists. They also collect observa- ple, they repeatedly spread the word that indigenous wolves tions on wolves and sometimes provide information on cur- are not real wolves, but wolf-dog hybrids, which according to rent events even before the competent authorities have made the OChP must be shot (Box 3.4.3). their views known (see Chapter 4.5). Among their demands

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

France; Ministry for an Ecological and Inclusive Transition & Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2018) or on the level of federal states (e.g. Länder in Germany; DBBW 2019b). However, in view of the transboundary distribution of wolf populations, their requirements for large areas and their extensive dispersal behaviour, it became clear that international cooperation was also necessary for their management (Linnell et al. 2008). The wolves in Switzerland, for example, are part of the larger Alpine population (see Chapter 2.1). Management decisions taken in one Alpine country therefore also have an impact on the other countries (see Chapter 5.1).

Existing international agreements, national laws, regulations and enforcement aids provide the framework within which the authorities responsible for wolf management can act. How- ever, this framework is far from being accepted by all parties involved: for wolf opponents, the Wolf Concept is too "protective", and for nature conservation organisations, the opposite is true (OFEFP 2002). Wolf opposition parties in particular believe that current wolf management needs to be reviewed (e.g. Fédération suisse d'élevage ovin 2017). In the mountain cantons where wolves immigrate, "doing something about the wolf" has proven to be an effective election campaign slogan. Anti-wolf slogans appear on the personal profiles of politicians standing for election, as well as on electoral posters of political parties (Fig. 3.4.4). Since 2006, more than 60 motions, 36 interpellations and questions on the subject of the wolf have Fig. 3.4.4. Posters with anti-wolf slogans are regularly been submitted by parliamentarians to the Federal Council and used in election campaigns. ‘For a canton of Valais with- dealt with in the National Council and the Council of States out wolves’ (above). ‘Sheep instead of wolves’ (below). © (Federal Assembly – The Swiss Parliament 2019, search of the KORA Curia Vista database, keyword "Wolf"). All these parliamentary initiatives had a direct consequence: the revision of the Hunting Law and its related ordinance (Box 3.4.1), as well as of are a better implementation of livestock protection measures the Swiss Wolf Concept (Box 3.4.2). Three anti-wolf initiatives by farmers and no further weakening of the wolf protection were launched during the same period. The cantonal initiative (Groupe Loup Suisse 2018, CHWOLF 2019). By joining forces "Wolf. Fun's over!" by the canton of Valais led Switzerland to with larger and more established conservation organisations submit a new request to the Standing Committee of the Bern (e.g. WWF and ProNatura), these groups are trying to assert Convention in Strasbourg in 2018 (this was the third attempt their concerns also at the political level (Box 3.4.1). after those of 2004 and 2010) to try to downlist the protection of the wolf from "strictly protected" (Annex II) to "protected" Political implications (Annex III) (Box 3.4.1). That said, the proposal was not put to Since the return of the wolf to Switzerland in 1995, it has the vote as many Signatory States were not yet ready to pro- become clear that the emerging conflicts require concrete vide their positions. Switzerland announced that it wished to solutions. In order to make it easier for the cantons to deal come back to the amendment proposal at a future meeting with these conflicts within the framework of existing legislation (see above), what was formerly the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape (now FOEN) developed its first Swiss Wolf Concept in 2004 (Box 3.4.2). The concept concretises laws and regulations with the aim of minimising conflict between human activities and the presence of wolves (OFEFP 2004). The draft concept was sent for consultation, where all stakeholders were given the opportunity to express their views. Several cantons then drew up their own wolf concepts in which they specify the national concept according to their local conditions (Box 3.4.2). Similar concepts or man- Fig. 3.4.5. Voting poster for the popular cantonal initiative agement plans have also been formulated in other European “For a canton of Valais without large predators”. © CVP countries which are applicable either at national level (e.g. in Upper Valais and CSP Upper Valais

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

Box 3.4.3 Wolf-dog hybrids – fake news, myths and scientific facts

In newspapers and social networks, the claim that Central and Western European wolves are not "real wolves" but hybrids, i.e. a crossbreed between dog and wolf, is regularly advocated. This rumour is common in almost all regions where wolves have recolonised in recent decades. The phenomenon of hybridisation in wolves has been scientifically studied in-depth, in terms of both genetic and morphological characteristics. For example, in some local wolf populations, where a multiplication of hybridisations occurs or has occurred in the past, external characteristics inherited from the dog such as a black coloration of the coat or dewclaws on the hind legs may sometimes appear. More accurate findings can be made using modern molecular genetic investigation methods, which generally allow the sequencing and analysis of between ten and several hundred thousand DNA fragments. The analysed samples are then compared using complex statistical procedures (Fig. 3.4.3.1). Hence, crossbreeding between wolves and dogs can be traced over several generations. Scientific studies provide a rather clear picture for Europe: in parts of southern and eastern Europe, where there exist larger stray dog populations, hybridisation occurs repeatedly (Galaverni et al. 2017). Only in very rare cases, however, a considerable degree of mixing between dog and wolf was detected. In a region of central Italy, for example, a situation was described which gets close to a "hybrid swarm" in which the genetic distinctness of two species disap- pears through continued crossbreeding (Salvatori et al. 2019). In Central and Northern Europe including Switzerland and Germany, hybridisation rates are on the other hand very low and are generally around 1%, based on several genetic studies (Dufresnes et al. 2019b, Nowak et al. 2018). Morphologically atypical wolves are hardly recorded here, and investigations of skull morphology support the genetic findings (Jähde & Ansorge 2015).

Fig. 3.4.3.1. Statistical separation between dogs, wolves and their hybrids based on the latest genomic studies (SNP genotyping). Each point represents the genomic profile of a sample tested; the position of one point in relation to the others reflects the genetic similarity among themselves. Specific locations in the genome where dogs and wolves differ genetically have been analysed. Many of these locations are DNA areas that have been modified by human selection during the domestication of the wolf into the current domestic dog. One can see that wolf samples from different regions of Europe are clearly distinguishable from the dog reference samples and known wolf-dog hybrids. They form a uniform group in which the wolf samples from Germany are also located (source: Nowak et al. 2018).

The fact that rumours about the existence of allegedly very dangerous wolf hybrids has not abated despite the clear scientific evidence is probably due to the attraction of the media and anti-wolf interest groups to this type of information. In accordance with the federal Hunting Ordinance (OChP; SR 922.01), wolf-dog hybrids must actually be removed from the wild (Art. 8bis Para. 5 OChP). The argument of wolf-opponents that all indigenous wolves are hybrids, therefore legitimises their claims that these animals must be shot. Alleged proof of the hybridisation theory appears regularly, particularly on the Internet, for example on the website of the "Association for the Protection of Extensive Livestock Farming and Rural Habitats of the Cantons of Glarus, St. Gallen and both Appenzell" (VWL 2020). However, these alleged proofs are never supported by scientific evidence or published in international scientific journals and are therefore

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 3. Challenges

largely ignored in professional circles. Nevertheless, the erroneous assertion of a high degree of hybridisation in the Central European wolf population is a source of uncertainty to the public due to its high media coverage. Even if only a minority of people believe that the international scientific community is completely wrong concerning this topic, at least the impression remains that current scientific knowledge is still debated and that the available evidence is contradictory. Moreover, the media regularly publishes articles which are based on these alleged proofs, reporting contradictory scientific conclusions and thus disagreement between scientists on the degree of hybridisation of wolf and dog (e.g. Gamp 2015, Koder 2017, VWL 2020, Zengaffinen 2015). A similarly divided scientific community is already being successfully suggested to the public on the subject of climate change, although in fact there has long been agreement among almost all experts on the causes of the phenomenon (Mcbean & Hengeveld 2000).

Hybridisation is often portrayed in the media as a hidden and not very tangible danger. Wolf-dog hybrids are portrayed to be potentially more dangerous to humans and livestock than purebred wolves, as they would be less shy and less re- luctant to have direct contact with humans. Close encounters with humans, as well as occasionally observed wolves in close proximity to settlements, are considered evidence to support this theory. However, there is no scientific evidence as yet of any different or threatening behaviour of hybrids towards humans. Studies on hybrids in Tuscany suggest the opposite, namely that hybrids growing up in the wild behave like normal wolves (Bassi et al. 2017 and M. Apollonio, personal communication).

In Central Europe, the phenomenon of hybridisation is less of a problem for livestock farmers concerned with the presence of wolf or for the species wolf itself but rather for the wolf management. A clear definition of hybrids, thus indicat- ing the extent to which the presence of canine DNA in the gene pool of wild wolves is tolerated and as of when intervention is required, is indispensable. In Switzerland, hybrids that must be removed from the wild are defined in Article 86 of the "Ordinance of 23 April 2008 on Animal Protection" (OPAn; SR 455.1) and in Annex 1 of the OChP, respectively. This aspect is all the more important since recent analytical methods examining entire genomes offer ever finer resolution and are therefore able to detect even small traces of an ancient hybridisation between wolf and dog in the genome 38 (e.g. Pilot et al. 2017). It seems likely that traces of canine DNA are present in almost all wolf populations worldwide. The same genomic techniques have enabled to detect domestic goat DNA in Swiss Alpine ibex or Neanderthal DNA in the genome of modern humans (Green et al. 2010, Grossen et al. 2014). The phenomenon of hybridisation is part of the evolution of almost every species. Rare crosses with dogs are therefore hardly a threat to the survival of the wolf in Central Europe, as long as the phenomenon does not occur more frequently. Despite media reports to the contrary, there is currently no scientific evidence that this is the case.

(Council of Europe 2018). The popular cantonal initiative "For particular to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements" the regulation of large carnivores in the canton of Uri" by the (Council of Europe 2019a). Uri Farmers' Association was adopted by 70% of the votes in February 2019. The text of the initiative calls on the canton to Parliamentary interventions and popular initiatives have enact regulations for the protection against large carnivores regularly resulted in demands that were in contradiction with and to restrict and regulate their populations. The fostering international law or relevant Swiss legislation and required of large carnivore populations is to be prohibited (Kanton legislative adaptations (Box 3.4.1). Doris Leuthard, former Uri 2019). Another popular cantonal initiative, "For a canton Federal Councillor and head of the Federal Department of En- of Valais without large predators", with a very similar con- vironment, Transport, Energy and Communications, stated in tent, was presented by the CVP Upper Valais in collaboration 2018 during debates in the Council of States on the revision with the SPC Upper Valais and is expected to be submitted of the LChP and the wolf topic: "If we add up the hours dur- to Valais voters in autumn 2020 (Fig. 3.4.5). However, a gen- ing which we have dealt with this issue, it is inappropriate". eral prohibition to promote large carnivore populations would However, there is no indication so far that the wolf might nevertheless conflict with Article 2 of the Bern Convention, occupy Swiss society and therefore the media, the political which, among other things, obliges contracting parties to take sphere and the administration to a lesser extent in the future the necessary measures to "maintain the population of wild than up to now. flora and fauna at, or adapt it to, a level which corresponds in

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

4. Possible solutions

4.1 Compensation for attacks on livestock

What are the effects of compensatory payments for predated be either a compensation payment after a wolf attack or a livestock? general subsidy in areas where large carnivores are pre- In most European countries, livestock killed by wolves are sub- sent, regardless of whether the farmer concerned has suf- ject to financial compensation. The primary purpose of these fered damage (Marino et al. 2018). In some regions there is compensation payments is to share the burden between differ- no state support, so funds to compensate damage are chan- ent social groups, so that the rural population, which is directly nelled through hunting, livestock or nature conservation asso- affected, does not have to bear the costs of the wolf's return ciations or project-related funds (e.g. EU nature conservation alone, given that wolf presence is supported by a large part of projects). However, these solutions are only temporary and the urban population. The accurate and prompt processing of do not offer any security to those affected, as they do not al- compensation payments also increases the confidence of those low for long-term planning (Mettler 2019). Another solution is affected in the management system and the reliability of the to take out an (state-subsidised) insurance, which covers the responsible institutions (Mettler 2019). Transparency, monitor- deaths of livestock, including those caused by predation by ing, sufficient funding and trust are indeed essential for a com- large carnivores. The effectiveness of such insurance-based pensation system to work (Ravenelle & Nyhus 2017). However, systems as a measure for conflict mitigation is controversial compensation payments do not necessarily have a positive in- (Marino et al. 2018). The principle of sharing the burden is not fluence on the general level of acceptance of the wolf (Boitani respected, since livestock farmers must bear costs of wolf et al. 2010). They do not solve the conflict itself, but merely, damages themselves. treat the "symptoms" (Redpath et al. 2015; see Chapter 4.4). By choice, most livestock farmers would still prefer no damage Compensation payments in Switzerland by wolves to any well-functioning compensation system. The IIn Switzerland, all livestock damages caused by wolves are discussion about how much public money should be invested currently compensated, regardless of whether the owner has in the wolf can also quickly turn compensation payments into implemented livestock protection measures (OFEV 2016). The 39 a political issue. Their effectiveness in promoting coexistence Confederation and the cantons share the compensation pay- between humans and wolves is therefore controversial (Boitani ments (80 % by the Confederation and 20 % by the cantons) et al. 2010). in accordance with the rules set out in the "Federal Law on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds" Compensation payments and livestock protection measures (LChPA; RS 922.0). These rules would have changed following influence each other. Compensation should not be too high, the planned revision of the LChPA of 2017, in that predated otherwise it may discourage livestock protection. On the livestock would only have been compensated if reasonable other hand, compensation that is linked to the implementa- measures to protect livestock had been taken. However, the tion of livestock protection measures may increase the incentive to adopt such measures (Mettler 2019). However, it may also lead to a bias as damage to unprotected pastures will be reported less frequently. The presentation of the carcass and an expert's report are usually a prerequisite to receive compensation for predated livestock (Fig. 4.1.1). When each predated livestock is compensated, a large proportion of wolf damage is registered, which improves the monitoring of wolf populations (Zimmermann 2019). Similarly, information regarding damage in both protected and unprotected situations is essential to improve livestock protection. As the number of livestock damages are also an important management criterion, attacks on livestock must be monitored and recorded as comprehensively as possible. For example, the number of predated livestock per year and per region is a decisive criterion for the shooting of wolves that cause damage (see Chapter 4.3). Fig. 4.1.1. This dead sheep was skinned during inspection to observe the wounds under the skin (here a throat Possible funding approaches bite). The manner of killing and the way the animal was European countries apply different methods of financing eaten are used, along with other clues (tracks, photos, ge- compensation payments. If there is a legal basis for it, the netic samples, etc.) to determine the predator responsible damage will be compensated using public money. This can for the kill. © F. Zimmermann

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

revision of the LChPA was rejected by Swiss voters in 2020 recent years, compensation payments for livestock predated (Box 3.4.1). by wolves have increased (Fig. 4.1.2). However, the number of animals compensated for annually does not only depend on The cantons are obligated to assess and record the damage the number of wolves (see Chapter 3.1). Compared to direct incurred. Wherever possible, genetic material should also be payments for the management of alpine pastures for sheep or collected for monitoring purposes (Box 2.2.1). Data on pre- to funds allocated for the protection of livestock, the share of dated livestock and genetic evidence of wolves are collected compensation payments for predated sheep in the total costs by the KORA Foundation and can be viewed on the Monitor- is rather low. In 2018, for example, compensation payments ing Centre website (https://www.koracenter.ch). Compen- for sheep predated by wolves amounted to around 215,000 sation is provided for all livestock that are killed directly by Swiss francs. The same year, farmers received CHF 15.7 mil- wolves or that must be slaughtered as a consequence of lion in subsidies for the promotion of summer pasturing with severe injuries suffered during a wolf attack. The cantons sheep (excluding dairy sheep, OFAG 2019). The Federal Office may also, in the interests of reconciliation, compensate (at for the Environment (FOEN) has earmarked an annual budget least partially) fallen or missing animals, as well as the vet- of CHF 2.4 million to finance livestock protection measures, erinary costs of injured animals (OFEV 2016). The amount of which is managed by the national coordination office for live- compensation is determined by means of assessment tables stock protection based at AGRIDEA (AGRIDEA 2019b). drawn up by the Swiss breeding associations (OFEV 2016). In

250’000

200’000

150’000

40 100’000 compensation (CHF) 50’000

Fig. 4.1.2. Compensation payments for livestock predated by wolves from 1999 to 2019 (Source: OFEV 2020).

4.2 Livestock protection measures

Livestock protection - from selective emergency missions to ting up livestock protection consulting services in collaboration comprehensive preventive measures with the cantons and implementing the federal strategy at a Since the return of the wolf in the mid-1990s, only solitary in- national level (OFEV 2016). dividuals were spotted at first during the summer months in the mountain pastures where the sheep were grazing. In the In order to deploy the federal financial resources in a targeted alpine cantons, wolf attacks were regular, particularly on sheep manner in the affected areas, "prevention perimeters" were de- but also, although less frequently, on goats. It therefore became fined from 2003–2013. The priority was to provide advice on necessary to develop, implement and, wherever possible, pro- protecting livestock and to implement measures in these areas, mote measures to protect livestock. In 1999, the Federal Office which were still clearly distinguishable at the time (Fig. 4.2.1). for the Environment (FOEN) initially commissioned the KORA These early years can be described as "pioneering", as they pro- Association (now the Foundation KORA) to launch the first pilot vided decisive experience and valuable knowledge regarding projects for livestock protection. In 2003, AGRIDEA (Agricultural the breeding, training and use of livestock guardian dogs (LGDs). Advisory and Extension Services) was subsequently commis- Shepherding and the use of fencing to improve the protection sioned by the Confederation to take over this task. It therefore of livestock were also developed. "Mobile herd protection" – a set up a national coordination office for livestock protection special intervention team with two shepherds, several LGDs, a (http://www.protectiondestroupeaux.ch), with the aim of set- breeder and an expert – became an integral part of the federal

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

programme. This procedure made it possible to react quickly to wolf attacks, which are generally unpredictable during summer pasturing (summer grazing in Swiss mountain pastures during the summer months at an altitude of 1500–3000 m). More than 100 "mobile herd protection" missions were thus carried out over a period of ten years. Due to the extensive spread of the wolves and the increased requirements for the deployment of LGDs, these "emergency missions" were abandoned over time in order to promote year-round husbandry of LGDs and advice for small livestock farmers. It gradually became clear that wolf attacks were no longer limited to alpine pastures alone, but that valley, spring and autumn meadows were increasingly subject to attack. This development also highlighted the need for alternate solutions to the use of LGDs, as maintaining dogs Fig. 4.2.1. Prevention perimeters for wolf and bear near villages, in small structures or for heterogeneous herds 2008/2009 (zones distinguished by colour). Green= area (e.g. including sheep of different breeds or origins) was often occupied by bear, yellow= home ranges of resident single associated with disproportionate difficulties or costs. These wolves present for > 3 years, orange= areas with detec- problems could be partly solved by additional protective mea- tions of single wolves for > 2 years, red= areas with detec- sures such as the use of electrified fences, llamas, acoustic or tion of single wolves for one year. At the beginning of the optical deterrents (e.g. flashing lights or fladry). wolf recolonisation of Switzerland, advice and measures to protect livestock were only supported financially within In parallel with the continued range expansion of the wolves the defined prevention perimeters (Source: AGRIDEA). and the formation of the first pack in 2012, a comprehensive strategy covering the entire territory has replaced regional or for livestock guardian dogs (monitoring and control of LGDs). In project-based support (Fig. 4.2.2). The presence of wolves has addition, the "Swiss Association for Livestock Guarding Dogs" become more predictable in areas where they are resident (Box (LGD-CH) founded in 2011 became responsible for the breeding 4.2.1). This made it possible to plan livestock protection mea- and training of LGDs. In 2013, the process of institutionalising 41 sures, and "mobile herd protection" was increasingly replaced livestock protection was completed with its anchoring in the by the use of civil servants to provide concrete support to shep- funding article of the revised Federal Hunting Ordinance (OChP; herds and alpine farmers. As the requirements and tasks in the RS 922.01) and its integration into the "Ordinance of 23 October canine sector have steadily increased, two specialist units were 2013 on Direct Payments in Agriculture" (OPD; RS 910.13) (Box created in 2014 from the national coordination office: the spe- 3.4.1). This was the basis for the FOEN's enforcement aid on cialist unit for livestock protection (technical measures, alpine livestock protection, which has been in force since 2019 (OFEV pasture planning and shepherd training) and a specialist unit 2019). Since the revision of the FOEN in 2013, the cantons are

Fig. 4.2.2. The priority zone for protecting livestock in 2019 (red zone), complemented by signs of presence of large carnivores during the years 2013–2018. For the wolf and bear, all detections were taken into account (animals found dead, photos and genetic samples), for the lynx and golden jackal, predated livestock only (Source: GRIDS, visited on 04.03.2019).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Box 4.2.1 Planning alpine sheep grazing in the canton of Valais

The implementation of livestock protection measures is essential to ensure the coexistence of livestock and wolves. The framework for this is determined by the agricultural structures, regional differences, and the characteristics of the alpine grazing culture (including climate, vegetation, local livestock breeds and tourism in the region). The conditions and traditions of sheep and goat farming in Switzerland differ from region to region. In the southern Alps, the culture is not the same as in the northern Alps or in French-speaking and eastern Switzerland and also differs from the Romansh culture in Grisons. In order to enable the protection of livestock in small-scale mountain farms, the organisation and planning of grazing management is therefore of paramount importance. Technical aspects (fencing material, etc.) are just as important as socio-economic factors (e.g. work organisation).

Summer pasturing of sheep has undergone profound changes over the last 15 years. Three elements in particular have contributed to this change: the introduction of graded financial incentives for different grazing systems (Fig. 4.2.3.), gradual structural changes involving a decrease in the number of livestock, and the return of large carnivores, especially wolves. In order to assist the cantons in analysing and planning adaptations and changes, AGRIDEA has developed a method which has been applied for the first time throughout the canton of Valais. Considering the exceptional cultural and ecological importance of sheep summering in this canton, the aim was to analyse in detail and further develop summer pasturing to ensure its sustainable management despite a changing situation. Between 2012 and 2014, 152 alpine sheep meadows were visited, documented and analysed together with farmers and owners. The results laid the basis for the evaluation of the technical and socio-economic feasibility of implementing effective and efficient protection of the livestock. The following two steps were implemented:

Stage 1: Inspection of the alpine meadows with the farmers and personalised analysis of the alpine meadows including a management plan and recommendations on the management and protection of livestock.

42 Step 2: Joint planning with farmers and landowners to clarify the feasibility of structural adjustments.

Fig. 4.2.1.1. Requirements and recommendations for the protection of livestock in the alpine sheep pastures of the canton of Valais. LGD= livestock guardian dogs (Source: Mettler et al. 2014).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

The results were presented to the cantonal advisory authorities (Mettler et al. 2014) in the form of a final report, a database and during various coaching sessions. For each alpine meadow, the conditions required for the protection of livestock were analysed and recommendations for adjustments were made (Fig. 4.2.1.1). Since then, the concrete implementation of measures such as merging of small herds, building of shepherd's shelters and structural adjustments on pastures used for spring grazing has gradually been carried out by the cantonal authorities. As a result, some alpine pastures are already under shepherding or have been converted into managed rotational pastures.

