Legal protection of wolves in Poland: implications for the status of the wolf population

Abstract

Legal protection of wolves (Canis lupus) in Poland was implemented in 1998 after 23 years of management as a game species. Wolves occurring in Poland were interconnected with larger populations in the Carpathian Mountains and Belarus, Baltic States and Russia, stable in numbers, and were not considered endangered before the change in legal status affording protection from hunting. Parties calling for wolf protection wanted to stop killing of wolves because of their symbolic nature, but did not have particular management goals to achieve. The government did not accompany the change in legal status by management plan, and therefore, the ban on wolf hunting was weakly enforced. A wolf distribution monitoring demonstrated that wolf range had not expanded 9 years after the hunting ban was implemented, and no increase in wolf numbers was observed. This failure to recover may be explained by: (1) a significant (up to 35%) reduction in the wolves' prey base 6 years before wolf hunting was stopped, (2) weak enforcement of the protection law, resulting in lack of poaching control of wolves, (3) probable increasing fragmentation and isolation of wolf habitat caused by rapid economic growth in Poland. Inconsistent application of current management policy toward wolves resulted in weak enforcement of regulations and promoted negative attitudes toward the species. To improve the status of wolves in Poland, I recommend a flexible wolf management planning framework that involves and addresses attitudes of hunters and sheep herders, includes a framework to promote strong law enforcement, and consistent, fair compensation for livestock killed by wolves.

Wolf Depredation on Domestic Animals in the Polish Carpathian Mountains

“…Although higher wolf numbers can increase depredation (Traves et al 2002) there is no clear evidence of a wolf population increase in the study area since 1998. Although difficult to quantify, there is some poaching of wolves in the region, which probably also accounts for the fairly stable wolf population (Gula 2007).…”

“…The study area covered 3 regions of the Podkarpackie Province: Beskid Niski, Bieszczady, and the Przemyśl-Dynów Foothills (48860 0 -49849 0 N, 21810 0 -22854 0 E). The region held approximately 150-230 wolves, which have been legally protected since 1998 (Gula et al 2002, Gula 2007. All claimed losses of livestock to wolves were investigated before being compensated by the government.…”

Evidence of wolf dispersal in anthropogenic habitats of the Polish Carpathian Mountains

“…The traYc volume ranges from 5,000 to 35,000 vehicles/week. The study area is the mainstay of Polish wolves and accommodates 150-230 individuals, representing 30-40% of the entire Polish wolf population (Gula et al 2002;Gula 2008a). …”

Adolescents' Beliefs about the Wolf: Investigating the Potential of Human–Wolf Coexistence in the European South

“…Therefore, wolf opponents would consider wolf's own behavior as the greatest threat for the species (Table 3; Item: ''Threat''). The ''neutral'' choice in this case referred to highway construction, which frequently results in increased fragmentation and isolation of wolf habitat (Gula 2008;Linnell et al 2000).…”

“…Trust in rural residents for providing reliable information about the wolf would be related to an overall anti-wolf attitude, while trust in scientists would predict a pro-wolf attitude (Skogen and Krange 2003;Skogen and Thrane 2008). Arguments based on the notion of ''endangered species'' are characteristic for ''pro-wolf'' positions (Bisi et al 2007;Gula 2008;Linnell et al 2000) (Table 1; Item: ''Conservation''). Quite interestingly, anticarnivore groups do not renounce basic assumptions of the environmentalist discourse, for instance, endorsement of ecocentric valuation (Bjerke and Kaltenborn 1999), that all species have a right to live (Krange and Skogen 2007;Skogen 2003), or that biodiversity is valued and should be protected (Simonneaux and Simonneaux 2008).…”