Planning of alpine sheep grazing and structural analyses of small livestock farms involve local farmers, which allows the method used to be optimally adapted to regional particularities. Similar structural analyses have in the meantime been carried out in other cantons to digitally record all grazing areas and livestock and to analyse local characteristics in greater depth. This approach makes it possible to find optimal solutions, either individual or common to several farms, to protect livestock. The Confederation and the cantons have recognised the importance of planning at this level and, in accordance with the Hunting Ordinance, can provide financial support for the development of these planning and advisory bases (Box 3.4.1).

In the meantime, AGRIDEA has also carried out similar analyses in the neighbouring Tyrol and South Tyrol. All these experiences have shown that in addition to technical analysis, data acquisition and evaluation, communication, and the careful involvement of all stakeholders in these planning processes were equally important factors for the successful long-term implementation of livestock protection projects. Further information and reports on the subject are available at http://www.protectiondestroupeaux.ch/fr/planification-et-vulgarisation/projets/. obligated to become involved in the advisory service on live- background that the Confederation laid down the funding con- stock protection and, via their cantonal livestock protection ditions for livestock protection. LGDs and fences are system- consultants, have become the direct partners of the farmers atically financed. All other measures can be supported by the concerned (Box 4.2.1). Over the years, a broad understanding federal government and the cantons on a selective basis. At the 43 of livestock protection has emerged based on a variety of ex- same time, the role of professional shepherds on sheep grazing periences with the advice provided, creating a common base pastures has gained importance. Although shepherding does between the Confederation and the cantons. It was against this not constitute a livestock protection measure in itself, it is nev-

16 000 30 000

14 000 25 000 12 000 20 000 10 000

8 000 15 000

6 000 (in livestock (in livestock units)

(in livestock (in livestock units) 10 000 4 000 5 000 Total number of sheep in Swizerland Number of sheep Number of sheep per grazing system 2 000

0 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 total shepherding rotational grazing free grazing

Fig.4.2.3. Development of grazing systems in alpine sheep pastures from 2003 to 2018: there is a national trend towards abandoning free grazing in favour of shepherding. In the case of shepherding, sheep are led to their feeding and resting places by a shepherd; in the case of rotational grazing systems, sheep are kept in fenced pasture enclosures or pastures with natural boundaries and must be moved regularly. In the case of free grazing, the sheep can move freely across the entire pasture area (Source: BLW 2019).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Fig. 4.2.4. In Switzerland, Maremmano Abruzzese (left) and Montagne des Pyrénées (also called patou, right) are the main dog breeds used for livestock protection. © AGRIDEA

ertheless indispensable for maintaining the compactness of the Rotational grazing: the sheep graze in enclosures formed by herds, the systematic use of night pens and the care of LGDs in fences and natural barriers and change pastures at least every large mountain pastures. This is why AGRIDEA, in collaboration fortnight. with Plantahof GR and the agricultural schools of Viège and Châteauneuf in Valais, has been organising a Swiss shepherd Shepherding: sheep are shepherded daily in pasture sectors training programme since 2009 (Hoffet & Mettler 2017, Met- or pens and spend the night under supervision in suitable rest- tler 2019). In 2000, the introduction of graded summer grazing ing places. 44 subsidies in the ordinance on direct payments (OPD; RS 910.13) created incentives for guarded and controlled grazing (Lauber Within the framework of the agricultural policy of 2014–2017, et al. 2014). Since then, a distinction has been made between the contributions to shepherding and rotational grazing sys- three grazing systems: tems were increased from 2014 onwards, while contributions to free grazing remained unchanged. The aim was to strength- Free grazing: The sheep graze an alpine area without guid- en the incentive for more sustainable pasture management ance or fencing and are checked at least weekly. through controlled grazing. The presence of wolves has further

Fig. 4.2.5. Visitor orientation signs (left) and marking signs (right) inform the public about the presence of livestock guardian dogs in the area. © AGRIDEA

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Box 4.2.2 Livestock protection on Alp Ramoz – a success story

Alp Ramoz is located in the St Gallen Oberland directly on the border with Grisons, in the region of the Calanda Massif, at the back of the Tamina Valley (Fig. 4.2.2.1). This is where the first wolf pack in Switzerland formed in 2012, and since then it has reproduced with about 4 to 8 pups born every year. The alp, which lies in the middle of the territory of this "Calanda pack", was rocked by wolf predation for the first time in 2011.

The alpine pasture is managed by a sheep breeding cooperative from the canton of Zurich. Every year, more than 20 livestock breeders graze between 300 and 400 sheep on a grazing area between 1600 and 2400 m above sea level. Until 2011, the free grazing system was used on this pasture. The sheep were brought here in the spring and could then graze freely in the open pastures. Every week, the sheep breeders visited and carried out an inspection. Following the first wolf predation in the summer of 2011, two LGDs were integrated into the herd by AGRIDEA's "mobile herd protection" team as an emergency measure and temporary protection was organised for the rest of the summer in the form of mobile shepherds' interventions. Despite the emergency measures, there were still isolated cases involving further damage. Sheep breeders were therefore forced to opt for a longer-term livestock protection strategy. With the support of the agricultural advisory service of AGRIDEA and the canton of Grisons, it was possible to organise livestock protection from autumn 2011 by changing the grazing system and integrating LGDs. Thus, in 2012, fences and the employment of a shepherd enabled a rotational grazing system to be set up, to better guide and control the sheep. As the pack became established that same summer, the wolves became more persistent and attacks occurred again. The breeders therefore decided, at another advisory meeting, to further strengthen the protection of the flocks by adding additional dogs. Although these measures were labour-intensive, they did limit the losses. The shepherds had, however, decided to succeed in completely suppressing the attacks. "If it doesn't work, we won't continue to operate the alp", said the head of the breeding cooperative at the time. A new stage was therefore planned for 2013: the establishment of shepherding with night pens, four LGDs and a shepherd who drove the livestock in a compact manner using herding dogs and fences.

Following the introduction of shepherding and the constant presence of four LDGs, there were no further losses of sheep, 45 even though the wolf pack had settled permanently in the area. The example of Alp Ramoz shows that a coherent strategy on the part of the breeders is necessary to ensure the success of the protection of livestock. In addition, it takes time to organise a transformation of pastures from free grazing to rotational grazing and finally to shepherding, by making the necessary adjustments in terms of infrastructure, personnel and LGDs. In the case of Alp Ramoz, everything worked well despite a difficult and costly transformation phase. It is therefore a good example of the planning and implementation of organisational and technical adaptations for the protection of livestock, which can serve as a model for other similar alpine pastures.

Fig. 4.2.2.1. Sheep in their night pen on Alp Ramoz. The alp is situat- ed in the Calanda massif, at the back of the Tamina valley. © D. Mettler

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Development in the number of livestock guardian dogs (LGD) used in the summering areas across various cantons between 2003 and 2018

Fig. 4.2.6. Develop- ment in the number of 20 livestock guardian dogs

used in the summer- 10 ing areas across various cantons between 0 2003 and 2018 (Source: 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 AGRIDEA). BE FR GL GR LU NW/OW SG TI UR VD VS

reinforced the trend towards shepherding, particularly in the currently in use on around 100 Swiss alpine pastures. The cantons of Valais and Grisons, from 2011 onwards (Mettler & dogs are also used before and after on spring and autumn Hilfiker 2017; Fig. 4.2.3). As a result, more than two-thirds of pastures and on farms (Fig. 4.2.6). Unlike herding dogs and sheep herds are now either shepherded or placed under ro- other utility dogs, LGDs work largely autonomously – without tational grazing. The demands placed on alpine farmers have humans, but in association with other dogs. They are born 46 increased due to additional pressure from large carnivores and into a herd of livestock, and because of their exceptional abil- stipulations regarding the conservation of biodiversity. How- ity to bond with sheep, goats and even cattle, they can be ever, thanks to the training of breeders and the exchange of properly socialized to live with them, which is essential for knowledge and information at national and international levels, good flock loyalty (so they remain with their herd day and sheep grazing has also benefited from a qualitative renewal. night on their own) and for effective protection. The socialisation of dogs with humans is equally important. This is a pre- Livestock Guardian Dogs - a challenging but effective protec- requisite for the medium-term acceptance of the use of LGDs tion measure by society. Indeed, the (desired) protective behaviour, which is Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs) have been protecting livestock to a great extent hereditary in LGDs, causes them to be wary for thousands of years, particularly in Europe and Asia. How- of any unknown elements approaching the herd (e.g. hikers) ever, the traditional know-how relating to their use was com- and to keep them as far away from the herd as possible until pletely lost when large predators were extirpated in Switzer- they are perceived to be "safe". Only a relationship of trust land. Since the return of the wolf in the 1990s, dogs have once with their owners and the many positive experiences they again been used to protect livestock in the Alps (Fig. 4.2.4). have had especially at a young age with walkers, cyclists, It is proving to be a generational task to harmonise the work children, etc. enable them to cope with such situations in a of LGDs in the best way possible with the agricultural, social "socially acceptable" way. On the website of "Livestock pro- and legal framework prevailing in Switzerland. At the same tection Switzerland", hikers can find out how to behave when time, this framework must also be adapted to the dogs and encountering a LGD as well as whether LGDs are present in a their owners wherever necessary. Thus, knowledge of how to region before going on a hike (http://www.protectiondestrou- use these dogs and the understanding and tolerance of their peaux.ch/en/map/). working methods, must first be learnt again by a wide range of people, including farmers, tourists, hunters and the responsible To ensure the effectiveness and social acceptability of the LGDs authorities (Fig. 4.2.5). supported by the Confederation, a system with the following three levels of accident and conflict prevention has been de- In some areas, especially difficult to access Alpine regions, veloped as part of the national programme for the protection of dogs are the only effective protection against predator at- livestock (OFEV 2019): tacks. Experiences with LGDs in Switzerland clearly show that although they do not always prevent damage from predators, Dog quality: LGDs are bred, trained and tested by the FOEN to they can greatly minimise it (Box 4.2.2; AGRIDEA 2019c, Wil- check their social compatibility. This approach aims at a three- lisch et al. 2013). As part of the federal government’s national fold socialisation: with livestock, with humans and within the livestock protection programme, around 250 official LGDs are dog pack.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Fig. 4.2.7. Orange electric netting can be made more visible to livestock and wildlife by adding blue and white flagging tape. © AGRIDEA

Monitoring: LGDs are monitored by the Confederation using height of 90 cm (Fig. 4.2.7) offer effective protection against an adapted monitoring system (recording and analysis of inci- wolves, provided they are professionally installed, have suffi- dents, declaration by farmers, random checks, etc.). cient power and are properly grounded. These fencing systems were therefore defined by the FOEN as the basic protection Regulated use: when using LGDs, their owners are required to standard for small livestock (Mettler& Schiess 2016). comply with numerous rules to prevent accidents and conflicts. 47 Conflict management is based, for each farm with LGDs, on a Furthermore, wolves in captivity were studied to examine so-called safety report from the "Service for the prevention of their behaviour in relation to electric fences (Lüthi et al. 2017). accidents in agriculture" (Service de prévention des accidents The results show that wolves look for passages between the dans l’agriculture; SPAA). A guide with checklists also helps ground and the fence system as they approach the boundaries farmers minimise possible conflicts on a daily basis. of the enclosure. After receiving electric shocks, the frequency of these "fence patrols" decreased considerably. None of the Electric fencing for pastures - an effective measure to protect animals in the study packs jumped over an electrified litz wire livestock when used properly fence or netting, not even when the top strand of the fence Although small livestock farming in Switzerland is very diverse, was set at only 65 cm (Fig. 4.2.8). This study also showed that regardless of the number of animals and the method of keeping the absence of a gap between the ground and the fence (maxi- them, they are all kept in pastures which are mostly fenced. mum distance of 20 cm), as well as the perfect condition of the Traditionally, small livestock farms in Switzerland use fences equipment and the proper functioning of the fence (electricity, to manage pastures for livestock. Different types of fencing are earthing, etc.) were more important than the height of the fence selected during the growing season, depending on the species itself (Fig. 4.2.9). The image of the dog or wolf jumping over an and the region. The most common types of fencing are elec- electric fence is deeply ingrained in people’s minds and strong- tric netting with a height of 90 cm or more, electrified litz wire ly influenced by experiences with dogs such as border collies, fences and non-electrified knotted wire mesh. Since the return which jump over such fences without any problem. However, it of the wolf, the question has been raised regarding the extent must be noted that these dogs have been specifically trained to which fences could also help in preventing the wolf from for this. Wolves can also learn to jump over fences, and it is as- entering the pasture in addition to holding livestock together. sumed that they acquire this skill with non-electrified fences. In order to prevent this learning effect, it would be advisable, from On behalf of the FOEN, the coordination office for livestock a livestock protection point of view, for farms where wolves protection run by AGRIDEA coordinates the installation and fi- are present to only use electric fencing. In accordance with nancing of fences for livestock protection among other things. the Wolf Plan and the Hunting Ordinance (OChP; RS 922.01), When predation by large carnivores on livestock occurred in re- wolves that have proven to cut across properly installed electric cent years in various parts of Switzerland, the coordination of- fences and thereby cause damage to protected herds are al- fice for livestock protection, in collaboration with the cantonal lowed to be shot (see criteria in Chapter 4.3). livestock protection consultants, investigated various fencing systems (Hansen 2018). Experience since 2000 has shown that Next to LGDs, electrified fences are the most important live- fences with four litz wires and electric netting with a minimum stock protection measure supported by the FOEN (OFEV 2019).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Fig. 4.2.8. Two captive wolves attempt to cross a two-strand litz wire fence. Although the upper strand was only 65 cm high, no wolf jumped over the fence. © AGRIDEA

The fencing systems defined as the basic protection standard the use of fencing is therefore mainly recommended for the are traditionally used for pasture management by small live- construction of night pens (AGRIDEA 2020). These are smaller stock farmers and are already compensated through annual fenced areas where sheep are taken for the night. In order to direct payments. The FOEN therefore does not provide any increase the visibility of the fences, different colours can be additional financial support for these fences. However, if used. The electric netting traditionally used for sheep breed- farmers reinforce their fencing systems to protect their flocks ing is often orange, a colour that aims to warn the general 48 (raising electric netting to 105 cm, installing a fifth litz wire public of the electrification of the fences. At the same time, or reinforcing the knotted mesh with electrified strands), they the colour orange as well as wire fences are difficult to see for will receive additional financial support under the Confed- domestic and wild animals, as a large proportion of mammals eration’s national livestock protection programme. Upgrad- are red-green colour blind. As a result, livestock and wildlife ing fences often represents a considerable additional effort, can get caught in electric fences. Wire fences or grazing nets especially in difficult terrain. For this reason, the complete in contrasting colours (blue and white or black and white), on fencing of pastures as a livestock protection measure is re- the other hand, increase the visibility of the fences and their commended mainly for spring pastures and on farms. Only in detection by the animals. As an alternative, the visibility of exceptional cases can alpine pastures be completely fenced ordinary electric netting can be improved by attaching blue off with a reasonable amount of effort. In alpine pastures, and white flagging tape (Fig. 4.2.7).

Fig. 4.2.9. Wolves can scout fences for a long time and use weak points (here a stream) as a passage. A fully electrified fence with no weak points is essential for an effective protection of the flock. © AGRI- DEA

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

4.3 Legal killing of wolves

Legal framework In spite of the strict protection of the wolf in accordance and may be granted until 31 December of the year in question with Article 6 of the Bern Convention (RS 0.455), killing at the latest, and for a limited period until 31 March of the wolves is permitted in exceptional cases detailed in Article following year (Art. 4bis OChP). 9 (see Chapter 3.4). Provided there is no other satisfactory solution and the derogation is not detrimental to the animal If the partial revision of the LChPA had been adopted in the population concerned, a Contracting Party may grant excep- autumn of 2020, the regulation of wolf shootings would have tions from the strict protection of wolves to prevent serious been affected. However, the revision of the LChPA was rejected damage to livestock or in the interest of public safety. At the by Swiss voters (Box. 3.4.1). federal level, Article 12 of the Federal Hunting Law (LChP; RS 922.0) provides the legal basis for the killing of wolves. Reasonable livestock protection measures Article 12 paragraph 2 of the LChP stipulates that cantons The shooting of large carnivores as a result of damage to live- may at any time order or authorise measures against certain stock is subject to the condition that reasonable measures for protected or huntable animals if they cause significant dam- the protection of livestock have been taken but were unsuc- age. Only persons holding a hunting licence or supervisory cessful (Art. 4 para. 1 OChP). The OChP and the Enforcement bodies may be entrusted with the implementation of such Aid for Livestock Protection (OFEV 2019) define the measures measures. Since July 2015, the cantons no longer require an that the Confederation considers to be effective and techni- authorisation issued by the FOEN to kill individual wolves that cally feasible, and whose implementation by farmers is there- have caused damage (Art. 9bis of the Ordinance on Hunting, fore subsidised by the Confederation (see Chapter 4.2). The OChP; RS 922.01), provided that the necessary criteria are cantons advise farmers on a case-by-case basis on effective met (Table 4.3.1, OFEV 2016). Authorisations to shoot single and sensible livestock protection measures (Art. 10 para. 4 wolves must be limited to a maximum of 60 days and to an OChP). However, the implementation of livestock protection appropriate shooting perimeter, the purpose of this killing be- measures is in all cases a matter for individual farmers to ing to prevent further damage. The shooting perimeter must decide. For a shooting authorisation to be granted, only pre- correspond to the perimeter where the flocks are currently dated livestock that were protected or summered in an area 49 located, especially where no reasonable livestock protection where no reasonable protection measures could be taken are measures can be taken (Art. 9bis OChP). considered. Livestock which are killed in an area where no reasonable protective measures have been taken despite the Similarly, with the prior consent of the FOEN, the cantons previous occurrence of damage caused by wolves, may be may take measures to reduce a population of a protected compensated (see Chapter 4.1) but under current legislation species if the population is too high and this leads to signifi- are not considered when deciding whether to grant a shoot- cant damage or constitutes a serious danger (Art. 12 para 4 ing authorisation (Table 4.3.1). LChP). The law is interpreted in such a way that when wolf packs are formed there can be regionally high populations Legal shootings (OFEV 2015a). In regions where wolf packs reproduce, regula- Since the wolves returned to Switzerland, 15 individuals have tory interventions can be allowed under certain conditions. been legally put to death (Table 4.3.2, Fig. 4.3.1). Nine shoot- However, the number of wolves killed should not exceed half ings of single wolves were due to predated livestock, and two the number of young born that same year, and the breeding wolves were killed because of sickness. Four pups in existing pair has to be spared. In addition, various criteria must be met packs were shot after it was genetically proven that their par- for the regulation of packs (Table 4.3.1). Permission to shoot ents had killed livestock that were either demonstrably protect- wolves in packs must be restricted to the territory of the pack ed or could not be protected (Table 4.3.2).

Tab. 4.3.1. Overview of the criteria for the legal shooting of single wolves and packs in accordance with the provisions of the Hunting Ordinance (OChP; RS 922.01).

Single wolf Pack

Legal base Art. 9bis para. 2 OChP Art. 4bis para. 2 OChP

Criteria 35 killed livestock in three months 15 killed livestock in four months

25 killed livestock in one month serious danger to humans according to the table for the assessment of dangerousness (Appendix 5, 15 killed livestock in the following year after Swiss Wolf Concept) damage

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Tab. 4.3.2. Overview of the shooting authorisations issued for wolves due to livestock predation, danger to humans or disease.

Single wolf (S) Reason for shooting Date Canton Location Sex Age Individual Pair (P) Executed Reason Appeal Institution Court decision authorisation Wolf pack (WP)

27.07.2000 VS Aletsch area unknown unknown Predation on livestock S no Expired no 25.08.2000 VS Evolène male adult M06 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 25.08.2000 VS Unterbäch unknown unknown Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 29.09.2001 GR Bregaglia male adult M07 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 09.08.2002 VS Zwischbergen female adult F01 Predation on livestock S no no more damage yes WWF positive 10.06.2003 VS Zwischbergen female adult F01 Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes WWF positive 26.10.2006 VS Goms female adult F03 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 21.11.2006 VS Collombey male adult M15 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot yes WWF positive 28.09.2007 VS Chablais female adult F02 Predation on livestock S no Expired no 06.08.2009 VS Val de Dix female adult F06 Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes Pro Natura/WWF negative 05.08.2009 LU Entlebuch male adult M20 Predation on livestock S no Expired yes Pro Natura/WWF negative 21.08.2009 VS Val d'Illiez male adult M21 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot yes Pro Natura/WWF negative 11.08.2010 VS Mollens male adult M16 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 02.09.2013 VS Obergoms male adult M35 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 23.06.2015 UR Isenthal male adult M58 Predation on livestock S no dispersed no

50 several wolves FOEN/WWF/ 31.08.2015 VS Augstbord adult Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes positive F14/F16/M46/M59 Pro Natura

14.12.2015 SG Calanda juvenile Danger to humans WP (Calanda) no Appeal yes WWF positive 21.12.2015 GR Calanda juvenile Danger to humans WP (Calanda) no Appeal yes WWF partially positive 14.06.2016 VS Augstbord Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) no Pack formation yes Pro Natura/ WWF negative 28.07.2016 UR Attinghausen male adult M68 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no 20.12.2016 VS Augstbord juvenile Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) no Expired no 20.12.2016 VS Ergisch female subadult F22 Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) yes Legally shot no 22.03.2017 TI Faido male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no 22.03.2017 GR whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no 01.05.2017 SG whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no 24.05.2017 AR whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no 04.04.2018 SG Bad Ragaz male adult M71 Disease S yes Legally shot no 03.07.2018 GR Fläsch male subadult M86 Disease S yes Legally shot no

several wolves 07.09.2018 VS Goms Predation on livestock P no Expired no F28/M82/M89

several wolves FOEN/WWF/ 07.09.2018 VS Val d'Annivers Predation on livestock WP no Appeal yes positive F24/M59/M73 Pro Natura

04.10.2019 GR Ilanz female juvenile F58 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no 04.10.2019 GR Ilanz male juvenile M102 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no 23.11.2019 GR Cazis male juvenile M120 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) no Traffic accident no 25.11.2019 GR Masein male juvenile M104 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Tab. 4.3.2. Overview of the shooting authorisations issued for wolves due to livestock predation, danger to humans or disease. Appeals against shooting authorisations Single wolf (S) The right of environmental associations to appeal against deci- Reason for shooting Date Canton Location Sex Age Individual Pair (P) Executed Reason Appeal Institution Court decision sions taken by the authorities has been enshrined since 1966 authorisation Wolf pack (WP) in the "Federal Act of 1 July 1966 on the Protection of Nature and Cultural Heritage" (LPN; RS 451). Thirty-one national en- 27.07.2000 VS Aletsch area unknown unknown Predation on livestock S no Expired no vironmental associations, including WWF and Pro Natura, are 25.08.2000 VS Evolène male adult M06 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no currently entitled to appeal based on the "Ordinance of 27 June 1990 on the designation of organisations entitled to appeal in 25.08.2000 VS Unterbäch unknown unknown Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no the field of environmental protection and nature and landscape 29.09.2001 GR Bregaglia male adult M07 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no protection" (ODO; RS 814.076, status as of 1 April 2020). Only 09.08.2002 VS Zwischbergen female adult F01 Predation on livestock S no no more damage yes WWF positive organisations that have been in existence for at least ten years and are purely not for profit are entitled to appeal. 10.06.2003 VS Zwischbergen female adult F01 Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes WWF positive 26.10.2006 VS Goms female adult F03 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no Environmental associations may use their right to appeal if they believe that a canton has issued a shooting authorisa- 21.11.2006 VS Collombey male adult M15 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot yes WWF positive tion although the legal requirements were not met. The FOEN 28.09.2007 VS Chablais female adult F02 Predation on livestock S no Expired no itself can initiate an administrative appeal procedure against a 06.08.2009 VS Val de Dix female adult F06 Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes Pro Natura/WWF negative cantonal shooting decision, as was the case with the shooting authorisation issued in September 2018 in the Val d'Anniviers 05.08.2009 LU Entlebuch male adult M20 Predation on livestock S no Expired yes Pro Natura/WWF negative (VS), when the FOEN considered that the Valais decision did not 21.08.2009 VS Val d'Illiez male adult M21 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot yes Pro Natura/WWF negative comply with federal law (Table 4.3.2). An important precedent had already occurred in 2002, when WWF Switzerland lodged 11.08.2010 VS Mollens male adult M16 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no a complaint against the shooting authorisation for the female 02.09.2013 VS Obergoms male adult M35 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no wolf F01 in the Zwischbergental issued by the Hunting, fish- 23.06.2015 UR Isenthal male adult M58 Predation on livestock S no dispersed no ing, and wildlife Service. On 10 December 2003, the Council of State of the Canton of Valais ruled that WWF was not entitled several wolves FOEN/WWF/ 51 31.08.2015 VS Augstbord adult Predation on livestock S no Appeal yes positive to appeal (TF 2004). However, the Valais Cantonal Court and F14/F16/M46/M59 Pro Natura the Federal Court confirmed on 29 April 2004 and 18 November 14.12.2015 SG Calanda juvenile Danger to humans WP (Calanda) no Appeal yes WWF positive 2004 respectively that WWF Switzerland was entitled to lodge an appeal against shooting authorisations for large carnivores 21.12.2015 GR Calanda juvenile Danger to humans WP (Calanda) no Appeal yes WWF partially positive (TF 2004). 14.06.2016 VS Augstbord Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) no Pack formation yes Pro Natura/ WWF negative In another case, the WWF and Pro Natura 2015 filed a com- 28.07.2016 UR Attinghausen male adult M68 Predation on livestock S yes Legally shot no plaint against the shooting authorisations issued in 2015 by the 20.12.2016 VS Augstbord juvenile Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) no Expired no cantons of Grisons and St Gallen for two young wolves from the 20.12.2016 VS Ergisch female subadult F22 Predation on livestock WP (Augstbord) yes Legally shot no Calanda pack (Table 4.3.2). Because of the repeated presence of wolves in or in the immediate vicinity of residential areas and a 22.03.2017 TI Faido male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no low level of shyness towards humans, both cantons had applied 22.03.2017 GR whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no to the FOEN for a shooting authorisation in November 2015. The 01.05.2017 SG whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no purpose of the shooting was to make the wolves more fearful and avoid settlements (Kanton St. Gallen 2015). The FOEN 24.05.2017 AR whole canton male adult M75 Predation on livestock S no Expired no approved the shooting on 7 December 2015 but made the fol- 04.04.2018 SG Bad Ragaz male adult M71 Disease S yes Legally shot no lowing recommendations to ensure that the planned measures would have the desired effect: (1) Do not kill both wolves simul- 03.07.2018 GR Fläsch male subadult M86 Disease S yes Legally shot no taneously, but one wolf at a time and only in the presence of the several wolves other members of the pack. (2) The shooting should take place 07.09.2018 VS Goms Predation on livestock P no Expired no F28/M82/M89 near the settlements. (3) The shooting must be carried out at a time when humans are active. (4) After a wolf has been shot, several wolves FOEN/WWF/ 07.09.2018 VS Val d'Annivers Predation on livestock WP no Appeal yes positive the behaviour of the pack must be observed and documented F24/M59/M73 Pro Natura (OFEV 2015b). Accordingly, both cantons ordered the shoot- 04.10.2019 GR Ilanz female juvenile F58 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no ing on 14 December 2015 (St Gallen) and 21 December 2015 (Grisons). The WWF and Pro Natura lodged an appeal against 04.10.2019 GR Ilanz male juvenile M102 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no this order on the grounds that the necessity for the shooting 23.11.2019 GR Cazis male juvenile M120 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) no Traffic accident no had not been sufficiently proven. They criticised in particular the authorities' assessment of the wolves' behaviour, which they 25.11.2019 GR Masein male juvenile M104 Predation on livestock WP (Beverin) yes Legally shot no considered to be erroneous, as well as the inadequate preven-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

appeal in the canton of St Gallen, the court concluded in its decision of 20 January 2017 that the described encounter situations between wolves and humans did not constitute a serious danger within the meaning of Art. 12 para. 4 LChP (Kanton St. Gallen 2017, Erwägung 4). However, there was no legal basis for a purely preventive shooting (Kanton St. Gallen 2017, Erwä- gung 3.4.5.4).

The suspensive effect of a pending appeal is of particular importance. As long as an appeal lodged has not yet been judged by the courts, the killing of a wolf cannot be carried out. In autumn 2006, for example, Jean-René Fournier, then a member of the cantonal government of Valais and the PDC, authorised the shooting of the wolf M15 despite the suspension due to a pending WWF complaint (Table 4.3.2). Mr. Fournier therefore violated Fig. 4.3.1. The male wolf M16 was legally shot on the legislation in effect. He was sentenced by the district court 11.08.2010 near Crans-Montana (VS). © SCPF Valais of Sion to 60 hours of community service on 13 December 2011 (Diethelm 2011). In response to this sentence, the canton of tive measures. Both cantonal courts accepted the appeal. In its Valais amended its “Law of 6 October 1976 on administrative judgment of 6 June 2016, the administrative court of the canton procedure and jurisdiction” (LPJA; RS 172.6), Article 51 of which of Grisons ruled that a potential threat to humans was possible governs the suspensive effect. Since then, the suspensive effect due to the increasingly changing behaviour of wolves (Kanton of an appeal may be withdrawn by the canton. A second appeal Graubünden 2016, Erwägung 3c). However, it added that there against the same withdrawal is possible, but has no suspen- had not been sufficiently proven that the aim of the shooting sive effect per se. In other words, the shooting of a wolf can be authorisation could not have been achieved by lenient and less carried out immediately without prejudice to the lodging of an drastic measures, such as radio tagging or aversive condition- appeal. It should be noted, however, that the regulation of the 52 ing (Kanton Graubünden 2016, Erwägung 4d). In the case of the suspensive effect varies from one canton to another.

4.4 Collaboration with stakeholders and interest groups

Compensation for damage caused by wolves and technical hand, personal contacts, and open communication, away from measures to prevent such damage (see Chapters 4.1 and 4.2) debates and accusations towards participation and dialogue, only serve to reduce the direct effects of wolf attacks on live- and on the other hand, a management of large carnivores not stock. They do not take into account the deeper conflicts aris- simply imposed from above, but more balanced through bot- ing from the differences in value systems and interests of peo- tom-up collaborative processes (Redpath et al. 2017). Caluori ple, which play a major role in the wolf issue. Many conflicts & Hunziker (2001) had already concluded that, in the highly in wildlife and natural resource management arise from social distrustful wolf discourse in Switzerland, a hierarchical (top- conflicts between individuals or interest groups. The underly- down) relationship between the authorities, nature conserva- ing causes of these conflicts are not always the animals per tion organisations and the people directly concerned was not se, but in these cases the wolf may represent other problems conducive to the acceptance of wolves. Rather, active col- (see Chapter 3.4). Some conflicts may also be the result of laboration and the establishment of personal relationships are old unresolved disputes. Mistrust of authorities or other in- needed. The importance of collaboration is also reflected in the terest groups and insufficient involvement of stakeholders are recommendations for a coordinated wolf management in the typical triggers for social conflicts (Bath & Frank 2011, Linnell Alps (Schnidrig-Petrig et al. 2016a). Two of the five proposed 2013). For this reason, collaboration between interest groups sets of management measures go precisely in this direction, as and their integration into the resolution process is extremely they advocate the promotion of dialogue between authorities important when dealing with large carnivores (Decker et al. and interest groups as well as the involvement of local people 2002). Or, as Linnell (2013) writes: "Despite the diversity of in the wolf monitoring. In Switzerland, it is the cantons who are conflicts associated with large carnivores and the diversity responsible for integrating the relevant interest groups and the of approaches that exist to reducing these conflicts, there is public into the wolf management (OFEV 2016). one common feature that appears to be central to a successful approach. And this is the need to engage with a diversity of Various tools or techniques exist to establish collabora- stakeholders in a targeted, context dependent and meaningful tions with stakeholders and interest groups, such as working manner." This requires two conditions to be met: On the one groups, contact forums, practical support, joint monitoring or

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

research activities, joint development of action plans, or even cluded that interactions between interest groups remain possi- co-decision-making processes or the co-management of large ble even when the conflict had not been resolved or even when carnivores (Decker et al. 2002, Linnell 2013). These tools differ full consensus cannot be reached on controversial issues re- according to the degree of control exercised by the responsible lated to the conservation and management of large carnivores. authorities compared to those involved, that means whether Despite this, collaboration can promote mutual recognition of they are used solely for the exchange of information or allow the positions of all participants and thus improve the ability to participants to have a say and make decisions and which role act (Hovardas & Marsden 2018). they each play. The choice of method depends on various factors, such as the level of conflict, the number and type of peo- Recognising that a European platform is not enough to solve ple affected and their interests, the resources available and local problems related to large carnivores, the EU is currently the legal provisions. It may even be useful to combine several supporting the creation of regional platforms. The aim of these methods to involve stakeholders. In the end, the method is less platforms is to reach a common understanding of the impor- important than the process itself and the attitude with which it tant issues in the respective contexts, the recognition of other is approached: participation must be based on principles that points of view and an attempt to reach a consensus on certain promote empowerment, equity, trust and learning (Decker et management measures related to large carnivores (European al. 2002, Reed 2008). Ideally, collaboration should involve (1) Commission 2020b). those who are influenced by large carnivores, (2) those who influence large carnivores, and (3) those who have an interest At the national level – At the beginning of May 2012, the four in large carnivores (Decker et al. 2002). The following actors are associations WWF Switzerland, Swiss Hunting Association generally mentioned in relation to the wolf in Switzerland: the (ChasseSuisse), Pro Natura and the Swiss Sheep Breeding As- authorities responsible for its management (the Federal Office sociation informed the public by means of a press release that for the Environment FOEN and the cantonal offices), livestock they had agreed on principles, common objectives and fields of owners (particularly sheep and goat farmers), hunters and na- action related to large carnivore policy and that they were com- ture conservation organisations. Depending on the situation, mitted to a solution-oriented collaboration. This decision was foresters and tourism managers may also be involved. It is of- described as a paradigm shift from solving conflicts in the me- ten necessary to collaborate with representatives of interest dia or judicial arena to finding solutions together at a meeting groups who speak on their behalf and who are both assumed table or in the field (WWF Schweiz, JagdSchweiz, Pro Natura 53 to have the necessary negotiating power and the will to pass & Schweizerischer Schafzuchtverband 2012). This policy paper on to their peers the lessons learned from such collaboration. was the result of intense discussions following a joint conference on hunting and nature conservation in 2010 (Pro Natura Examples of international, national and regional collaboration 2010). These discussions were coordinated by the FOEN, while At the international level – In 2014, the EU and representa- KORA participated in an advisory capacity as a specialised tives of interest groups, specifically hunting, agriculture and organisation. Bringing the associations together was made nature conservation, created the "EU Platform on Coexistence possible through direct contact instead of communicating between People and Large Carnivores" (European Commission through the media, which was mutually perceived as profiling. 2014). Unfortunately, representatives of the agriculture sec- Although the process leading up to the drafting of the policy tor withdrew shortly afterwards. Two seminars were organ- document was well received, at the same time, expectations ised prior to the foundation of the platform, bringing all the were dampened because, despite the compromise reached, a stakeholders concerned together (Linnell et al. 2013, European few outstanding questions regarding implementation remained Commission 2013). Discussions focused primarily on the wolf (von Arx 2013). In 2013, some representatives of the hunting and only secondarily on the other large carnivore species. The and nature conservation organisations still felt that talking to exchange of views during these seminars showed that, de- each other had helped to calm the situation and reduce the spite differences of opinion, there was a certain consensus emotional burden related to the subject of large carnivores (von that made it possible to move forward. However, participants Arx 2013). Already at that time, however, the crux was the im- noted that their interests were often not understood by other plementation of the regulation of large carnivores. It is there- stakeholders and that there was insufficient dialogue and col- fore not surprising that tensions between hunting and nature laboration between interest groups so far. Finally, they agreed conservation representatives were again growing around the that participatory processes based on dialogue should also be discussions on the partial revision of the Hunting Law (LChP; initiated at the local level (Linnell et al. 2013). RS 922.0; Box 3.4.1), especially since the regular meetings between the national associations came to a halt soon after the The EU platform is based on a solutions approach, through ex- publication of the policy document. change of experience and collaboration. Several pilot projects were carried out and case studies collected which can serve At the cantonal level – Collaboration with the people con- as good-practice examples for others (European Commission cerned and the various representatives of interest groups var- 2020a). Some of these case studies on collaboration with inter- ies considerably from canton to canton. Some cantons have est groups were analysed in more detail (Hovardas et al. 2017) set up working groups on the wolf (Bern, Fribourg, St Gallen, – including the example presented in Box 4.4.1. They all con- Schwyz and Zurich) or on large carnivores in general (Vaud and

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Box 4.4.1 Wolf Working Group of the canton of Bern

In 2007, one year after the first wolf appeared in the region, the canton of Bern drew up a strategy document on how to deal with the wolf together with all the interest groups concerned (Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne 2007). The aim of this strategy was to accompany the return of the wolf to the canton, to minimise damage to livestock and other conflicts, and to provide information to the public. A cantonal working group, the "Core Group Wolf", consisting of representatives of the administration and interest groups concerned, has been set up to facilitate the implementation of the strategy. It advises the Directorate of Economic Affairs (Directorate for Economy, Energy and Environment since 1st January 2020) in political decisions concerning the protection of livestock and large carnivores. It also supports and promotes the strategy, works to objectivise the discussions, and is committed to the adaptation and preservation of livestock farming, but also to a pragmatic approach to the wolf in order to ensure the long-term conservation of the species (Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne 2007).

The group meets twice a year under the direction of the Hunting Inspectorate (the relevant cantonal wildlife management agency) and organises an excursion in summer (Fig. 4.4.1.1), usually in the Bernese Oberland. It currently comprises around 20 members from agricultural, hunting and conservation organisations (Bernese Sheep Breeding Federation, Bernese Goat Breeding Federation, Bernese Farmers' Union, Bernese Hunters' Federation, cantonal Hunting and Wildlife Protection Com- mission, Pro Natura Bern, WWF Bern) as well as from cantonal authorities (Directorate for Economy, Energy and Environ- ment, Hunting Inspectorate, game wardens, cantonal livestock protection consultant, Direct Payments Section) and specialist organisations (AGRIDEA, KORA). In addition, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the cantonal Veterinary Service and the Bernese Hiking Trails Association have an advisory function (Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne 2019). The members are regularly informed by e-mail from the Hunting Inspectorate of incidents involving wolves, such as predated livestock or occasional sightings. As far as possible, the working group endeavours to adopt a common position and communication, particularly to the media. To this end, an agreement was signed in 2007 as an appendix to the strategy (Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne 2007). 54

Fig. 4.4.1.1. The Wolf Working Group of the canton of Bern on an excursion to the alpine pastures in the Haslital in 2018. © Canton of Bern

At the beginning, the atmosphere in the group was tense and there were sometimes altercations. The agricultural organisations in particular did not feel taken seriously or sufficiently represented and even considered leaving the group. Over time, however, the members learned to listen to each other, to respect each other and to mutually accept the respective views. This development is seen as the basis for the functioning of the group, which also appreciates the fact that its members can

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

express their concerns directly so that they can be discussed together. Getting to know each other, especially during the excursions, helped to build trust and take a sincere interest in the others, which strengthened the willingness to jointly tackle the problems at technical level (Hovardas et al. 2017, von Arx 2019). Through these excursions, the participants were able to deepen their knowledge of livestock protection measures and the difficulties associated with them. The representatives of the agricultural sector felt that they were taken more seriously, as the other members of the group, especially those from conservation organisations, noted that the implementation of livestock protection measures is not easy, requires additional time and investment and that it is not always feasible to take such measures (Hovardas et al. 2017). For conservation organisations, participation in the group means making compromises and accepting, for example, the shooting of wolves if damage exceeds a certain threshold (Hovardas & Marsden 2018).

In the early years, the group's main objective was to discuss the protection of livestock. The nature conservation organisations then wished to discuss the wolf itself, its biology and behaviour further. The group is therefore increasingly trying to take both aspects into account, the wolf and livestock protection, both during meetings and excursions.

Group members have not yet been able to pass on their experiences to their member basis because it is difficult for them to convince their peers of the insights they have acquired. This problem is particularly evident among representatives of the farmers and hunter organisations, who are seen as pro-wolf outside the group (e.g. by other farmers) simply because they are part of the group. It can be concluded that the trust established between members of the group can therefore not necessarily be passed on to others (Hovardas & Marsden 2018). What is also still missing, is an improved understanding of the wolf and of people with different opinions among the general public. As one of the members of the core group noted, their radical perception about wolves is still predominant (von Arx 2019). Despite these constraints, the positive aspects of round tables or coordinated groups dealing with large carnivores far outweigh the negative aspects. The wolf working group of the canton of Bern was selected by the EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores as an example of good practice for mutual understanding of each other's points of view (EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores 2019, Hovardas et al. 2017, Hovardas & Marsden 2018). 55 Until now, the canton of Bern has mainly been home to single wolves, and damage to livestock has been comparatively limited. Members of the group assume that the pressure on the group could increase if the number of wolves were to grow. It is hoped that the group will be able to withstand any future challenges.

Grisons), some of which have been involved in developing can- At the local level – It has not yet been possible to bring com- tonal wolf concepts (Box 3.4.2). These working groups gener- mon collaboration processes to the member base of interest ally include representatives of cantonal authorities (including groups in the regions (Box 4.4.1). Initiating change locally is not the hunting administration, game wardens, livestock protection easy, as there is often a high level of mistrust, partly because consultants and veterinary services), cantonal goat and sheep ideological divergence between interest groups has been main- breeding associations, farmers' and hunters' associations, na- tained over generations and many prejudices remain (von Arx ture conservation organisations and specialist organisations 2013). The few attempts of collaboration at local level did not (AGRIDEA, KORA). The main purpose of the working groups last long. A local lynx contact group in Simmental-Saanenland, is to exchange information and knowledge on the presence of founded in 1999 and consisting of representatives of local in- wolves and measures to protect livestock, although other top- terest groups from hunting, sheep breeding and nature conser- ics, such as population monitoring or administrative processes, vation, was dissolved a few years later. Although the group may also be discussed. As a general rule, the working groups was considered positively for exchanging and discussing infor- meet once or twice a year. In addition, their members are regu- mation and interests, the expectations of its members were not larly informed by the head of the wildlife management authority met, as a survey in 2001 revealed: Participants felt that they (usually the hunting inspector) of the latest information related could influence neither to resolve the conflict nor the public to the wolf. In some cantons (Bern, Box 4.4.1, Fribourg, and Zu- opinion or management decisions (Boutros & Baumgartner rich), the working group has more extensive functions and thus 2004). The tasks that had been assigned to the group and its advises decision-makers, monitors the implementation of the actual possibilities to act did not match, leading to frustrations cantonal wolf concept and coordinates external communication that were still felt years later (von Arx 2013). (Amt für Landschaft und Natur Kanton Zürich 2014, Service des forêts et de la faune SFN État de Fribourg 2010, Direction de What are the benefits of collaboration and what are the dif- l'économie du canton de Berne 2007). In the canton of St. Gal- ficulties to overcome? len, hunting associations are involved in wolf monitoring and For collaboration to be possible, a dialogue must be estab- receive financial compensation for the services they provide lished, and all parties must be willing to seek a common solu- (Volkswirtschaftsdepartement Kanton St Gallen 2013). tion at the very least. This requires mutual knowledge and ac-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

ceptance of each other's values and interests. The integration be limited in time, but should be continuous (Keough & Blahna of the people concerned must not be used just to appease 2006). This implies a greater investment in terms of time and resentment; the concerns expressed must be taken into ac- financial resources compared to top-down processes. count and taken seriously. For collaboration to work, clear objectives must be set from the outset (Decker et al. 2002, Reed However, despite these difficulties, collaborative approaches 2008), but they must also be realistic, as the above local ex- can lead to greater accountability and trust (between interest ample demonstrated. The nature of the collaboration as well groups and in relation to authorities), learning and greater over- as the responsibilities, competencies and expectations of the all results (Linnell 2013, Redpath et al. 2017). Mutual accep- participants must therefore be clarified without delay. In par- tance of each other's views and consideration of each other's ticular, it must be clarified whether the working group should concerns is an important first step in the process. Through more serve, for example, primarily for the exchange of information comprehensive input, which ideally takes into account different or whether it also has an advisory role to the authorities. A knowledge bases, decisions can be more effective and solutions decisive factor for the success of the collaboration is that the more sustainable. In addition, different perspectives on an issue group comes to a point where everyone accepts the results, can lead to new and creative ideas (Lute & Gore 2014, Pellikka even if they do not fully meet individual wishes (Keough & & Hiedanpää 2017, Reed 2008, Sjölander-Lindqvist et al. 2015). Blahna 2006, Lute & Gore 2014). To achieve this, a balance has to be found between a range of values. In this context, As it is difficult to implement collaborative processes on a large the quality of moderation is crucial (Reed 2008), especially scale and to include a large number of stakeholders, represen- when dealing with sometimes difficult, conflicting, and emo- tatives of interest groups have an important role to play. How- tionally charged issues. Failure to reach a full consensus on ever, they may not always be supported by those they repre- the issue does not mean that the process has failed (Linnell sent, as for those already working with differently minded peo- 2013). It would be utopian to expect all participants to adopt ple amounts to a compromise on the wolf question. This can the same attitude towards the wolf during the process and to affect the behaviour of stakeholder representatives: A strong radically change their positions. sense of accountability can prevent them from engaging in a dialogue that could change their minds and thus lead to conflict A continuous exchange with sometimes unwanted results can with group members (von Essen & Hansen 2015). However, the 56 discourage participants (von Essen & Hansen 2015). There is more people have a positive experience of collaboration, the therefore a risk that the process will come to a halt. This can greater its impact. There is therefore an urgent need to initiate happen not only when it drags on without useful results, but such processes at both regional and local level. However, it is also after a goal has been reached and participants, resting difficult to take into account the local rural population and the on their laurels, think that everything is going well. Dialogue general public in an appropriate way, even though their inter- and collaboration must however not be interrupted, because it ests are important (Linnell 2013). Nevertheless, there are pos- does not take much to lose the trust that has been built up and sibilities to include them in the processes through communica- to get back to square one. Therefore, collaboration should not tion (see Chapter 4.5).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

4.5 Communication about the wolf

A large part of the population only becomes interested in the yond the possibilities offered by legislation (e.g. if they should wolf when it lives nearby and they feel personally concerned. solve the "problem" by killing the wolf) or when the decisions Very often, concerns are expressed about the safety of humans of the cantonal or federal authorities are not accepted locally. or livestock (see Chapter 3.2). It is therefore of utmost impor- The frustrations of the local population often fall directly back tance to accompany the process of the wolf's return with com- on them, and in the presence of wolves their workload can be munication from the beginning. considerable. It is therefore essential that they receive support from the cantons. What are the rules to be applied? Informing the public about wildlife, as defined by the Federal The aim of the authorities is to inform the population about Law on Hunting and the Protection of Wild Mammals and Birds the (regional) situation regarding the presence of wolves, the (ChPA; RS 922.0), is a task of the cantons (Art. 14, al. 1, ChPA). foreseeable developments, and the actions to be taken in the The responsibilities of the cantons and the Confederation with event of the discovery of prey or other signs, or in the event regard to the communication about the wolf are further speci- of a direct encounter with a wolf. The wildlife management fied in the Swiss Wolf Concept (OFEV 2016). The Federal Office authorities interviewed considered it crucial to communi- for the Environment (FOEN) provides the cantons with the nec- cate "objective" facts and to avoid subjective interpretations. essary basis for dealing with wolves. For their part, the cantons Generally, only tangible evidence such as dead wolves, pho- are responsible for involving and informing local and regional tographs, DNA analysis or observations confirmed by quali- authorities, as well as cantonal representatives of the inter- fied personnel are communicated (Box 2.2.2). It is important est groups concerned. They are also responsible for informing for the authorities to distinguish between observations that the general public, in consultation with the FOEN (OFEV 2016). have been verified and those that have not (yet) been verified, Within a canton, it is generally the head of the wildlife man- and to make it clear that the information provided is based on agement agency who is mainly responsible for communication the state of knowledge at the time. Reports of wolf observa- related to wolf. They support their game wardens who are re- tions especially in the vicinity of settlements (see Chapter 3.2) sponsible for direct communication with the local population, lead to a large increase in the number of people "affected" and ideally have themselves the support of their superiors, the and in the number of questions put to the authorities, which 57 State Councillors. can then be overwhelmed by requests. People are interested in the monitoring of wolves and how the authorities handle the What solutions are effective? situation, but also on the effects of the presence of the wolf on The thirteen cantonal wolf concepts that have been drawn up their personal life. The cantons have various means of commu- speak only briefly about communication processes (Box 3.4.2). nication at their disposal to satisfy the need for information, The results presented below are therefore mainly drawn from which are briefly presented below (Fig. 4.5.1). the "Communication Project Wolf", a project implemented by KORA between 2017 and 2018, which aimed to analyse the Means of communication authorities' communication about wolves, to derive recom- The choice of the means of communication depends on the mendations and to offer support for collaboration between the target group. This can be, for example, the general public, a authorities and the population (KORA 2018, KORA 2019a, von specific interest group or the local population. While press re- Arx et al. 2020, von Arx et al. in prep.). As part of this project, leases and websites can be used to reach a broad audience interviews were conducted in six cantons with the responsible beyond cantonal borders, other means such as information cantonal authorities, game wardens and communal authori- stands at fairs or public meetings are more appropriate for ties, in order to study their experiences in dealing with wolves communicating with the local population (Fig. 4.5.1). In order and, above all, their way of communicating on the subject. The to communicate with local people concerned, it is necessary to results of these interviews were supplemented by a review speak to them directly. However, since this type of communica- of communication material from the cantons (concepts, docu- tion does not reach a large number of people, indirect means of ments, websites) and scientific literature on the topic. communication are also important. Coordinated multi-channel communication is considered by communication experts to be The willingness of a canton to provide information in a trans- the most effective procedure (Eisenegger 2018, Schmidbauer parent and timely manner proved to be a decisive factor. This & Jorzik 2017). approach prevents the spread of rumours and enhances the credibility of the authorities. Game wardens are essential to Press release: usually drafted by the cantonal wildlife man- the communication about wolves. As direct contacts for the agement agencies or the communications department of the population and the municipalities, they play a very important canton. It is published in special situations or in case of new role as an interface between the inhabitants and the canton. developments, e.g. after the observation of wolves, predated They are also a kind of "antennae" which perceive the concerns livestock, dead wolves, or evidence of reproduction. News of the population. Their role as mediators is often difficult, about wolves is generally very well accepted and disseminated especially when the demands of the local population go be- by the media. The press release is the most popular means of

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

V:J Q` HQII%J1H: 1QJ

Fig. 4.5.1. Means of communication used by the cantons, clas- CQ1 1JR1`VH HQII%J1H: 1QJ sified according to the degree of `V `VCV: V interaction (low to high) and the ]%GC1H type of addressee (public, group, QH1:C IVR1: individual). While the number of :J QJ:C 1VG 1 V people who can be reached by JJ%:C`V]Q` LV$%C:`H1`H%C:` Q` .V H:J QJ these means decreases from top C7V`LV:`CV L Q V` to bottom, the degree of partici- $`Q%] 6.1G1 1QJL:1` pation increases: a press release RV`01HV reaches the entire population, but is one-way, whereas a direct J`Q`I: 1QJIVV 1J$7]%GC1H L dialogue allows personal interac- ]VH1`1H :`$V $`Q%] tion, but only affects a few peo- 1JR101R%:C 6H%` 1QJ L1 V1J ]VH 1QJ ple. In between, there are several Q`@1J$$`Q%] LQ%JR :GCV

options for reaching a particular V$`VV Q` ]:` 1H1]: 1QJ 1`VH R1:CQ$%V group of people with moderate participation. .1$. R1`VH HQII%J1H: 1QJ

communication by the cantons. However, it also regularly gen- wolves, for example, the procedure to follow in the event of erates frustration due to the different expectations: while the encountering a wolf or discovering a predated livestock animal. authorities mainly wish to convey neutral information, journal- It is aimed at the general public or at specific groups (such as ists prefer emotionally charged storytelling. livestock farmers or hunters). Its distribution is easy. For exam- 58 ple, it can be deposited in in the counter area of municipalities The broadcasting of reports on wolves on television or radio is and tourist information centres, published as a PDF file on web- generally initiated by the channels themselves, often in reac- sites or distributed at events. tion to wolf-related events and press releases from the cantons. Television and radio still have a strong influence on form- Exhibition/Fair: exhibitions are usually organised by museums ing opinions (OFCOM 2018). in cooperation with researchers and authorities. Hunting or agricultural fairs allow the wildlife management authority or Cantonal website: it informs the public about the wolf situation other organisations to set up stands about wildlife in general in the canton and about possible measures to be taken, e.g. or specifically about large predators. The topics are presented how to protect livestock, how to behave when encountering using audio-visual material such as posters, photos, videos or a wolf and how to report sightings. Fact sheets, concepts and taxidermy specimens. reports are available in PDF format, and hints to further information and institutions are linked. SMS-Service: livestock farmers receive an SMS on their mobile phone when a wolf is nearby. As a general rule, the mes- Annual report: it summarises the situation related to the wolf sage is only sent after verification of evidence (Box 2.2.2). It in the canton concerned. It is normally a chapter of the annual is transmitted in the following way: from the game warden to report of the wildlife management agency. Only a few cantons the farmer via the wildlife management authorities or the ag- have annual reports devoted entirely to the wolf (Grisons since riculture agency, which triggers the sending of the SMS. As a 2006, Schwyz since 2016 and Ticino since 2017). The annual re- general rule, the message contains information on the time, port contains information on the evolution and evaluation of the place and type of observation (predation of a livestock or wild wolf population, observations and incidents involving specific animal, direct observation of a wolf). individuals, the results of genetic analyses, etc. Information meeting: this can be aimed either at the large Regular circulars: the cantonal wildlife management agency public (local population) or at specific target groups. Regional informs certain target groups such as municipalities, working information meetings are usually organised by the wildlife groups or livestock farmers by e-mail about current events, management authorities or municipal authorities following changes in administrative procedures, the publication of re- initial wolf sightings, the occurrence of incidents or the discov- ports, etc. ery of predated livestock. The authorities and experts present their knowledge and the data collected with reference to the Flyer/leaflet/poster: this is a brief document containing infor- situation. This type of meeting provides a good opportunity for mation about the wolf and the rules of conduct with regard to discussion with the population. The presence of authorities

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

demonstrates that they have a sense of responsibility. Requires assumed that the population's need for information diminishes good moderation and experienced speakers (Johansson et al. over time due to a certain habituation to wolves. However, as 2017). soon as information reaches the public through other channels, the canton loses public trust. Regular information on the wolf Excursion/site inspection: half-day or full-day excursions into situation in the canton, e.g. on its website, could be a solution. the habitat of the wolf with stops to provide explanations on different wolf-related topics. The organisers of these events Involve the municipalities – According to the Swiss Wolf Con- are numerous. In any case, the presence of a game warden cept, the municipalities must be involved and informed by the is recommended. Clear explanations can be given on the spot cantons (see above). However, their role is not clearly defined about the use of the habitat and the behaviour of the wolf, or either in the national or in the cantonal concepts. In five can- the difficulties involved in implementing measures to protect tonal concepts, they are explicitly mentioned as recipients of the livestock. information; two concepts indicate that the municipalities must be informed before the media. When a wolf-related event oc- Working group/round table: some cantons have set up wolf curs in a municipality, the local authorities are confronted with working groups consisting of representatives of the authorities enquiries from both the population and the media. Some of and interest groups (see Chapter 4.4). them refer to the canton directly; others try to give their own answers, and still others communicate in consultation with the Direct dialogue: the authorities – often game wardens – get canton (e.g. https://www.obersaxenmundaun.swiss/wolf- into personal contact with the persons concerned to inform praesenz/). Although they are not formally obliged to do so, them or mediate in the event of conflicts, e.g. in the case of some municipalities would like to take on more communica- predation on livestock (Wilson 2016). Direct and personalised tion tasks around the wolf. However, their competencies are communication can be very effective, as it can address the per- often unclear and their information base insufficient. As part of sonal questions and concerns of the counterpart. Additional in- a follow-up project (Communication Project Wolf II 2020-2022), formation such as brochures or leaflets can be provided. It is an KORA would like to draw up proposals on how municipalities important mode of communication in the event of conflict but is can be better involved. not easy to manage given the underlying emotions. Access to information – The majority of Swiss people nowa- 59 Social media: are not yet a means of communication widely days obtain information mainly online (Office de la communi- used by the authorities. It is very labour-intensive due to contin- cation du canton de Berne 2016, Eisenegger 2018). The infor- uous content updates and interaction with users, who expect a mation about the wolf on cantonal websites varies consid- quick response (Office de la communication du canton de Berne erably in terms of accuracy, topicality and accessibility. It is 2016, Schmidbauer & Jorzik 2017). The FOEN, for example, has often difficult to find and can only be accessed by searching. only recently begun to use social media for communication As young people in particular are mostly informed on social (Stark & Zinke 2018). networks (Eisenegger 2018), the importance of online communication tools is likely to increase. However, this method What improvements can be made? of communication will have to be critically re-examined, as Prompt communication – As authorities must be objective, they social networks allow for the free expression of emotions and generally wait for evidence before transmitting information their users prefer entertainment rather than serious informa- (see above). This delay, however, is conducive to misinforma- tion (Eisenegger 2018). tion from other broadcasters (e.g. groups with strong pro- or anti-wolf positions) and encourages mistrust towards the au- Messages conveyed – Until now, "wolf news" mainly had neg- thorities. In order to be able to communicate proactively, the ative connotations. Reporting on wolves is dominated by "con- cantons may therefore be forced to inform earlier than they flicts", with the wolf being presented as a "problem", attributes would like, the main difficulty then being to manage uncertain- that eventually become embedded in people's perceptions. ties and to distinguish facts from assumptions. Speculation Providing rational information about wolves is all the more dif- should be avoided, as assumptions are immediately interpreted ficult when groups with a strongly favourable or unfavourable as facts by the population and the media: declaring "It might position about wolf immediately give their own interpretation have been a wolf" becomes "It was a wolf". If further events or of an event (see Chapter 3.4). In addition, there are many arti- investigations reveal that it was not a wolf, it is often difficult cles that are admittedly objective but add eye-catching photos to correct the information. It is therefore best to communicate or headlines that arouse strong emotions (Fig. 4.5.2). However, that it is not (yet) known whether it was a wolf and that efforts headlines and photos stick more in people's minds than any will be made to obtain further clarification. factual report. Through framing (selective highlighting of information and positions, Matthes 2014) media can influence opin- Regular communications – In areas where wolves have been ions (e.g. the leopard in India (Hathaway et al. 2017) and the established for a long time, the population is no longer informed wolf in France (Chandelier et al. 2018)). Negative wolf-related of every sighting or case of predation, for two reasons: first, it events and the consequences of their presence, for example for is argued that this would take too much time, and second, it is livestock farmers, should not be concealed or toned down (see

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 4. Possible solutions

Chapters 3.1 and 3.4). However, there is also no justification Since neither the wolf population nor communication is static for raising concerns about personal safety (see Chapter 3.2). In but constantly evolving, new experiences must be constantly fact, what is missing from the communication about the wolf is considered to improve conditions for dealing with the wolf information about "normal" experiences with this species. Con- and for interactions between the different actors involved. At structive messages and examples on the coexistence of wolves the beginning of the wolf's recolonisation of Switzerland, the and humans and the coexistence of people who have different importance of communication was certainly not realised, and "wolf images" should be communicated more actively. even today, more should be done to inform the local population.

Fig. 4.5.2. Two examples of fact-based information with a sensa- tional title: “Wolf alert near the city of Bern” (above; Der Bund 2017) and “Bold wolves are threatening villages” (below; Ziegler 2014).

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

5. Perspectives 5.1 How many wolves should live in Switzerland?

How large must a wolf population be to be viable? An animal population is said to be "viable" if it has a high prob- Most of the Alpine countries are part of the European Union ability to withstand future environmental influences and if it and are therefore legally obliged to comply with the Habitats is unlikely to be genetically depleted, unable to fulfil its role Directive (see Chapter 3.4). The Habitats Directive requires a in the ecosystem or to become extinct in the near future. The "favourable conservation status" (FCS) for protected animal viability of a population is a prediction which depends on vari- species such as the wolf. In order to achieve this FCS, not only ous factors and is therefore difficult to measure. These factors must there be a MVP, but other requirements must also be met. include but are not limited to the number of animals, their ge- For example, a given population must be stable or increasing, netic diversity, the quality of the habitat or the threats posed its habitat must be of sufficient size and quality, exchanges by human activities. When producing its well-known "Red List with other populations must be ensured and a solid popula- of Threatened Species", the International Union for Conserva- tion monitoring must be carried out. In addition, the population tion of Nature (IUCN) applies the following criteria to define a size and range in each country must not be reach a level below "minimum viable population" (MVP) (IUCN 2012): that which existed when the Habitats Directive came into force (Directive 92/43/EEC). The FCS must in principle be achieved • The population size must be at least 1,000 mature individu- and maintained in each EU Member State and not only for the als, assuming that individuals are not geographically iso- population as a whole (Epstein & Chapron 2018, Trouwborst lated from each other. & Fleurke 2019). However, the Habitats Directive also appears to provide scope for a transnational approach. A population of Or 250 breeding wolves could possibly suffice to attain FCS if all Alpine countries adopted a joint population-level management • The probability of extinction of the population in the plan (Linnell et al. 2008, Trouwborst & Fleurke 2019, Trouw- next 100 years must be less than 10%. To calculate this borst et al. 2017). probability, statistical models called "population viability 61 analyses" (PVA) are used. These analyses are more sophis- Projected development of the wolf population in the Alps ticated than the general rule of thumb of 1,000 individuals The wolf population in the Alps is currently growing and, ac- and make it possible to take into account parameters such cording to the latest estimates for the period 2012–2016, is as genetic diversity or survival or mortality rates within a at around 420–550 individuals (including young individuals, population. Table 2.1.1). Considering that at least 250 breeding wolves are needed to maintain the Alpine population – which, in the When a population meets the above criteria, it is no longer clas- case of one breeding pair per pack, corresponds to about 125 sified as "Vulnerable" (VU) on the IUCN "Red List of Threatened packs – this minimum target should soon be reached. In France Species". The concept of minimum viable population therefore alone, there were already 80 wolf packs in 2019, most of them describes only the minimum conditions required for a popula- in the Alps (ONCFS 2019). However, habitat models show that tion to no longer be threatened with extinction. However, these the entire area suitable for wolves in the Alps is still far from values are often misinterpreted as maximum (rather than mini- being occupied. There are still many vacant habitats, espe- mum) limits. Thus, as soon as the MVP is reached, certain inter- cially in the Eastern and North-Eastern Alps (Herrmann 2011, est groups often begin to call for regulatory measures. Marucco 2011). A master's thesis supervised by KORA showed that around 93,000 km2 of habitat suitable for wolves is avail- How many wolves should live in the Alps? able throughout the Alps (Hermann 2011). Depending on the The Alps are considered as a geographical unit, which can ac- region, wolf population densities can vary greatly (in northern commodate a distinct wolf population (Table 2.1.1). Wolves regions: 0.1–2.0 wolves/100 km2, in southern regions: 2.0–6.0 can disperse throughout the Alpine arc without major obsta- wolves/100 km2, review in Apollonio et al. 2004). Assuming cles (Breitenmoser et al. 2016). So, are 1,000 adult wolves at fairly low densities of 1.3–1.7 wolves/100 km2, the suitable least required in the Alps to reach MVP? According to the IUCN habitat in the Alps would be sufficient to accommodate 1200– Red List criteria, a population is already considered viable once 1580 wolves (Herrmann 2011). These numbers are conservative it reaches 250 mature individuals – under the condition that estimates of the maximum "ecologically possible" number of it is linked with other populations to form a so-called "meta- wolves (= carrying capacity; Fig. 5.1.1). However, the "socially population" (IUCN 2012), i.e. if individuals from a neighbouring acceptable" population size (= social carrying capacity; Fig. subpopulation immigrate and reproduce successfully at least 5.1.1), i.e. the number of wolves accepted by the local human once per generation. Wolves from the Italian or Dinaric-Balkan population, is probably considerably lower (Behr et al. 2017). population migrate regularly to the Alps, where they also breed The attitude towards the wolf varies in different Alpine regions. (see Chapter 2.1). Can we therefore say that a population of If the level of wolf acceptance in the entire Alpine arc were to 250 adult wolves populating the whole Alpine arc is sufficient? fall to such an extent that only a population size below the MVP

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

Fig. 5.1.1. Possible scenarios for the development of a wolf population. a) Naturally regulated wolf population. The number of wolves first increases exponentially before the growth rate stabilises around the ecological carrying capacity (CC) (all territories are occupied). (b) Human-regulated wolf population. The population is prevented from exceeding the social carrying capacity (SCC) by lethal control. In order to ensure the long-term conservation of the wolf, the social carrying capacity must be higher than the minimum viable population (MVP).

62 was tolerated, the wolf would have no long-term future. But Nevertheless, securing the future of the wolf in the Alps and what would happen if the "acceptable" number of wolves in the reaching an acceptable compromise with the local population Alps was set exactly at the MVP, i.e. the 125 packs proposed? seems to be safest if the Alpine countries agree on a common Assuming an average territory size of 200–400 km2, as is typical population goal and strive to achieve it in solidarity, so that no for many parts of Central Europe (Marucco & McIntire 2010), country becomes a wolf-free zone. Independent management the suitable habitat for wolves could, according to Herrmann of animals with such large spatial requirements and such a (2011), accommodate 233–465 packs in the Alps – consider- high dispersal potential as the wolf makes little sense if it is ably more than the MVP. The Alpine countries would therefore carried out locally by small administrative units (e.g. cantons, have to make significant efforts to reduce the wolf population provinces, countries). The management recommendations pro- to half or at most one quarter of its carrying capacity, an inter- vided by the "Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe" (LCIE) convention that would, however, very likely bring them into conflict cerning the wolf also underline the importance of cross-border with existing international legislation (see Chapter 5.2). The wolf management (Linnell et al. 2008). Each country concerned problem with the general rule of 250 mature individuals based must therefore assume its share of responsibility. The political on the IUCN criteria is that it makes no direct reference to area challenge in the coming years will be the establishment of a and does not take into account the fact that the potential distri- coordinated, cross-border management of the wolf population bution area of the wolf in the Alps is sizeable. Results obtained in the Alps that is accepted by the local population, so that the in a Scandinavian study suggest that territory sizes in a still wolf can be preserved in the long term throughout the Alpine expanding wolf population mainly depend on the local avail- arc and levels of conflict remain acceptable – presumably at a ability of prey. As long as the carrying capacity of the habitat population size somewhere between MVP and the ecological has not yet been reached, territory sizes are hardly affected carrying capacity (Fig. 5.1.1). by the local pack density (Mattisson et al. 2013). If there were 125 wolf packs, they would therefore not be distributed evenly What does this mean for Switzerland? over the entire Alpine arc, occupying very large territories, but According to a habitat model for Switzerland, about 20,000 km2 rather would retain their typical Central European territories of of suitable habitat for wolves would be available, particularly in 200–400 km2. If we were to set both the minimum necessary the Alps and the Jura (Herrmann et al. 2011, Fig. 5.1.2), which, and maximum acceptable number at 125 wolf packs for the en- with an average territory size of 200–400 km2, represents be- tire Alpine arc, the inevitable result would be "wolf-free zones". tween 50 and 100 packs. So how many wolves should Swit- zerland have? According to many anti-wolf groups (such as the Maintaining and, if necessary, jointly controlling a common "Association for a Switzerland without large predators"), the population over an area as large as the Alps, in countries with best thing would be to have no wolves at all. On the other hand, different traditions and legislation, is a considerable challenge. if total protection were applied with effective poaching control,

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

Fig. 5.1.2. Suitable habitat for wolves in Switzerland (in green) according to the model of Herrmann et al. (2011). Habitat suitability was calculated on the basis of various environmental variables. For the validation of the model, the authors used confirmed wolf presence data from 1998 to 2009. The areas in green indicate the regions where wolves are most likely to settle. However, wolves adapt very easily and can sometimes occupy less suitable habitats. the population size would be close to that of the ecological car- ity as the other Signatory States in their implementation. Ac- rying capacity. Neither of these two extreme proposals is in cording to Schnidrig et al. (2016a), the Alpine countries should line with Swiss legislation, which provides both for protection divide the total number of wolves according to their share of of the wolf and consideration of human interests in land use suitable habitat (Table 5.1.1), with the 125 wolf packs men- (OFEV 2016). Although Switzerland is not bound by the Habi- tioned above defined as the minimum goal for the entire Alpine 63 tats Directive, it has signed the Bern Convention and the Al- region. Switzerland thus would account for at least 17 wolf pine Convention (see Chapter 3.4). Within the framework of the packs in the Alps, in addition to a smaller population in the Jura Alpine Convention, the WISO ("Wildlife and Society") platform (Herrmann et al. 2011). In 2019, eight wolf packs (Fig. 5.1.3) and has developed recommendations on the management of large 26 individual wolves were genetically identified in Switzerland. carnivores, the aim of which is to achieve and maintain a FCS Some of these wolves were only travelling through while oth- for wolves, lynx and bears in the Alps (Schnidrig et al. 2016a,b; ers are no longer alive. However, considering the high rate at Cerne et al. 2017). Switzerland has played a leading role in the which wolf populations can grow (e.g. 30% annual increase elaboration of the recommendations for the wolf and the lynx for the Central European lowland population, Wotschikowsky (Schnidrig et al. 2016a,b) and assumes the same responsibil- 2019b; 15% annual increase for the French Alpine population (in the presence of legal shooting), Duchamp et al. 2017), the minimum number of packs proposed by Schnidrig et al. (2016a) Tab. 5.1.1. Minimum number of wolf packs per count- could be reached in the Swiss Alps within a few years. Other ry to reach the total population of at least 250 breeding countries (e.g. France) have performed population viability wolves, which according to Schnidrig et al (2016a) is ne- analyses (PVAs) and have set themselves much higher goals for cessary to ensure a viable population (minimum viable the minimum number of wolves than those indicated in Table population) in the Alps. The share per country is based 5.1.1 (see Chapter 5.2). The number of wolves in France that on the proportion of suitable habitats (all values have can be shot annually without endangering the population has been rounded). also been calculated using these PVAs (Duchamp et al. 2017). Minimum number of packs In Switzerland, no PVAs have yet been carried out for wolves Country (Alps) so far. The coming years will show to what extent we will allow our wolf population to grow beyond the proposed minimum. A France 26 partial revision of the Hunting Law (LChP; SR 922.0) in 2017 Italy 39 should have made it easier to regulate wolf populations in the Switzerland 17 future (LChP, FF 2019). However, these amendments were controversial, and a vote was held in autumn 2020 which resulted Liechtenstein 1 in the rejection of the revised Hunting Law by the Swiss popu- Austria 39 lation (Box 3.4.1). Slovenia 3 Germany 4

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

Fig. 5.1.3. The wolf pack of the Calanda massif photographed by a camera trap in 2014. © René Gadient, game warden, “Office for Hunting and Fishing, Can- ton of Grisons”

64 5.2 How is Europe managing the increasing wolf populations? Europe's cultural landscapes are suitable for wolves, which CERPAM 2019, Boisseaux et al. 2019, Menzano 2015; see also find wild prey in sufficient densities (Chapron et al. Chapter 4.2). In contrast to Switzerland, France has not de- 2014). Most European wolf populations have increased and fined uniform standards for the keeping, training and breeding expanded into new territories since they have been protected, of these dogs, which seems to have an impact on their effi- are no longer systematically decimated and wild prey popu- ciency (ADEM & CERPAM 2019). In 2018, there were approxi- lations have recovered (see Chapter 2.1). Indeed, dispersing mately 430 wolves in France. In the same year, 10,853 predat- wolves can be observed at any time throughout Europe. When ed livestock were compensated, resulting in costs amounting individuals from different parts of Europe meet (e.g. in the to 3.4 million euros. Livestock protection measures repre- Alps), formerly isolated sub-populations begin to mix again, sented an expenditure of another 24.7 million euros. A total increasing genetic diversity and thus improving the long-term of 47 wolves were legally shot (i.e. 11% of the population), survival of the wolf. Thanks to its extraordinary adaptive and most of them in so-called "tir de défense" (DREAL Auvergne migratory capacities and its relatively high reproductive rate, Rhône-Alpes 2019a), which allow for wolves that cause dam- the wolf is thus on the rise throughout Europe. However, this age to livestock to be shot when they are in the vicinity of return is causing conflicts with livestock farmers and is con- the affected herds. In France, social debates about the costs troversially debated within society (Chapron et al. 2014). It and benefits of wolf management are rife. A National Action appears that wolf management systems in many European Plan "2018–2023 National Action Plan on the wolf and stock- countries, which are based on the protection of the species, rearing activities" was drawn up in 2018, which aims, on the are in danger of becoming obsolete in view of the surprisingly one hand, to ensure wolf conservation and, on the other hand, rapid recovery of wolf populations. More and more countries to better protect livestock from wolf attacks. The objective are facing increasing social controversy and pressure from for wolf conservation is to increase the French population to affected communities and are advocating the culling of indi- at least 500 individuals by 2023 (Ministry for an Ecological vidual wolves or lethal control of wolf populations. and Inclusive Transition & Ministry of Agriculture and Food 2018), a figure that has been determined using population vi- France is one of the countries in which livestock farmers are ability analyses (PVA) (see Chapter 5.1; Duchamp et al. 2017). vehemently opposed to the presence of the wolf, through However, as the French wolf population has already reached demonstrations and actions (Fig. 5.2.1). Damage to livestock 530 individuals in 2019, the shooting of 100 wolves (nearly in the French Alps is very high in comparison with the rest 20% of the population; DREAL Auvergne Rhône-Alpes 2019b) of Europe, and the use of livestock guardian dogs to protect was authorised for the year 2019 in order to cap population flocks is less effective than in Switzerland or Italy (ADEM & growth. This figure of 500 wolves, which initially represented

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

the minimum population size, has in the meantime become limits set not only by the Bern Convention, but also by the the threshold at which the French government intends to slow Habitats Directive (e.g. Sweden and Finland; Epstein et al. the growth of the wolf population. Nevertheless, France has 2019). One example is the state-led wolf hunting in Finland, thereby set itself higher population goals than those proposed which, according to a judgment of the European Court of Jus- in the recommendations for the Alpine countries which were tice handed down at the end of 2019, does not meet the strict elaborated for the Alpine Conference by the WISO platform requirements needed to satisfy the derogation from the Habi- (see Chapter 5.1; Schnidrig et al. 2016a): 530 wolves (or 80 tats Directive (European Court of Justice 2019). In order to be wolf packs) are in fact considerably more than the 26 packs able to exceptionally hunt strictly protected species such as that France would have to host in its Alpine region in order to the wolf, EU Member States must prove that the hunting they make its contribution to a "favourable conservation status" carry out is actually effective (e.g. that it reduces damage (FCS) of the wolf in the Alps as proposed by Schnidrig et al. to livestock or improves acceptance of wolves), that it does (2016a) (Table 5.1.1). not endanger the wolf population and that there is no better alternative (e.g. livestock protection measures) (Epstein & Even in Germany, where total protection of the wolf has long Chapron 2018). been the norm, there has recently been a trend towards sim- plifying the possible interventions. The German "Federal Na- Both the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive do not ture Conservation Act of 29 July 2009" (BNatSchG; BGBl. I S. allow Contracting States to subsequently change the protec- 2542) was amended on 4 March 2020 to allow the shooting tion status of the wolf, i.e. to move it to an annex providing of not only single wolves but also individuals in a pack in the less strict protection (see Chapter 3.4). This lack of flexibility event of serious damage to livestock, even if it could not be in international legislation is increasingly criticised and the determined that the predation of the livestock was due to a high protection status of the wolf is publicly questioned, as specific wolf in a pack. Continued shootings of pack mem- was the case of the motion 10.3264 (Fournier 2010) in Swit- bers can be carried out until the damage has ceased, provided zerland. Demands for lethal interventions (shootings) domi- all other measures have been tried and failed (§ 45a Abs. 2 nate the political scene, leading to discussions on Switzer- BNatSchG). Hunters should also be involved in implementa- land's withdrawal from the Bern Convention to be able to tion of lethal measures. The new German law also includes lower the protection status of the wolf. However, it seems a ban on feeding wolves (to prevent them from becoming inappropriate to question an important international agree- 65 habituated to humans) and provisions on shooting wolf-dog ment on species protection that has been widely supported hybrids (§ 45a BNatSchG). The amendment of the law had by Switzerland for conflicts over a single species. Considering previously been the subject of much controversy in various that the need for adaptation of protection provisions is also position statements. growing within the EU Member States (Trouwborst & Fleurke 2019), Switzerland's application to the Standing Committee In order to mitigate the conflicts surrounding the wolf, Euro- of the Bern Convention in 2018 will show whether the protec- pean countries are making maximum use of the possibilities tion status of the wolf as defined in the Bern Convention can offered within the existing legal framework (see Chapter 3.4). indeed be lowered (Box 3.4.1). However, changing the protec- In doing so, however, they repeatedly come up against the tion status of the wolf in the Bern Convention would probably

Fig. 5.2.1. Sheep farmers from all over France invade the streets of Lyon with their herds on 9 Oc- tober 2017 to demonstrate against the new National Wolf Action Plan 2018– 2023. © KEYSTONE AP/ Laurent Cipriani

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

also require an adaptation of the Habitats Directive. The EU is much less discussed than wolf shootings, even though both States, which constitute the majority in the Standing Com- the Bern Convention and the Habitats Directive provide for mittee of the Bern Convention, are also legally bound by the such non-lethal solutions as measures of first choice (Epstein Habitats Directive. Any divergence between the two agree- & Chapron 2018). Both livestock guardian dogs and electric ments would be meaningless to them. However, amendments fences have proved their worth in practice and reduce damage to the Habitats Directive must be adopted unanimously, to livestock (see Chapter 4.2). In contrast, the effectiveness of whereas amendments to the Bern Convention can be adopted systematic hunting of wolves to prevent attacks on livestock by a two-thirds majority of the Contracting States. The inclu- is uncertain (Treves et al. 2016). It seems, however, that it is sion of the wolf as a protected but huntable species in Ap- easier in Switzerland and in our neighbouring countries to solve pendix III of the Bern Convention (hunting must be regulated problems by killing wolves rather than by discussing social de- so that populations are not threatened) is not excluded, but is velopments and agricultural policy that put additional pressure unlikely to happen in the near future, as it would require unity on European livestock farmers, such as globalisation, opening among the EU States. markets, rural exodus and the disappearance of farms. The wolf is thus becoming a projection screen for a variety of other The need for long-term funding and the widespread implemen- problems and will probably continue to play its role as a scape- tation of alternative solutions (livestock protection measures) goat in future social conflicts (see Chapter 3.4).

5.3 Wolf, lynx, bear and golden jackal in the same habitat – what if they all return?

The wolf is not the only species to have returned to Switzer- deer densities were lower in areas with both lynx and wolves 66 land. Other large carnivores have also settled here or are be- than in areas with only wolves. Large predators such as wolves ginning to immigrate from neighbouring countries. The lynx and lynx can also influence the number of smaller predators was reintroduced to Switzerland 50 years ago, which has led (Box 3.3.1), by killing them as competitors (wolf – golden jackal) to the re-establishment of populations in the Alps and the Jura. or prey (lynx – fox). There is evidence, for example, that the Switzerland has a special responsibility for lynx conservation golden jackal has been able to expand its range in recent dec- in the Alps, as it still hosts the largest population in the en- ades due to the absence of the wolf in many parts of Europe tire Alpine region (KORA 2019b). In 2005, the first brown bear (Krofel et al. 2017). It can be assumed that there will also be in over 150 years was observed in the Lower Engadine. Since a certain spatial separation between the two species during then, young males from the Trentino bear population in Italy the colonisation of Switzerland. Since the ecological niches of have been crossing the border every year, but until now these the golden jackal and the fox are similar, competition between have always been temporary visits, and Switzerland does not these two mesopredators is also possible. However, studies yet have a stable population (KORA 2019c). The golden jackal, conducted to date on this subject have led to differing conclu- weighing between 7 and 10 kg, is not considered to be a large sions depending on the region (Farkas et al. 2017, Tsunoda et predator, but is a "mesopredator" like the fox and the badger. al. 2017). Mesopredators eat other animals, but they can also fall prey to larger predators. As a "little brother" to the wolf, the golden The presence of bears can have an impact on how strongly jackal resembles the wolf considerably (Fig. 5.3.1) but its diet wolves or lynx influence their prey populations. Bears are able is closer to that of the fox (Farkas et al. 2017). Golden jack- to compete for prey with wolves and lynx (Fig. 5.3.2). For ex- als can also form packs and may occasionally attack livestock. ample, Krofel et al. (2012) found that lynx in Slovenia were Since the 1980s, their distribution range is expanding and they forced to hunt more often because bears scavenged their prey. have reached Austria and Italy via Hungary, Croatia and Slove- At the same time, a study on wolves and bears in Scandinavia nia. A camera trap captured the first photograph of a golden and the Yellowstone came to the opposite conclusion: where jackal in Switzerland in 2011. Since then, individuals have been bears were present, wolves killed fewer prey than in bear-free regularly observed, but until now they have always been single areas (Tallian et al. 2017). A possible explanation may be that animals (KORA 2019d). wolves do not abandon their prey when the bears have found it, but stay close by, giving them the opportunity to access it If several predator species cohabit in the same habitat, the pre- again as soon as the bear has left (Tallian et al. 2017). Most of dation pressure increases for prey (Heurich 2019). This applies the studies that have been able to measure a strong combined particularly to species belonging to the prey spectrum of sev- influence of several predators on their prey and ecosystems eral predators, which in our latitudes applies to the roe deer, for come from rather unproductive regions in northern latitudes example. In a European study, Melis et al. (2009) found that roe where human influence is low (Gasaway et al. 1992, Ripple &

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 5. Perspectives

Fig. 5.3.1. The golden jackal resembles the wolf but is much smaller and slenderer. Wolves may occasionally kill golden jackals as competitors. © H. Geisser

Beschta 2012, Van Ballenberghe & Ballard 1994). In our Central this type of habitat, large carnivores will probably never reach European habitats, which are strongly influenced by agriculture the densities that the ecosystem's carrying capacity would al- 67 and forestry, food sources for wild ungulates are abundant. In low, since humans will have already reduced their populations addition, the influence of hunting on ungulates is significant, before. It is therefore difficult to predict what the combined in- and the acceptance of hunters is an important factor for the fluence of wolf, lynx and bear will be on our cultural landscapes presence of large carnivores. According to Heurich (2019), in in Central Europe.

Fig. 5.3.2. Bears can challenge wolves for their prey. Example of a confrontation between a wolf and a bear in North America. © P. Dettling

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 6. Conclusions

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The wolf returns – why preserve this species? covered and expanded into new territories. This develop- Only 50 years ago, hardly anyone would have imagined that ment is not only due to the legal protection of the species, wolves would adapt so well to the cultural landscapes of but also to reforestation, the restoration of wild ungulate Central Europe and that their populations would recover so populations and the wolf's great capacity for adaptation quickly. The wolf constantly surprises us with its great adapt- and mobility. ability and its continuous expansion despite many adversities such as its lack of acceptance by the population or the frag- • Since 1995, wolves have naturally migrated from the French- mentation of its habitat. But should we even tolerate wolves Italian Alps to Switzerland. In the future, immigration from in our country, let alone preserve them? The question of the other European populations is also likely to increase. After value of an animal species reflects different human attitudes twenty years of slow growth in the Swiss wolf population, towards nature. People with an ecocentric view of the world we are now entering a phase of rapid expansion and pack attribute an intrinsic value to the wolf, as to any other liv- formation. This development has also been observed in our ing being, regardless of its usefulness for humans. Anthro- neighbouring countries. The Alps, including Switzerland, pocentric people measure the value of nature by its benefits offer the wolf sufficient suitable habitats and a high prey to humans, so the wolf which in their eyes causes "damage" density. by its way of life, has no right to exist. It is this anthropocen- tric vision of the world that was dominant in the 19th century. • Predation on livestock, especially sheep, remains the During the industrialisation phase, forests were cleared and main source of conflict. The initial concern that livestock large carnivores, as well as almost all wild ungulates, were grazing in mountain areas would become impossible, has exterminated in Switzerland and elsewhere in Europe. But proven to be unfounded. However, it has been shown that over time, part of society changed and advocated for a halt the majority of damage to livestock occurs in unprotected to the destruction of the environment. Switzerland has played situations and that livestock protection measures work a pioneering role in the restoration of nature right from the when applied correctly. In this context, farm size and farm- start. The first Federal Forestry Law of 1876, which was al- ing methods are decisive factors for the successful im- 68 ready based on the principle of sustainability, was exemplary plementation of livestock protection in such a way, that for the time. Our country was also a pioneer in the rescue it meets social, economic and ecological requirements. of wild ungulate populations. With the return of top preda- However, small farms in particular may find it very chal- tors such as the wolf, lynx and bear, we now face the task to lenging to bear these additional costs. Various financial restore the last link in the food chain and thus an essential aids have been designed to promote the implementation process in the ecosystem (Box 6.1). of long-term livestock protection measures, and cantonal advisory centres have been established. The conflict be- Purpose of this report and main conclusions tween livestock grazing and wolves has to be seen in the Over the past 25 years, Switzerland has gained a large amount context of other economic and social developments, which of important experiences and learnt lessons in managing the affect alpine farming. It is easy to make the wolf a scape- wolf. However, decision-making bodies and the general pub- goat for overarching problems such as structural changes lic are not sufficiently informed about these findings for them and market liberalisation, which would exist even in its to take these into account during political and public debates. absence. For example, in May 2019, during discussions on the partial revision of the Federal Hunting Law (LChP; RS 922.0) in the • Attacks by wolves on humans are very rare. There have National Council, it was argued that the protection status of been no attacks in the 25 years that the wolf has been wolves should be lowered (Box 3.4.1) because the wolf was back in Switzerland. Similarly, in our neighbouring coun- supposedly "the greatest enemy of biodiversity", "livestock tries, no cases of attacks on humans are known since the protection has failed", "no woman or child should have to re-colonisation by wolves, despite the increasing wolf be afraid of an animal in 2019" and "no region in Switzer- populations. Nevertheless, people's fears must be taken land is large enough to provide suitable habitats for wolves" seriously. Where wolves reappear, especially when they (National Council, special session Mai 2019, second meet- are observed near settlements, a feeling of insecurity sets ing, 08.05.19 08h00 17.052). These statements contradict not in among the affected population and with it an increased only what is known about wolves, but also the experiences need for information, to which the responsible authorities we have had in our own country over the past 25 years. This must react. A timely communication and recommendations report is intended to help to put the discussion on a more on how to behave in the presence of wolves (e.g. never factual and objective basis. feed them) are therefore important.

The following findings can be derived from our report: • In all countries with large numbers of wolves sooner or • The wolf is capable of colonising the whole of Europe. In later the finding prevails that cohabitation with humans recent decades, the last remaining populations have re- requires a control of the wolf population. Switzerland has

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 6. Conclusions

Box 6.1 What is biodiversity?

Faced with the progressive loss of natural habitats and the rapid extinction of species, the preservation of biodiversity has become a matter of great urgency. Most of the world's countries have committed themselves to take action to preserve it under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). But what exactly is biodiversity?

According to the CBD, biological diversity, or biodiversity, includes: (1) the diversity of species, (2) genetic diversity, and (3) the diversity of ecosystems. In this context, species diversity means the number of species present in a given area or habitat, thus also including local species richness and not just the total number of species living on earth. Genetic diversity implies the variability of genes within each individual species, which means that many different gene variants exist in the entire gene pool of a species. This variability is decisive for the evolutionary potential of a species, i.e. the ability to respond to natural selection imposed by future environmental changes (certain genetic constellations within the species will have an advantage). Finally, ecosystem diversity refers to the variety of habitats, living communities, and ecological processes in the same living space.

The preservation of the evolutionary potential is particularly important in the event of rapid changes in environmental conditions, such as those we are currently experiencing as a result of climate change. To this end, the ecological processes or mechanisms responsible for selection must also be maintained. Predation (the effect of predators on their prey) is a particularly effective selection factor because it acts reciprocally, i.e. by causing what is known as co-evolution: predators and their prey select each other and thus influence each other in the evolutionary process. The large carnivores and large herbivores that live today are the result of a very long co-evolution that has also had a decisive impact on the habitat they share. It is therefore essential that we preserve not only the forest, which is the main habitat for our wildlife, but also all the wildlife that inhabit it, i.e. both herbivores and carnivores.

69 defined a set of pragmatic criteria for the shooting of (a) Recommendations for the future management of the wolf individual wolves causing damage and (b) for the regula- The return of the wolf raises many questions for society and tion of establishing wolf populations. Wolves may be le- experts: how much will the wolf population increase and gally shot if they cause significant damage to livestock or what will happen when it approaches its ecological carrying high losses in the cantonal hunting prerogatives, or if they capacity? Will conflicts intensify as the number of wolves represent a serious danger to humans. Legal shooting of increases? How will population dynamics of wild ungulates wolves has already been carried out on several occasions change when all three large predators once again roam Swit- by the competent cantonal authorities and, according to zerland on a large scale? Can the objectives defined in the current legal practice, is compatible with international Swiss Wolf Concept be achieved with the current manage- agreements such as the Bern Convention. ment measures? Although it is very difficult to predict how things will evolve, the knowledge gained over the past 25 • There is no indication, either in Switzerland or in other years allows us to make some recommendations for optimis- countries, that hunting is no longer possible in the pres- ing the future cohabitation between wolves and humans: ence of wolves. However, certain adjustments (e.g. in hunting planning or in the use of hunting dogs) may be nec- • In the presence of wolves, a livestock protection system essary. Carpathian countries for example are popular with is essential in grazing areas. Its financing and the long-term hunting tourists, where wolf, lynx and bear have never implementation of the corresponding measures have been disappeared, showing that hunting can remain attractive enshrined in the legislation, namely in the Hunting Ordinance even in the presence of large predators. (OChP; RS 922.01) and the Ordinance on Direct Payments (OPD; RS 910.13). Whether these incentives for voluntary • In recent years, the wolf has drawn a lot of attention, both livestock protection measures are sufficient depends largely in society and in the political and media spheres. The on the conditions of agricultural policy and the effectiveness wolf has been the trigger for many processes which aim to of the measures implemented. If livestock predation is only revise laws and ordinances. The discussion about the wolf compensated for when reasonable protection measures has become a proxy conflict, in which different value sys- have been taken, then the incentive will be increased, but tems clash and which reflects the urban-rural conflict. How- the risk of abandoning sheep farming under difficult condi- ever, direct contact and collaboration between representations will also increase. It is necessary to strike a balance tives of interest groups in cantonal working groups have between the different instruments for promoting livestock shown that it is possible to promote mutual understanding farming to enable the cultural, economic and ecological im- and to work together to find practical solutions. portance of pastoralism to be preserved.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 6. Conclusions

Fig. 6.1. A wolf passing by a herd of chamois in the Swiss National Park. The influence of wolves on the wildlife-forestry conflict is still little researched in Cen- tral European ecosystems. © H. Haller

• The return of the wolf and other large carnivores will require groups, helps to build trust and strengthens the willingness adjustments not only to pastoralism, but also to hunting and to tackle problems together at technical level in order to find forestry. Little is known at present about the influence that socially acceptable solutions and compromises. the wolf may have on the wildlife-forestry-conflict. Its 70 rapid spread will provide the opportunity to better under- • Current wolf management in Switzerland focuses on con- stand the relationships between forest regeneration, wild- flict resolution and is mainly concerned with lethal inter- life populations and wolves in human-influenced habitats ventions in wolf populations. It is important to note that in (Fig. 6.1). It is particularly important in this context to ensure this context, lower densities of wolves will not automati- an improved and more coordinated monitoring of large cally lead to a reduction in damage to livestock. In the fu- carnivore and wild ungulate populations, browsing pres- ture, the effects of regulatory measures should be bet- sure and forest regeneration, to be able to compare data ter documented, and the effectiveness of these methods between different regions and over long periods of time. should be monitored.

• The general public has a great need for information on the • The preservation of the wolf in Switzerland's cultural land- wolf, especially during specific events such as the first ap- scapes requires not only measures to resolve conflicts, but pearance of an individual, the formation of the first pack also the definition of socially acceptable population or observations near residential areas. Proactive and rapid goals that take account of ecological imperatives. communication by the responsible authorities has been Even if regulatory measures are taken, it must be ensured shown to be essential. Municipalities, which are often the that the wolf population remains large enough to survive first points of contact for the population, should be more in the long term and to fulfil its function in the ecosystem, involved in communication. As for social media, their impor- both on the level of the entire population (e.g. in the Alps) tance as information channels continues to grow. and in Switzerland. To achieve this, it is essential that responsibility is shared in a spirit of solidarity between the • The return of the wolf affects various interest groups (agri- various countries involved, but also between the cantons. culture, forestry, hunting, tourism, nature protection). Dia- In managing the cross-border wolf population together with logue and collaboration between the different actors, other countries, Switzerland is also dependent on existing both on a national and regional level, should be further de- international conventions – whether or not they are legally veloped. Getting to know each other, especially in working binding for us.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment 6. Conclusions

Conclusions The wolf is an intelligent social species that learns quickly and are traditionally responsible for wildlife management, and this is capable of adapting (Fig. 6.2). These characteristics enable competence is not called into question in the processes of im- it to survive in virtually all habitats, from the subtropics to the plementing measures. However, population goals for a species Arctic and from the wilderness to urban areas. Over the last such as the wolf, which has such great spatial requirements, 71 quarter of a century, the wolf has also shown to be able to es- must be defined on a higher geographical scale, even beyond tablish itself perfectly in the cultural landscapes of Central Eu- Switzerland as a country. Rather, wolf management should be rope. Nowhere in the world is the wolf an undisputed species, based on biogeographical areas such as the Alps or the Jura. but it is obvious that it worries people especially where it reap- Cross-border, solidarity-based conservation of viable wolf pears after a long absence. Since the immigration of the first populations has not yet been implemented anywhere, as each wolves from the Franco-Italian Alpine population 25 years ago, country is currently trying to maintain its sovereignty over the Switzerland has gained a great deal of experience in managing management of wolves in relation to international conventions this species, but we still do not know what the future holds. and each province is doing the same with national legislation. The question arises as to whether such a decentralisation of The wolf is not a globally endangered species, but as a top competences will be able to resolve the wolf controversy. This predator it is an essential component of our native fauna, is where our culture of dialogue is particularly challenged: On whose presence is to be welcomed from an ecological point the one hand, it is obvious that to overcome conflicts and find of view. For the wolf to be able to perform its ecological role, a viable compromise, the local population must be involved. it is not necessary for it to be present in great numbers but On the other hand, only supra-regional and international coop- it should be allowed to live at a sufficient density throughout eration that takes into account both nature protection and the the territory. In order to coexist with the wolf in our cultural needs of the human populations concerned, will make it pos- landscape in the long term, we need to find a balance between sible to find a long-term solution. For the conservation of viable a minimum wolf population that is just barely able to survive wolf populations in Europe, (more) common objectives, a man- in the long-term and a maximum wolf population at the eco- agement based on solidarity and finally an adaptive process, logical carrying capacity of the habitat, which will hardly be which is always oriented towards the set objectives as well as accepted by the local population. In Switzerland, the cantons progressive experiences, will be necessary in the future.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

References

ADEM & CERPAM. 2019. Chiens de protection – Quand les éleveurs forgent Blazek M. 2014. Die Jagd auf den Wolf. Isegrims schweres Schicksal in leurs savoirs dans les Alpes. Repérer et formaliser les savoirs alpins Deutschland. Beiträge zur Jagdgeschichte des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. émergents sur les chiens de protection confrontés aux meutes de loups. Ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart, Deutschland. 108 pp. Coordination : Fabien Candy (ADEM), Sabine Débit (CERPAM) & Laurent Boisseaux T., Stefanini-Meyrignac O., Démolis C. & Vallance M. 2019. Le loup Garde (CERPAM). 165 pp. et les activités d'élevage: comparaison européenne dans le cadre du plan AGRIDEA. 2020. Merkblatt Nachtpferche. http://www.protectiondestroupeaux. national d'actions 2018/2023. Rapport CGEDD n° 012414-01, CGAAER n° ch/fr/downloads/ (Visited on 15.06.2020) 18097. Ministère de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministère de AGRIDEA. 2019a. Jahresbericht Herdenschutz Schweiz 2018. AGRIDEA, Lau- l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation. sanne, Schweiz. 67 pp. Boitani L. 2018. Canis lupus (errata version published in 2019). The IUCN Red List AGRIDEA. 2019b. Kosten und Finanzierung. http://www.protectiondestroupeaux. of Threatened Species 2018: e.T3746A144226239. (Visited on 24 .02.2020) ch/herdenschutz-schweiz/kosten-und-finanzierung/ (Consulté le 23.12.2019) Boitani L., Ciucci P. & Raganella-Pelliccioni E. 2010. Ex-post compensation AGRIDEA. 2019c. Herdenschutz. http://www.protectiondestroupeaux.ch/ payments for wolf predation on livestock in Italy: a tool for conservation? downloads/ (Visited on 06.01.2020) Wildlife Research 37, 722–730. Ahne P. 2016. Wölfe. Ein Porträt. Naturkunden Nr. 27, Verlag Matthes & Seitz Boutros D. & Baumgartner H.J. 2004. Erfahrungen der Kontaktgruppe Luchs Berlin, Deutschland, 143 pp. Simmental und Saanenland: Auswertung einer Umfrage unter den Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden. 2017. Wölfe im Kanton Graubünden Mitgliedern. KORA Bericht Nr. 20, Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, 23 pp. 2017. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/bvfd/ajf/grossraub- Breitenmoser U. & Breitenmoser-Würsten C. 2008. Der Luchs – ein Grossraub- tiere/wolf/Seiten/Jahresberichte.aspx (Visited on 19.09.2019). tier in der Kulturlandschaft. Salm Verlag, Wohlen/Bern, Schweiz, 537 pp. Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden. 2016. Wölfe im Kanton Graubünden Breitenmoser U., Bürki R., Lanz T., Pittet M., von Arx M. & Breitenmoser-Wü- 2016, 14 pp. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/bvfd/ajf/ rsten C. 2016. The recovery of wolf Canis lupus and lynx Lynx lynx in the grossraubtiere/wolf/Seiten/Jahresberichte.aspx (Visited on 19.09.2019). Alps: Biological and ecological parameters and wildlife management sys- Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden. 2014. Wölfe im Kanton Graubün- tems. RowAlps Report Objective 1. KORA Bericht Nr. 70, KORA, Muri bei den 2014, 7 pp. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/bvfd/ajf/ Bern, Schweiz, 276 pp. grossraubtiere/wolf/Seiten/Jahresberichte.aspx (Visited on 19.09.2019). Breitenmoser U., Breitenmoser-Würsten Ch., von Arx M., Zimmermann F., Ry- 72 Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden. 2013. Wölfe im Kanton Graubün- ser A., Angst C., ... & Weber J.-M. 2006. Guidelines for the Monitoring of den 2013, 5 pp. https://www.gr.ch/DE/institutionen/verwaltung/bvfd/ajf/ Lynx. KORA Bericht Nr. 33e, KORA, Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, 31 pp. grossraubtiere/wolf/Seiten/Jahresberichte.aspx (Visited on 19.09.2019). Breitenmoser-Würsten Ch., Robin K., Landry J. M., Gloor S., Olsson P., Amt für Landschaft und Natur Kanton Zürich. 2014. Handlungsleitfaden Wolf, Breitenmoser U. 2001. Die Geschichte von Fuchs, Luchs, Bartgeier, Wolf 27 pp. und Braunbär in der Schweiz – ein kurzer Überblick. Forest Snow and Andersen L.W., Harms V., Caniglia R., Czarnomska S.D., Fabbri E., Jedrzejews- Landscape Research 76, 9–21. ka B., Kluth G., Madsen A.B., Nowak C., Pertoldi C., Randi E., Reinhardt Bretscher K. 1906. Zur Geschichte des Wolfs in der Schweiz. Neujahrsblatt I., Stronen A.V. 2015. Long-distance dispersal of a wolf, Canis lupus, in der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Füsi & Beer, Zürich, Schweiz, 39 pp. northwestern Europe. Mammal Research 60, 163–168. Brodie J., Johnson H., Mitchell M., Zager P., Proffitt K., Hebblewhite M., ... Apollonio M., Mattioli L., Scandura M., Mauri L., Gazzola A. & Avanzinelli E. & White P. J. 2013. Relative influence of human harvest, carnivores, and 2004. Wolves in the Casentinesi Forests: insights for wolf conservation weather on adult female elk survival across western North America. Jour- in Italy from a protected area with a rich wild prey community. Biological nal of Applied Ecology 50, 295–305. Conservation 120, 249–260. Broggi M.F. 1979. Zur Ausrottungsgeschichte des Grossraubwildes, im speziellen Bassi E., Canu A., Firmo I., Mattioli L., Scandura M. & Apollonio M. 2017. des Luchses, im nordwestlichen Ostalpenraum. Überarbeitetes Manuskript Trophic overlap between wolves and free-ranging wolf x dog hybrids in eines Vortrages aus Anlass der Eröffnung der Wanderausstellung „Luchs und the Apennine mountains, Italy. Global Ecology and Conservation 9, 39–49. Wildkatze“ im Liechtensteinischen Landesmuseum, 16.02.1979. Jahrbuch Bath A. & Frank B. 2011. Social, Educational and Cultural Aspects: Human des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 195–210. Dimensions as a Tool for Bird Conservation. Report, European Conference Brown J.S. & Kotler B.P. 2004. Hazardous duty pay and the foraging cost of on Illegal Killing of Birds, Larnaca, Cyprus (6-8 July), T-PVS/Inf (2011) 12, predation. Ecology Letters 7, 999–1014. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, 20 pp. Bürgi M., Wunderli R. & Furrer B. 2014. Die Entstehung der modernen Behr D.M., Ozgul A. & Cozzi G. 2017. Combining human acceptance and Alpwirtschaft. In Lauber S., Herzog F., Seidl I., Böni R., Bürgi M., Gmür habitat suitability in a unified socio-ecological suitability model: a P., ... & Wunderli R. (Hrsg.) 2014. Zukunft der Schweizer Alpwirtschaft. case study of the wolf in Switzerland. Journal of Applied Ecology 54, Fakten, Analysen und Denkanstösse aus dem Forschungsprogramm Alp- 1919–1929. FUTUR. Birmensdorf, Eidg. Forschungsanstalt WSL; Zürich-Reckenholz, Bisi J. & Kurki S. 2008. The wolf debate in Finland. Expectations and ob- Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART. 202 pp. jectives for the management of the wolf population at regional and Butler L., Dale B., Beckmen K & Farley S. 2011. Findings related to the March national level. University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute, Publications 12, 2010 fatal wolf attack near Chignik Lake, Alaska. Wildlife Special Publi- 149 pp. cation, ADF&G/DWC/WSP2011-2. Palmer, Alaska, 46 pp. Bisi J., Kurki S., Svensberg M. & Liukkonen T. 2007. Human dimensions of Caluori U. & Hunziker M. 2001. Der Wolf: Bedrohung und Lichtgestalt - Deu- wolf (Canis lupus) conflicts in Finland. European Journal of Wildlife Re- tungsmuster in der Schweizer Bevölkerung. Forest, Snow and Landscape search 53, 304–314. Research 76, 169–190.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

Canton des Grisons. 2016. Verwaltungsgericht des Kantons Graubünden, Ur- Commission européenne. 2019. Richtlinie 92/43/EWG des Rates vom 21. teil vom 6. Juni 2016. https://entscheidsuche.ch/kantone/gr/U-16-2.pdf Mai 1992 zur Erhaltung der natürlichen Lebensräume sowie der wildle- (Visited on 24.03.2020) benden Tiere und Pflanzen https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/ Canton de Saint Gall. 2017. Entscheid Verwaltungsgericht, 20.01.2017, B TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:01992L0043-20130701&from=EN (Consulté le 2016/2. http://ww2.gerichte.sg.ch/home/dienstleistungen/rechtspre- 02.12.2019) chung/verwaltungsgericht/entscheide-2017/b-2016-2.html (Visited on Commission européenne 2014. Accord de participation à la plateforme eu- 24.03.2020) ropéenne sur la coexistence entre l'Homme et les grands carnivores. Canton de Saint Gall. 2015. Graubünden und St. Gallen beantragen https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/car- Abschussbewilligung für Wölfe. https://www.sg.ch/news/sgch_allge- nivores/pdf/FR_Agreement%20to%20participate%20in%20the%20 mein/2015/11/graubuenden-und-st-gallen-beantragen-abschussbewil- EU%20Platform.pdf (visited on 16.06.2020) ligung-fuer-woe.html (Visited on 24.03.2020) Commission européenne. 2013. Summary 2nd Stakeholder Workshop on EU Canton d'Uri. 2019. Abstimmungsvorlage Kantonale Volksinitiative „Zur Action on Large Carnivores. Brussels, 5th December, 2013, 3 pp. Regulierung von Grossraubtieren im Kanton Uri.“ https://www.ur.ch/_ Convention alpine. 2019. État des ratifications. https://www.alpconv.org/fr/ docn/154051/Abstimmungsbotschaft_kantonal_10-02-2019.pdf (Vi- home/convention/etat-des-ratifications/ (Visited on 02.12.2019) sited on 02.12.2019) Council of Europe. 2019a. Details of Treaty No.104 – Convention on the Canton d'Uri. 2015. Wolf im Isenthal – Abschuss verfügt. Medienmitteilung Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats. https://www. des Kantons Uri, 23.06.2015. https://www.ur.ch/newsarchiv/25940 (Vi- coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/104 (Visited sited on 24.02.2020) on 02.12.2019) Canton du Valais. 2019. Wolfsmonitoring – Identifizierungsübersicht und Council of Europe. 2019b. Reservations and Declarations for Treaty No.104 Schadensbilanz für 2019. Medienmitteilung. https://www.vs.ch/web/ – Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habi- communication/archives (Visited on 17.12.2019) tats. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/ Canton du Valais. 2016. Tir d'un jeune loup de la meute d'Augstbord. Com- treaty/104/declarations?p_auth=J1uScUjt (Visited on 02.12.2019) muniqué de presse du 22.12.2016. https://www.vs.ch/fr/web/scpf/ Council of Europe. 2018. Convention on the Conservation of European Wild- news/-/asset_publisher/LSlMnACmvk2y/content/tir-d-un-jeune-loup- life and Natural Habitats. Standing Committee, 38th meeting Strasbourg, de-la-meute-d-augstbord/529400?inheritRedirect=false (Visited on 27–30 November 2018. https://rm.coe.int/list-of-decisions-and-adop- 16.03.2020) ted-textes-of-the-38th-meeting-of-the-bern-c/16808fde8d, page 5. Canton du Valais. 2010. Wolfsabschuss auf der Alpe Scex, Region Monta- Credit Suisse Worry Barometer. 2019. Press Release 05.12.2019. https:// 73 na-Varneralp. Medienmitteilung des Kantons Wallis, 11.08.2010. https:// www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/media-re- www.kora.ch/index.php?id=214&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=52&- leases/2019-credit-suisse-worry-barometer--retirement-provision-re- cHash=7ee32de799b348ecc59d2542777a5903 (Visited on 24.02.2020) mains-201912.html (Visited on 10.03.2020) Capt S., Lüps P., Nigg H. & Fivaz F. 2005. Relikt oder geordneter Rückzug ins DBBW (Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf). Réduit – Fakten zur Ausrottungsgeschichte des Braunbären Ursus arctos 2020. Totfunde von Wölfen - Statistik der Todesursachen. Abfrage der in der Schweiz. KORA Bericht Nr. 24, KORA, Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, 28 pp. DBBW-Datenbank am 09.03.2020. https://www.dbb-wolf.de/totfunde/ Černe R., Bartol M., Ferjančič Lakota T., Groff C., Huber Đ., ... & Skrbinšek T. statistik-der-todesursachen (Visited on 09.03.2020) 2017. Guidelines for Common Management of Brown Bear in the Alpine DBBW (Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf). and Northern Dinaric Region. Guidelines prepared within A.6 action of the 2019a. BfN – Aktuelle Wolfszahlen der Bundesländer liegen vor. https:// LIFE DINALP BEAR project (LIFE13 NAT/SI/000550), 28 pp. www.dbb-wolf.de/mehr/pressemitteilungen/details/bfn-aktuelle-wolfs- Chandelier M., Steuckardt A., Mathevet R., Diwersy S. & Gimenez O. zahlen-der-bundeslaender-liegen-vor (Visited on 03.12.2019). 2018. Content analysis of newspaper coverage of wolf recolonization DBBW (Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema Wolf). in France using structural topic modelling. Biological Conservation 220, 2019b. Managementpläne. https://www.dbb-wolf.de/Wolfsmanage- 254–261. ment/bundeslaender/managementplaene (Visited on 11.03.2020) Chapron G., Kaczensky P., Linnell J. D. C., von Arx M., Huber D., Andren H., DBBW (Dokumentations- und Beratungsstelle des Bundes zum Thema ... & Boitani L. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern hu- Wolf). 2018. Wölfe in Deutschland – Statusbericht 2017/2018. https:// man-dominated landscapes. Science 346, 1517–1519. www.dbb-wolf.de/mehr/literatur-download/statusberichte (Visited on CHWOLF. 2019. Wer ist CHWOLF? https://chwolf.org/ueber-uns/wer-ist- 12.09.2019). chwolf (Visited on 02.12.2019) de Beaufort F. 1987. Le loup en France: éléments d'écologie historique. In En- Ciuti S., Northrup J.M., Muhly T.B., Simi S., Musiani M., Pitt J.A. & Boyce cyclopédie des Carnivores en France. Artois M. & Delattre P. (Eds). Société M.S. 2012. Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of Française pour l'Etude et la Protection des Mammifères, pp. 1–32. natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7(11): e50611. Decker D.J., Lauber T.B. & Siemer W.F. 2002. Human-Wildlife Conflict Ma- Commission européenne 2020a. Promoting best practices https://ec.euro- nagement. A Practitioners' Guide. Human Dimensions Research Unit, pa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/promo- Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Northeast Wildlife Damage Mana- ting_best_practices.htm and Case Studies https://ec.europa.eu/envi- gement Research and Outreach Cooperative, 50 pp. ronment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/case_studies.htm Der Bund. 2017: Wolf-Alarm unweit der Stadt Bern, 14.09.2017, https:// (Visited on 17.03.2020) www.derbund.ch/bern/region/wolf-alarm-unweit-der-stadt-bern/sto- Commission européenne 2020b. Regional Platforms on People & Large Carni- ry/24076718 (Visited on 19.09.2019) vores https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/ de Tschudi F. 1859. Les Alpes : Description pittoresque de la nature et de la carnivores/regional_platforms.htm (conulté le 17.03.2020) Faune alpestre. Librairie Dalp, Berne, Suisse, 737 pp.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

Deutscher Jagdverband. 2018. Hundearbeit im Wolfsgebiet – Leitfaden für document/document.jsf;jsessionid=1CE8C3DC82AE7636C557D5F239EE- Jagdleiter und Hundeführer. https://www.jagdverband.de/sites/default/ 617D?text=&docid=218935&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&- files/Hundearbeit_im_Wolfsgebiet_Flyer_2018%20neuste%20Ver- dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2576689 (Visited on 18.11.2019) sion.pdf (Visited on 19.09.2019). Fabbri E., Caniglia R., Kusak J., Galov A., Gomercic T., Arbanasic H., Huber Diethelm R. 2011. Der Wolfsjäger im Schafspelz. Tages-Anzeiger, 14.12.2011. D. & Randi E. 2014. Genetic structure of expanding wolf (Canis lupus) Dingwall S. 2001. Ravenous wolves and cuddly bears: predators in everyday populations in Italy and Croatia, and the early steps of the recolonization language. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 76, 107–120. of the Eastern Alps. Mammalian Biology 79, 138–148. Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne. 2019. Kerngruppe Wolf: https:// Fabbri E., Miquel C., Lucchini V., Santini A., Caniglia R., Duchamp C., ... & www.vol.be.ch/vol/de/index/natur/jagd_wildtiere/wildtiere/wolf. Randi E. 2007. From the Apennines to the Alps: Colonization genetics of assetref/dam/documents/VOL/LANAT/de/Natur/Jagd_Wildtiere/LA- the naturally expanding Italian wolf (Canis lupus) population. Molecular NAT_JW_KG%20Wolf%20Internet.pdf (Visited on 31.10.2019) Ecology 16, 1661–1671. Direction de l'économie du canton de Berne. 2007. Über den Umgang mit dem Farkas A., Jánoska F., Fodor J.-T. & Náhlik A. 2017. The high level of nutritio- Wolf. Strategie der Volkswirtschaftsdirektion. 13 pp. nal niche overlap between red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and sympatric golden Direction de l'économie publique [maintenant Direction de l'économie, de jackal (Canis aureus) affects the body weight of juvenile foxes. European l'énergie et de l'environnement] Canton de Berne 2017.Un loup observé à Journal of Wildlife Research 63: 46. Zimmerwald. Communiqué de presse du 14.09.2017, https://www.be.ch/ Fédération Suisse d'élevage ovin. 2017. Positionspapier Grossraubtiere in der portal/fr/index/mediencenter/medienmitteilungen/suche.archiv.mel- Schweiz – Haltung des Schweizerischen Schafzuchtverbandes. https:// dungNeu.html/portal/de/meldungen/mm/2017/09/20170914_1521_ www.sszv.ch/userfiles/file/SSZV-Bereiche/Projekte_Partnerschaften/ wolfssichtung_inzimmerwald.html (Visited on 17.09.2019) Grossraubtiere_%20Haltung%20SSZV.pdf. (Visited on 02.12.2019) DREAL Auvergne Rhône-Alpes 2019a. Bilan 2018. Info Loup – La lettre d'in- Fernández-Gil A. 2014. Management and conservation of wolves in Asturias, formation sur le loup et les activités d'élevage. Numéro 25. DREAL Au- NW Spain: Is population control justified for handling damage-related vergne Rhône-Alpes, Lyon, France. conflicts? CDP News 10, 10–15. DREAL Auvergne Rhône-Alpes 2019b. Protocole d'intervention sur la popula- Fessler A. 2012. Der Wolf vom Tat – Wolfsspuren in der Lenzerheide. tion de loups. Info Loup – La lettre d'information sur le loup et les activités Transhelvetica 12, 70–73. d'élevage. Numéro spécial Juillet 2019. DREAL Auvergne Rhône-Alpes, Fournier J.-R. 2010. Motion 10.3264. Revision von Artikel 22 der Berner Lyon, France. Konvention. https://www.parlament.ch/de/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vis- 74 Duchamp C., Chapron G., Gimenez O., Robert A., Sarrazin F., Beudels-Jamar ta/geschaeft?AffairId=20103264 (Visited on 18.11.2019) R. & Le Maho Y. 2017. Expertise collective scientifique sur la viabilité et Galaverni M., Caniglia R., Pagani L., Fabbri E., Boattini A. & Randi E. 2017. le devenir de la population de loups en France à long terme sous la coor- Disentangling timing of admixture, patterns of introgression, and phe- dination ONCFS-MNHN de: Guinot-Ghestem M., Haffner P., Marboutin E., notypic indicators in a hybridizing wolf population. Molecular Biology & Rousset G., Savoure-Soubelet A., Siblet J.P. & Trudelle L. Evolution 34, 2324–2339 Dufresnes C., Miquel C., Taberlet P. & Fumagalli L. 2019a. Last but not beast: Gamp R. 2015. Schweizer Wölfe sind nicht echt. Es handelt sich um the fall of the Alpine wolves told by historical DNA. Mammal Research Mischlinge, behaupten Wolfsgegner. Und fordern ihre Tötung. Sonntags 64, 595–600. Blick, 18.10.2015. Dufresnes C., Remollino N., Stoffel C., Manz R., Weber J.-M. & Fumagalli L. Gasaway W.C., Boertje R.D., Grangaard D.V., Kelleyhouse D.G., Stephenson 2019b. Two decades of non-invasive genetic monitoring of the grey wol- R.O. & Larsen D.G. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low ves recolonizing the Alps support very limited dog introgression. Scientific densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Reports 9, 148. Monographs 120, 59 pp. Eisenegger, M. 2018. Das Internet ist die zentrale Instanz der Öffentlichkeit. Gazzarin C. 2018. Schafgeschichte & Lammgerichte. Spriessbürger Verlag, Interview in „die umwelt“ 3/2018, Seiten 22–24. Eine Bühne für die Hinterforst, Schweiz. 224 pp. Umwelt. Wie Umweltkommunikation informiert, rät und warnt. Bunde- Gazzola A., Avanzinelli E., Mauri L., Scandura M. & Apollonio M. 2002. Tem- samt für Umwelt BAFU. poral changes of howling in south European wolf packs. Italian Journal of Epstein Y. & Chapron G. 2018. The Hunting of Strictly Protected Species: The Zoology 69, 157–161. Tapiola Case and the Limits of Derogation under Article 16 of the Habitats GFS Zürich. 2019. Umfrage zum Wolfschutz im Auftrag von Pro Natura. Directive. European Energy and Environmental Law Review 27, 78–87. https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/schweiz/standard/mehrheit-will- Epstein Y., Christiernsson A., López-Bao J.V. & Chapron G. 2019. When is it schweizer-woelfe-leben-lassen/story/20313837 (Visited on 17.12.2019) legal to hunt strictly protected species in the European Union? Conserva- Göldi E.A. 1914. Die Tierwelt der Schweiz. Verlag A. Franke, Bern, Schweiz, tion Science and Practice 1:e18. 654 pp. Etter T.M. 1992. Untersuchungen zur Ausrottungsgeschichte des Wolfes (Ca- Green R.E., Krause J., Briggs A.W., Maricic T., Stenzel U., Kircher M, ... & nis lupus L.) in der Schweiz und den benachbarten Gebieten des Auslands. Pääbo S. 2010. A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome. Science Diplomarbeit. ETH Zürich, Abteilung Forstwirtschaft, Schweiz, 51 pp. 328, 710–722. EU Platform on Coexistence between People and Large Carnivores. 2019. Grob D. 2020. Im Mittelalter wurde der Wolf böse – eine kulturelle Spuren- Case Studies, Understanding Viewpoints, Core Group Wolf: https:// suche nach dem Raubtier, das wieder öfter im Thurgau auftaucht. ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/ Tagblatt, 02.03.2020 https://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/frauenfeld/ pdf/Fiche_case%20study_Switzerland.pdf (Visited on 31.10.2019) im-mittelalter-wurde-der-wolf-boese-eine-kulturelle-spurensuche- European Court of Justice. 2019. Judgement of the court (Second Cham- nach-dem-raubtier-das-wieder-oefter-im-thurgau-auftaucht-ld.1199547 ber) in Case C‑674/17, 10th October 2019. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/ (Visited on 02.03.2020)

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

Grossen C., Keller L. & Biebach I. 2014. Introgression from Domestic Goat Institut für Markt- und Sozialforschung Luzern. 2006. Studie zur natürlichen Generated Variation at the Major Histocompatibility Complex of Alpine Rückeinwanderung des Wolfs, Dezember 2006. https://www.wwf.ch/ Ibex. PLoS Genetics 10, e1004438. sites/default/files/doc-2017-07/2008-XX-factsheet-luchs-wolf-braun- Groupe Loup Suisse. 2018. Positionspapier – Einsatz für die einhei- baer.pdf (Visited on 10.03.2020) mischen Grossraubtiere in der Schweiz. https://www.gruppe-wolf.ch/ JagdSchweiz. 2016. Der Wolf als jagdbare Art. https://www.jagdschweiz.ch/ view/data/7461/Positionspapier_2018.pdf (Visited on 28.08.2020) aktuell/showData/der-wolf-als-jagdbare-art-2 (Visited on 03.12.2019). Hansen K. 2018. Effectiveness of Fences as Livestock Protection. Masterarbeit. Jähde M. & Ansorge H. 2015. Kraniologische Analyse zur Unterscheidung Universität Innsbruck, Österreich. Freie Universität Bozen, Italien. 67 pp. von Wolf und Hund einschließlich ihrer Hybriden. Beiträge zur Jagd- und Hathaway R.S., Bryant A-E.M., Draheim M.M., Vinod P., Limaye S. & Athreya Wildforschung 40, 433–446. V. 2017. From fear to understanding: changes in media representations of Jedrzejewski W., Jedrzejewska B., Okarma H., Schmidt K., Zub K. & Musiani leopard incidences after media awareness workshops in Mumbai, India. M. 2000. Prey selection and predation by wolves in Białowieza Primeval Journal of Urban Ecology 3, 1–7. Forest, Poland. Journal of Mammalogy 81, 197–212. Herrmann T. 2011. Habitat suitability modelling for wolves (Canis lupus) – Johansson M. & Karlsson J. 2011. Subjective Experience of Fear and the Co- Using presence only data from France to estimate habitat suitability in gnitive Interpretation of Large Carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Switzerland. Master Thesis. Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGW 16, 15–19. Faculty of Forestry, Warsaw, Poland, and Eberswalde University for Johansson M., Frank J., Støen O.-G. & Flykt A. 2017. An Evaluation of In- Sustainable Development – HNNE Faculty of Forest and Environment, formation Meetings as a Tool for Addressing Fear of Large Carnivores. Eberswalde, Germany, 78 pp. Society & Natural Resources 30, 281–298. Herrmann T., Weber J.-M., Zimmermann F. & Breitenmoser U. 2011. Arbeitsbe- Jones J.P.G., Collen B., Atkinson G., Baxter P.W.J. Bubb P., Illian J.B., ... & richt „Wolf Habitat Modell mit Schweizer Daten“. Unpubl. Bericht. 15 pp. Milner-Gulland E.J. 2011. The why, what and how of global biodiversity Heurich M. 2019. Die Rolle der grossen Beutegreifer im Ökosystem. In Wolf, indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology 25, 450–457. Luchs und Bär in der Kulturlandschaft. Konflikte, Chancen, Lösungen im JSG BBI. 2019. Bundesgesetz über die Jagd und den Schutz wildlebender Säu- Umgang mit grossen Beutegreifern. Heurich M. (Hrsg.). 2019. Eugen Ul- getiere und Vögel (Jagdgesetz, JSG). Änderung vom 27. September 2019. mer KG, Stuttgart, Deutschland. (Schlussabstimmungstext). https://www.tagblatt.ch/ostschweiz/frauen- Hiedanpää J., Pellikka J. & Ojalammi S. 2016. Meet the parents. Normative feld/im-mittelalter-wurde-der-wolf-boese-eine-kulturelle-spurensuche- emotions in Finnish wolf politics. Finnish Journal for Human-Animal Stu- nach-dem-raubtier-das-wieder-oefter-im-thurgau-auftaucht-ld.1199547 dies 2, 4–27. (Visited on 17.03.2020) 75 Hoffet F. & Mettler D. 2017. Schafhirtenkultur in der Schweiz – Eine Analyse Keough H.L. & Blahna D.J. 2006. Achieving Integrative, Collaborative Ecosys- zu Arbeit, Motivation und Ausbildung. CDP News 14, 1–8. tem Management. Conservation Biology 20, 1373–1382. Houard T. & Lequette B. 1993. Le retour des loups dans le Mercantour. Riviera Kindberg J., Swenson J., Jonzén N., Chapron G., Sand H., Wabakken P. & Li- Scientifique 11, 61–66. berg O. 2013. Sharing the bounty — Adjusting harvest to predator return Hovardas T. & Marsden K. 2018. Good practice in large carnivore conservation in the Scandinavian human-wolf-bear-moose system. Ecological Model- and management. Insights from the EU Platform on Coexistence between ling 265, 140–148. People and Large Carnivores. Chapter 16 In Large Carnivore Conservation Koder W. 2017. Wie viele „falsche“ Wölfe leben in der Schweiz? Walliser and Management. Human Dimensions. Tasos Hovardas (Ed.), Routledge, Bote, 29. November 2017. London and New York, 314–337. KORA. 2020. Fang- Wiederfangmethode. https://www.kora.ch/index. Hovardas T., Marsden K., Psaroudas S., Mertzanis Y. & Brandt K. 2017. Case php?id=105 (Visited on 11.05.2020) studies for coexistence: examples of good practice in supporting coexis- KORA. 2019a. Jahresbericht 2018. 24 pp. https://www.kora.ch/index. tence between people and large carnivores. Callisto & Adelphi consult php?id=345 (Visited on 08.06.2020) GmbH, 22 November 2017, 77 pp. This report was produced as part of KORA. 2019b. Eurasischer Luchs. https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=15 (Vi- the services provided as the Platform Secretariat to DG Environment of sited on 18.11.2019) the European Commission, Service Contract No. 07.0202/2016/738209/ KORA. 2019c. Braunbär. https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=17 (Visited on SER/ENV.D.3. 18.11.2019) Huber J., von Arx M., Bürki R., Manz R. & Breitenmoser U. 2016. Wolves living KORA. 2019d. Goldschakal. https://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=80 (Visited in proximity to humans. Summary for a first enquiry on wolf behavior near on 18.11.2019) humans in Europe. KORA Bericht Nr. 76, KORA, Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, KORA. 2018. Jahresbericht 2017. 24 pp. https://www.kora.ch/index. 19 pp. php?id=345 (Visited on 08.06.2020) Hunziker M., Hoffmann C. W. & Wild-Eck S. 2001. Die Akzeptanz von Wolf, Krofel M., Giannatos G., Cirovič D., Stoyanov S. & Newsome T.M. 2017. Gol- Luchs und «Stadtfuchs» - Ergebnisse einer gesamtschweizerisch-re- den jackal expansion in Europe: a case of mesopredator release triggered präsentativen Umfrage. Forest, Snow and Landscape Research 76, 301– by continent-wide wolf persecution? Hystrix: Italian journal of mammalo- 326. gy 28, 9–15. Imbert C., Caniglia R., Fabbri E., Milanesi P., Randi E., Serafini M., Toretta E. Krofel M., Kos I. & Jerina K. 2012. The noble cats and the big bad scavengers: & Meriggi A. 2016. Why do wolves eat livestock? Factors influencing wolf effects of dominant scavengers on solitary predators. Behavioral Ecology diet in northern Italy. Biological Conservation 195, 156–168. and Sociobiology 66, 1297–1304. Imesch N. 2020. Bestandes- und Abgangsentwicklung Rothirsch der Kantone Kruuk H. 1972. Surplus killing by carnivores. Journal of Zoology 166, 233–244. St. Gallen und Graubünden im Grenzgebiet Calanda. Bericht im Auftrag Kuijper D.P.J., Sahlén E., Elmhagen B., Chamaille-Jammes S., Sand H., Lone des Amts für Natur, Jagd und Fischerei, Kanton St. Gallen. 21 pp. K., Cromsigt J.P.G.M. 2016 Paws without claws? Ecological effects of

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

large carnivores in anthropogenic landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal nivores in Brussels, January 2013. Prepared for the European Commission Society B 283, 20161625. by the Istituto di Ecologica Applicata, Norwegian Institute for Nature Re- Kupferschmid A.D. & Bollmann K. 2016. Direkte, indirekte und kombinierte search & IUCN/SSC Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe under contract Effekte von Wölfen auf die Waldverjüngung. Schweizerische Zeitschrift No 070307/2012/629085/SER/B3, 9 pp. für Forstwesen 167, 3–12. Linnell J.D.C., Salvatori V. & Boitani L. 2008. Guidelines for population level Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein. 2019. Identität des in management plans for large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Ini- Liechtenstein nachgewiesenen Wolfes geklärt. Medienmitteilung. tiative for Europe report prepared for the European Commission (contract https://www.llv.li/medienmitteilungen/detail/2966/identitat-des-in- 070501/2005/424162/MAR/B2). liechtenstein-nachgewiesenen-wolfes-geklart (Visited on 24.02.2020) Linnell J.D.C., Andersen R., Andersone Z., Balciauskas L., Blanco J.C., Boitani Landry J.-M. 1997. La Bête du Val Ferret. Rapport relatant les événements L., ... & Wabakken P. 2002. The fear of wolves: A review of wolf attacks survenues dans les Val Ferrets et d'Entremont (VS) entre octobre 1994 on humans. NINA Oppdragsmelding, 731, 65 pp. et mai 1996. KORA Bericht Nr. 1, KORA, Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, 21 pp. Løe J. & Røskaft E. 2004. Large Carnivores and Human Safety: A Review. Landry J.-M. 1999. Der Einsatz von Herdenschutzhunden in den Schweizer Ambio 33, 283–288. Alpen: erste Erfahrungen. KORA Bericht Nr. 2d, KORA, Muri bei Bern, Loi sur la chasse, FF 2019. Loi fédérale sur la chasse et la protection des Schweiz, 28 pp. mammifères et oiseaux sauvages (Loi sur la chasse, LChP) - Modifica- Lauber S., Böni R., Calabrese C., Fischer M., Schulz T., von Felten S. 2014. tion du 27 septembre 2019. https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/federal-ga- Agrarpolitik und Alpwirtschaft: Chancen und Risiken. In Lauber S., He- zette/2019/6267.pdf (Visited on 17.03.2020) rzog F., Seidl I., Böni R., Bürgi M., Gmür P., ... & Wunderli R. (Hrsg.) 2014. Louvrier J., Duchamp C., Lauret V., Marboutin E., Cubaynes S., Choquet R., Zukunft der Schweizer Alpwirtschaft. Fakten, Analysen und Denkanstösse Miquel C. & Gimenez O. 2018. Mapping and explaining wolf recoloniza- aus dem Forschungsprogramm AlpFUTUR. Birmensdorf, Eidg. Forschung- tion in France using dynamic occupancy models and opportunistic data. sanstalt WSL; Zürich-Reckenholz, Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Recken- Ecography 41, 647–660. holz-Tänikon ART. 202 pp. Lucchini V., Fabbri E., Marucco F., Ricci S., Boitani L. & Randi E. 2002. Nonin- LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe). 2019a. Wolf – Canis lupus. vasive molecular tracking of colonizing wolf (Canis lupus) packs in the https://www.lcie.org/Large-carnivores/Wolf (Visited on 12.09.2019) western Italian Alps. Molecular Ecology 11, 857–868. LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe). 2019b. Policy Support Statement: Lute M. & Gore M. 2014. Knowledge and Power in Wildlife Management. The management of bold wolves, 5 pp. https://www.lcie.org/Publica- Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 1060–1068. 76 tions (Visited on 16.03.2020) Lüthi R., Hilfiker D., Tolon V., Landry J.M. 2017. Wolf behaviour towards elec- LCIE (Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe). 2018. Policy Support Statement: tric fences used in agriculture. CDP News 13, 11–16. The use of artificial feeding as a management tool for large carnivore L'assemblée fédérale – Le Parlement suisse. 2019. Banque de donnée Curia populations and their prey, with a particular emphasis on the brown bear, Vista. https://www.parlament.ch/fr/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista (Vi- 2pp. https://www.lcie.org/Publications (Visited on 16.03.2020) sited on 02.12.2019) Lebensraum Wallis ohne Grossraubtiere. 2019. Medien 2019. https://lebens- Manz R., von Arx M., Breitenmoser-Würsten Ch., Zimmermann F., Ryser raumwallis.ch/medien/ (Visited on 02.12.2019) A., Vogt K., Foresti D., Pittet M. & Breitenmoser U. 2014. Testprojekt Lehmann P. & Rehazek A. 2015. Ziege. Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz HLS. Transekte Wölfin F05 Winter 2012-2013. KORA Bericht Nr. 66, KORA, Version vom: 25.01.2015. https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/013948/ Muri bei Bern, Schweiz, 44 pp. 2015-01-25/ (Visited on 07.10.2019) Marino A., Planella Bosch A., Ricci S., Salvatori V., Ciucci P., Blanco J.C. & Lehmann P. & Stopp B. 2012. Schaf. Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz López-Bao J.V. 2018. Performance of two insurance-based compensation HLS. Version vom: 13.01.2012. https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/de/articles/ systems for wolf damages in Italy and Spain. CDP-News 17, 43–51. 013947/2012-01-13/ (Visited on 07.10.2019) Marucco F. 2011. Distribution, habitat suitability and connectivity of wolves Lehmann P., Sauerländer D. & Moser P. 2015. Viehwirtschaft. Historisches (Canis lupus) in the Alps. Workpackage 5: “Corridors and Barriers”. Envi- Lexikon der Schweiz HLS. Version vom: 01.04.2015. https://hls-dhs-dss. ronment Agency Austria, Vienna, Austria, 23 pp. ch/de/articles/026236/2015-04-01/ (Visited on 07.10.2019) Marucco F. & Avanzinelli E. 2010. Stato, distribuzione, e dimensione della Liberg O., Aronson Å., Sand H., Wabakken P., Maartmann E., Svensson L. & popolazione di lupo in Regione Piemonte. In Progetto Lupo Regione Pie- Åkesson M. 2012. Monitoring of wolves in Scandinavia. Hystrix the Italian monte, Rapporto 1999–2010. Marucco F. (Hrsg.). 2010. Comitato di attua- Journal of Mammalogy 23, 29–34. zione del Progetto Lupo – Regione Piemonte, Italia, 138 pp. Lima S.L. & Bednekoff P.A. 1999. Temporal variation in danger drives anti-pre- Marucco F. & McIntire E.J.B. 2010. Predicting spatio-temporal recolonization dator behaviour: the predation risk allocation hypothesis. American Natu- of large carnivore populations and livestock depredation risk: wolves in ralist 153, 649–659. the Italian Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 789–798. Linnell J.D.C. 2013. From conflict to coexistence: insights from multi-discipli- Marucco F., Avanzinelli E., Bassano B., Bionda R., Bisi F., Calderola S., ... & nary research into the relationships between people, large carnivores and Schwartz M. 2018. La popolazione di lupo sulle Alpi Italiane 2014-2018. institutions. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for the Relazione tecnica, Progetto LIFE12 NAT/IT/00080 WOLFALPS – Azione A4 European Commission, 56 pp. e D1. 367 pp. Linnell J.D.C. & Alleau J. 2016. Predators That Kill Humans: Myth, Reality, Matthes J. 2014. Framing. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, Deutschland, 105 pp. Context and the Politics of Wolf Attacks on People. In Problematic Wildlife, Mattisson J., Sand H., Wabakken P., Gervasi V., Liberg O., Linnell J.D.C., Rau- 357–371. Angelici F.M. (Ed.): Springer International Publishing, Switzerland. set G.R., Pedersen H.C. 2013. Home range size variation in a recovering Linnell J.D.C., Lescureux N., Majic A., von Arx M. & Salvatori V. 2013. From wolf population: evaluating the effect of environmental, demographic, conflict to coexistence: Results from a stakeholder workshop on large car- and social factors. Oecologia 173, 813–825.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

Mcbean G.A. & Hengeveld H.G. 2000. Communicating the Science of Climate de presse du 13.11.2018 https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/docu- Change: A Mutual Challenge for Scientists and Educators. Canadian Jour- mentation/communiques.msg-id-72891.html (Visited on 06.01.2020) nal of Environmental Education 5, 9–23. OFEFP (Office fédéral de l'environnement, des forêts et du paysage). 2004. McNay M.E. 2007. A review of evidence and findings related to the death of Plan Loup Suisse. 5 pp. (Visited on 02.12.2019) Kenton Carnegie on November 8, 2005 near points north, Saskatchewan. OFEFP (Office fédéral de l'environnement, des forêts et du paysage). 2002 Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A., 45 pp. Zusammenfassung der Ergebnisse der Vernehmlassung zum Konzept Melis C., Jedrzejewska B., Apollonio M., Barton K.A., Jedrzejewski W., Linnell Wolf Schweiz. https://www.newsd.admin.ch/newsd/message/attach- J.D.C., ... & Zhyla S. 2009. Predation has a greater impact in less produc- ments/4650.pdf (Visited on 02.12.2019) tive environments: variation in roe deer, Capreolus capreolus, population OFEFP (Office fédéral de l'environnement, des forêts et du paysage). 1998. Ré- density across Europe. Global Ecology and Biogeography 18, 724–734. sultats d'une enquête représentative: La forêt suisse a la cote. Communiqué Menzano A. 2015. Sistemi di alpeggio, vulnerabilità alle predazioni da lupo e me- de presse du 30.07.1998. https://www.admin.ch/gov/fr/start/dokumenta- todi di prevenzione nelle Alpi Marittime (core area 1). In Ramanzin M., Sturaro tion/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-2982.html (Visited on 10.03.2020) E., Menzano A., Calderola S. & Marucco F. 2015. Sistemi di alpeggio, vulne- OFEV (Office féderale de l'environnement). 2020. Le loup. https://www. rabilità alle predazioni da lupo e metodi di prevenzione nelle Alpi. Relazione bafu.admin.ch/bafu/fr/home/themes/biodiversite/info-specialistes/ tecnica, Progetto LIFE 12 NAT/IT/00080 WOLFALPS –Azione A7, 13–68. mesures-de-conservation-de-la-biodiversite/protection-et-conser- Mettler D. 2019. Nutztierhaltung und grosse Beutegreifer – Konfliktfeld vation-des-especes/grands-predateurs/le-loup.html (Consulté le Landwirtschaft. In Wolf, Luchs und Bär in der Kulturlandschaft. Konflikte, 26.05.2020) Chancen, Lösungen im Umgang mit grossen Beutegreifern. Heurich M. OFEV (Office fédéral de l’environnement) (Ed.). 2019. Aide à l’exécution sur la (Hrsg.). 2019. Eugen Ulmer KG, Stuttgart, Deutschland. protection des troupeaux. Aide à l’exécution sur l’organisation et l’encou- Mettler D. & Hilfiker D. 2017. From free grazing to flock management – a case ragement de la protection des troupeaux et sur l’élevage, l’éducation et study from Switzerland. CDP News 13, 33–45. l’emploi des chiens de protection des troupeaux officiels. Office fédéral Mettler D. & Schiess A. 2016. Wolfschutzzäune auf Kleinviehweiden. de l’environnement, Berne. Umwelt-Vollzug Nr. 1902-F: 100 pp. Merkblatt. AGRIDEA, Lausanne, Schweiz. 6 pp. OFEV (Office fédéral de l’environnement). 2016. Plan Loup - Aide à l’exécution Mettler D., Werder C. & Müller M. 2014. Schafalpplanung Kanton Wallis de l’OFEV relative à la gestion du loup en Suisse. Série l’environnement 2012–2014, Schlussbericht. AGRIDEA, Lausanne, Schweiz. 90 pp. pratique. UV-1605-F, 26 pp. Ministry for an Ecological and Inclusive Transition & Ministry of Agricul- OFEV (Office fédéral de l’environnement). 2015a. Änderung der Jagdverord- ture and Food. 2018. 2018-2023 National Action Plan on the wolf and nung (JSV), Erläuternder Bericht, 15. Januar 2015, 7 pp. https://www. 77 stock-rearing activities. Paris, France. 100 pp. admin.ch/ch/d/gg/pc/documents/2643/Erlauterungsbericht.pdf (Visited Molinari-Jobin A., Kéry M., Marboutin E., Molinari P., Koren I., Fuxjager C., on 24.03.2020) ... Breitenmoser U. 2012. Monitoring in the presence of species misiden- OFEV (Office fédéral de l’environnement). 2015b. Tir de deux jeunes loups tification: the case of the Eurasian lynx in the Alps. Animal Conservation de la meute du Calanda : demande approuvée par l’OFEV. https://www. 15, 266–273. admin.ch/gov/fr/accueil/documentation/communiques.msg-id-60107. Nowak C. & Harms V. 2014. Genetisches Wolfsmonitoring in Deutschland – html (Visited on 24.03.2020) Erkenntnisse zu Herkunft, Hybridisierungsgrad und Ausbreitungsverhalten OFEV (Offive fédéral de l’environnement). 2008. Plan Loup – Plan de gestion du des deutschen Wolfsvorkommens. In Abstracts der Beiträge zur Fachta- loup en Suisse. 18 pp. OFS (Office fédéral de la statistique). 2019a. Relevé gung des Deutschen Jagdverbandes, Berlin 21. März 2014. des structures agricoles. Animaux de rente des exploitations agricoles, Nowak C., Jarausch A., Cocchiararo B. & von Thaden A. 2018. Wie viel Hund évolution. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfsstatic/dam/assets/12687415/ steckt in unseren wilden Wölfen? Natur Forschung Museum 148, 138–145. master (Visited on 28.05.2019) Nowak S., Jedrzejewski W., Schmidt K., Theuerkauf J., Mysłajek R.W. & OFS (Office fédéral de la statistique). 2019b. Nutztierbestand der Land- Jezdrzejewska B. 2007. Howling activity of free-ranging wolves (Canis wirtschaftsbetriebe, nach Kanton. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfsstatic/ lupus) in the Białowieza Primeval Forest and the Western Beskidy Moun- dam/assets/12687415/master (Visited on 31.10.2019) tains (Poland). Journal of Ethology 25, 231–237. ONCFS (Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage). 2019. Situation Odden J. & Krange O. 2018. Jakthunder mest utsatt for ulveangrep. News du loup en France. https://www.loupfrance.fr/suivi-du-loup/situation- article. https://nina.no/english/News/News-article/ArticleId/4651 (Vi- du-loup-en-france/ (Visited on 24.02.2020) sited on 19.09.2019). OSAV (Office fédéral de la sécurité alimentaire et des affaires vétérinaires). Office de la communication du canton de Berne 2016. Guide de la communi- 2020. Rage chez l’animal et l’homme. https://www.blv.admin.ch/blv/fr/ cation en cas de crise ou d'événement majeur. Bien communiquer lors de home/tiere/tierseuchen/uebersicht-seuchen/alle-tierseuchen/tollwut. catastrophes, de situations d'urgence et d'événements majeurs, 32 pp. html (Visited on 04.02.2020) OFAG (Office fédéral de l'agriculture). 2019. Rapport agricole 2019 – Contribu- Pellikka J. & Hiedanpää J. 2017. Looking for a common ground. Useful tions au paysage cultivé. https://www.agrarbericht.ch/fr/politique/paie- knowledge and adaptation in wolf politics in southwestern Finland. Wild- ments-directs/contributions-au-paysage-cultive (Visited on 26.05.2020) life Biology 2017 (4) wlb.00269. OFAG (Office fédéral de l'agriculture). 2018. Rapport Agricole 2018 – Prix à Penteriani V., del Mar Delgado M., Pinchera F., Naves J., Fernandez-Gil A., différents stades de commercialisation. https://2018.agrarbericht.ch/fr/ Kojola I., ... & Lopez-Bao J.V. 2016. Human behaviour can trigger large marche/developpement-du-marche/prix-a-differents-stades-de-com- carnivore attacks in developed countries. Scientific Reports 6:20552. mercialisation (Visited on 07.10.2019) Peterson R.O., Thomas N.J., Thurber J.M., Vucetich J.A. & Waite T.A. 1998. OFCOM (Office fédéral de la communication) 2018. Un nouveau site montre Population limitation and the wolves of Isle Royale. Journal of Mamma- l'influence des médias suisses sur la formation de l'opinion. Communiqué logy. 79, 828–841.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

Pilot M., Greco C., vonHoldt B.M., Randi E., Jedrzejewski W., Sidorovich V.E., Schmidt R. 2010. Der Wolf hat keinen Platz in der Schweiz. NZZ online, Konopinski M.K., Ostrander E.A. & Wayne R.K. 2018. Widespread, long‐ 31.08.2010. https://www.nzz.ch/der_wolf_hat_keinen_platz_in_der_ term admixture between grey wolves and domestic dogs across Eurasia schweiz-1.7391782 (Visited on 03.03.2020) and its implications for the conservation status of hybrids. Evolutionary Schnidrig R., Nienhuis C., Imhof R., Bürki R. & Breitenmoser U. (Eds). 2016a. Applications 11, 662–680. Wolf in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated Pimlott D.H. 1975. Wolves. Proceedings of the First Working Meeting of management. RowAlps Report Objective 3. KORA Bericht Nr. 72. KORA, Wolf Specialists and of the First International Conference on Conserva- Muri bei Bern, Switzerland, and BAFU, Ittigen, Switzerland, 70 pp. tion of the Wolf. Stockholm, Sweden, 5–6 September 1973. IUCN Publi- Schnidrig R., Nienhuis C., Imhof R., Bürki R. & Breitenmoser U. (Eds). 2016b. cations New Series, Supplementary Paper No. 43, Morges, Switzerland, Lynx in the Alps: Recommendations for an internationally coordinated ma- 145 pp. nagement. RowAlps Report Objective 3. KORA Bericht Nr. 71. KORA, Muri Poulle M.-L., Lequette B. & Dahier T. 1999. La recolonisation des Alpes fran- bei Bern, Switzerland, and BAFU, Ittigen, Switzerland, 70 pp. çaises par le loup de 1992 à 1998. Le Bulletin mensuel de L’Office Natio- Schöller R.G. 2017. Eine Kulturgeschichte des Wolfs. Tierisches Beutever- nal de chasse 242, 4–13. halten und menschliche Strategien sowie Methoden der Abwehr. Rom- Pro Natura. 2010. Wildtiermanagement in der Schweiz: Runder Tisch zwischen bach Wissenschaften, Reihe Ökologie, Band 10, Rombach Verlag KG, Jagd und Naturschutz. Communiqué Pro Natura vom 25. Oktober 2010. Freiburg i.Br./Berlin/Wien, 683 pp. Rauer G. 2019. Wolfsnachweise 2019. https://www.beutegreifer.at/catego- Schraml U. 2019. Wildtiermanagement für Menschen. In Wolf, Luchs und ries/aktuelles (Visited on 03.12.2019). Bär in der Kulturlandschaft. Konflikte, Chancen, Lösungen im Umgang Ravenelle J. & Nyhus P.J. 2017. Global Patterns and Trends in Human-Wild- mit grossen Beutegreifern. Heurich M. (Hrsg.). 2019. Eugen Ulmer KG, life Conflict Compensation. Conservation Biology 31, 1247–1256. Stuttgart, Deutschland. Redpath S.M., Linnell J.D.C., Festa‐Bianchet M., Boitani L., Bunnefeld N., Schweizer Bauernverband. 2019. Agrarreformen. https://www.land- Dickman A., ... & Milner‐Gulland E.J. 2017. Don’t forget to look down. wirtschaft.ch/wissen/agrarpolitik/agrarreform/ (Visited on 31.10.2019) Collaborative approaches to predator conservation. Biological Reviews sda/andj. 2017. Wolfskadaver von Jaun - Die Wölfin wurde vermutlich vergif- 92, 2157–2163. tet. SRF online. https://www.srf.ch/news/regional/bern-freiburg-wal- Redpath S.M., Bhatia S. & Young J. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering lis/die-woelfin-wurde-vermutlich-vergiftet (Visited on 24.02.2020) human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49, 222–225. Seidl I., Böni R., Junge X., Landolt G. & Schüpbach B. 2014. Alpwirtschaft – für Reed M. 2008. Stakeholder participation and environmental management. A die Gesellschaft mehr als ein Werbesujet. In Lauber S., Herzog F., Seidl I., Böni 78 literature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417–2431. R., Bürgi M., Gmür P., ... & Wunderli R. (Hrsg.) 2014. Zukunft der Schweizer Regione Veneto. 2014. Dall’incontro di Giulietta e Slavc nati in Lessinia altri Alpwirtschaft. Fakten, Analysen und Denkanstösse aus dem Forschungspro- sette lupacchiotti. Evento straordinario. Comunicato stampa No. 1833 del gramm AlpFUTUR. Birmensdorf, Eidg. Forschungsanstalt WSL; Zürich-Recken- 17.08.2014. holz, Forschungsanstalt Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon ART. 202 pp. Reinhardt I., Kluth G., Nowak C., Szentiks C.A., Krone O., Ansorge H. & Muel- Service des forêts et de la faune [maintenant Service des forêts et de la na- ler T. 2019. Military training areas facilitate the recolonization of wolves ture] 2017. Un loup a été aperçu dans la région de Bulle ce week-end. in Germany. Conservation Letters, 12:e12635. Communiqué de presse du 10.02.2017. https://www.fr.ch/diaf/ener- Reinhardt I., Kaczensky P., Frank J., Knauer F. & Kluth G. 2018. Konzept zum gie-agriculture-et-environnement/faune-et-biodiversite/un-loup-a-ete- Umgang mit Wölfen, die sich Menschen gegenüber auffällig verhalten. apercu-dans-la-region-de-bulle-ce-week-end (Visited on 25.03.2020) Empfehlungen der DBBW. BfN-Skripten 508, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Service des forêts et de la faune SFF État de Fribourg. 2010. Konzept Wolf Deutschland, 50 pp. Freiburg / Concept loup Fribourg, 10 pp. Reinhardt I., Kaczensky P., Knauer F., Rauer G., Kluth G., Wölfl S., Huckschlag Sjölander-Lindqvist A., Johansson M. & Sandström C. 2015. Individual and D. & Wotschikowsky U. 2015. Monitoring von Wolf, Luchs und Bär in collective responses to large carnivore management: the roles of trust, re- Deutschland. BfN-Skripten 413, 98 pp. presentation, knowledge spheres, communication and leadership. Wild- Riley S.J. & Decker D.J. 2000. Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakehol- life Biology 21, 175–185. der acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Société suisse d’économie alpestre (SSEA). 2018. Pas d’abandon de surfaces Wildlife 5, 50–62. d’estivage en raison de la présence des grands prédateurs. Assemblée Ripple W.J. & Beschta R.L. 2012. Large predators limit herbivore densities in nor- générale de la SSEA 2018. Résolution à l’intention des Chambres fédé- thern forest ecosystems. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58, 733–742. rales. http://www.alpwirtschaft.ch/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Re- Røskaft E., Bjerke T., Kaltenborn B. P., Linnell J.D.C. & Andersen R. 2003. solution_GRT_HV_2018_D_F.pdf (Visited on 17.12.2019) Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwe- Stark R. & Zinke G. 2018. App-lizierte Forschung. Seiten 33-35 in „die gian public. Evolution and Human Behavior 24, 184–98. umwelt“ 3/2018. Eine Bühne für die Umwelt. Wie Umweltkommunikation Salvatori, V., Godinho, R., Braschi, C., Boitani, L., & Ciucci, P. 2019. High levels informiert, rät und warnt. Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU). of recent wolf × dog introgressive hybridization in agricultural landscapes Statista 2020. Anzahl der jährlichen Sterbefälle weltweit infolge einer Be- of central Italy. European Journal of Wildlife Research 65, 73. gegnung mit Tieren nach Tierart. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/ Schiess C. & Martin M. 2008. Schafe in Trockenweiden. In Umwelt-Vollzug studie/554329/umfrage/jaehrliche-sterbefaelle-weltweit-infolge-ei- – Biotope. Trockenwiesen und –weiden. Bundesamt für Umwelt (Hrsg.), ner-begegnung-mit-tieren-nach-tierart/ (Visited on 4.05.2020) CH-3003 Bern. Suter S. 2019. Wolfsmonitoring mit bioakustischen Methoden. Fauna Focus Schmidbauer K. & Jorzik O. 2017. Wirksame Kommunikation – mit Nr. 55. Wildtier Schweiz, Zürich, Schweiz, 12 pp. Konzept. Ein Handbuch für Praxis und Studium. Talpa-Verlag, Potsdam, Tallian A., Ordiz A., Metz M.C., Milleret C., Wikenros C., Smith D.W., ... & Deutschland, 620 pp. Sand H. 2017. Competition between apex predators? Brown bears de-

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment References

crease wolf kill rate on two continents. Proceedings of the Royal Society VWL (Vereinigung zum Schutz der Weidetierhaltung und ländlichem Lebens- B, 284: 20162368. raum). 2020. https://www.vwl-ost.ch/wolfsmischlinge-oder-hybriden/ TF (Tribunal fédéral suisse). 2004. Arrêts 1A.145/2004 /col du 18 novembre hybriden-oder-wolfsmischlinge-in-der-schweiz (Visited on 29.4.2020) 2004. https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/fr/php/aza/http/ Werder C. 2012. Abgänge/Verluste von Schafen während der Sömmerung. index.php?highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F18-11-2004-1A-145- Arbeitsgemeinschaft Alpwirtschaftliche Beratung, Alpe. Bericht im Auf- 2004&lang=fr&type=show_document&zoom=YES& (Visited on trag von Agridea, Pro Natura, Schweizerischer Schafzuchtverband und 07.04.2020) WWF Schweiz. 42 pp. www.alpe-beratung.ch (Visited on 31.10.2019) Treves A., Krofel M. & McManus J. 2016. Predator control should not Wikenros C., Sand H., Bergström R., Liberg O. & Chapron G. 2015. Res- be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, ponse of moose hunters to predation following wolf return in Swe- 380–388. den. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0119957. Trouwborst A. & Fleurke F.M. 2019. Killing Wolves Legally: Exploring the Willisch C., Meyer F. & Pfister U. 2013. Entwicklung und Effizienz des Scope for Lethal Wolf Management under European Nature Conservation Herdenschutzes in den nordwestlichen Voralpen 2009–2012. Bericht zu- Law. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 22, 231–273. handen Herdenschutzhunde Schweiz HSH-CH. FaunAlpin, Bern, Schweiz. Trouwborst A., Boitani L. & Linnell J.D.C. 2017. Interpreting “favourable 22 pp. conservation status” for large carnivores in Europe. Biodiversity and Wilmers C.C., Crabtree R.L., Smith D., Murphy K.M. & Getz W.M. 2003. Trophic Conservation 26, 37–61. facilitation by introduced top predators: gray wolf subsidies to scavengers in Tsunoda H., Raichev E.G., Newman C., Masuda R., Georgiev D.M. & Kaneko Y. Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Animal Ecology 72, 909–916. 2017. Food niche segregation between sympatric golden jackals and red Wilson S.M. 2016. A Guidebook to Human-Carnivore Conflict: Strategies and foxes in central Bulgaria. Journal of Zoology 303, 64–71. Tips for Effective Communication and Collaboration with Communities. Slo- UICN. 2012. IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria: Version 3.1. Second edi- venia Forest Service - LIFE, DINALB BEAR project, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 60 pp. tion. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK, 32 pp. Wotschikowsky U. 2019a. Jäger und grosse Beutegreifer – Konfliktfeld Jagd. Une Suisse sans grands prédateurs. 2019. STATUTS Association suisse pour In Wolf, Luchs und Bär in der Kulturlandschaft. Konflikte, Chancen, Lö- un territoire sans grands prédateurs. http://www.lr-grt.ch/fr/statuts (Vi- sungen im Umgang mit grossen Beutegreifern. Heurich M. (Hrsg.). 2019. sited on 02.12.2019) Eugen Ulmer KG, Stuttgart, Deutschland. Valière N., Fumagalli L., Gielly L., Miquel C., Lequette B., Poulle M.-L., Weber Wotschikowsky U. 2019b. Der Wolf. In Wolf, Luchs und Bär in der Kultur- J.-M., Arlettaz R. & Taberlet P. 2003. Long-distance wolf recolonization of landschaft. Konflikte, Chancen, Lösungen im Umgang mit grossen Beute- France and Switzerland inferred from non-invasive genetic sampling over greifern. Heurich M. (Hrsg.). 2019. Eugen Ulmer KG, Stuttgart, Deutschland. 79 a period of 10 years. Animal Conservation 6, 83–92. Wright G.J., Peterson R.O., Smith D.W. & Lemke T.O. 2006. Selection of Van Ballenberghe V. & Ballard W.B. 1994. Limitation and regulation of moose po- northern Yellowstone elk by gray wolves and human hunters. Journal of pulations: the role of predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72, 2071–2077. Wildlife Management 70, 1070–1078. Van Deelen T.R. & Etter D.R. 2003. Effort and the Functional Response of Deer Wullschleger E. 1974. 100 Jahre Eidgenössische Anstalt für das forstliche Hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8, 97-108. Versuchswesen 1885-1985. Teil 1: Die Geschichte der EAFV. – Mittei- Vareschi A. 2016. Tecniche di monitoraggio del lupo (Canis lupus, L.) sul ter- lungen der Eidgenössischen Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und ritorio: applicazioni pratiche al Branco dei Monti Lessini. Corso di laurea Landschaft 61, 3–630. in Tecnologie Forestali e Ambientali. Dipartimento Territorio e Sistemi WWF Schweiz, JagdSchweiz, Pro Natura & Schweizerischem Schafzuch- Agro-Forestali, Università degli Studi di Padova. tverband. 2012. Gemeinsame Grundsätze der Verbände zur Grossraub- Volkswirtschaftsdepartement Kanton St. Gallen. 2013. Konzept Wolf St. tierpolitik. Medienmitteilung vom 8. Mai 2012, 4 pp. https://www. Gallen, 12 pp (plus annexes). kora.ch/fileadmin/file_sharing/5_Bibliothek/51_KORA_News/KORA_ von Arx M. 2019. Rückblick auf die 14. Lysser Wildtiertage. CH-Wildinfo 2, 4–5. News_2012/News_Dateien_2012/20120508_MC_Gemeinsame_ von Arx M. 2013. Kommunikation und Beziehung zweier Interessensgruppen Wolfspolitik_de.pdf (Visited on 17.03.2020) – Jäger und Naturschützer – am Beispiel Grossraubtiermanagement in Zedrosser A. 1996. Der Wolf (Canis lupus) in Österreich. Historische En- der Schweiz. MAS Transcultural Communication & Management, Institut twicklung und Zukunftsaussichten. Studie 25. Forschungsinstitut WWF für Kommunikation und Führung IKF, Luzern, 144 pp. Österreich, 38 pp. von Arx M., Imoberdorf, I. & Breitenmoser, U. 2020. How to communicate Zengaffinen N. 2015. Zweifel an Echtheit der Wölfe. Wolfsgegner fahren wolf? Communication between the authorities and the population when schweres Geschütz auf. Walliser Bote, 24. Oktober 2015. wolves appear. Kleine Reihe des Sorbischen Instituts Bautzen, Band 32 Ziegler H. 2014. Dreiste Wölfe bedrohen Dörfer, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, "Encounters with Wolves. Dynamics and Futures", Hose S. & Heyer M. 02.12.2014, p 36. https://www.luzernerzeitung.ch/amp/panorama/raub- (Eds.). tier-dreiste-woelfe-bedrohen-doerfer-ld.92420 (Visited on 30.03.2020) von Arx M., Imoberdorf I., Zangger A. & Breitenmoser U. in prep. Kommuni- Zimen E. & Boitani L. 1975. Number and distribution of wolves in Italy. kation zwischen Behörden und Bevölkerung beim Auftreten von Wölfen. Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 40, 102–112. Bericht zuhanden der kantonalen Behörden. Zimmermann F. 2019. Monitoring von grossen Beutegreifern. In Wolf, Luchs von Essen E. & Hansen H.P. 2015. How Stakeholder Co-management Repro- und Bär in der Kulturlandschaft. Konflikte, Chancen, Lösungen im Umgang duces Conservation Conflicts: Revealing Rationality Problems in Swedish mit grossen Beutegreifern. Heurich M. (Hrsg.). 2019. Eugen Ulmer KG, Wolf Conservation. Conservation and Society 13, 332–344. Stuttgart, Deutschland. Vucetich J.A., Nelson M.P. & Peterson R.O. 2012. Should Isle Royale wolves be reintroduced? A case study on wilderness management in a changing world. The George Wright forum 29, 126–147.

25 years of wolf presence in Switzerland: an interim assessment