Hunt wolves really protects the flocks? A new study clarifies (and the results are surprising)

The coexistence between wolves and human activities, in particular breeding, has always been a complex question, which often leads to asking drastic solutions such as hunting to reduce attacks on cattle. A widespread belief wants that authorizing wolves hunting is an effective strategy to protect flocks and herds, and consequently to decrease the need for expensive targeted felling by the state. But is it really the case? A new study published in the scientific journal Science Advances questioned this certainty, suggesting that the benefits of legalized hunting could be much more limited than you think.

A research lasting 16 years

The study, entitled “Elusive Effects of Legalized Wolf Hunting On Human-Wolf Interactions”, analyzed the data collected from 2005 to 2021 in four north-west states of the United States: Idaho and Montana, where the wolf hunt was legalized in different periods, and Oregon and Washington, where he remained prohibited. The researchers compared the counties in which the wolf was chased with those in which it did not do it, before and after the introduction of the new regulations, to understand if this practice had a real impact on two fronts: the number of predated cattle and the number of wolves demolished directly by government agencies because they are considered “problematic”.

The results that emerged are far from obvious and challenge the hypotheses on which the management policies of this great predator often are based.

Less attacks on cattle?

The analysis found that, yes, wolf hunt has an effect in reducing predations on cattle, but this effect is very low. In fact, to obtain a sensitive decrease in attacks, it would be necessary to break down a very large number of wolves. As the authors themselves points out, even if statistically significant, “from a practical point of view, the extent of the effect is rather reduced”.

To give a concrete idea, the statistical models indicate that the demolition of an extra wolf is associated with an average decrease of just 0.07 predate cattle. This means that to save only one head of cattle, about 14 wolves should be hunted. A cost-benefit ratio that, according to the study, suggests that the generalized hunting is not the decisive solution that many expect. The reason could reside in the fact that public hunt is not targeted: hunters break down the wolves they encounter, not necessarily those who have specialized in predating cattle. In addition, hunting can disintegrate the social structure of the herds, potentially leading to even more unpredictable behaviors by surviving specimens.

Hunt does not replace the interventions of the state

The second, and perhaps more surprising, result of the study concerns selective felling. One of the arguments in favor of hunting is that, by reducing the population of Lupi, the need for government agencies to intervene to remove individuals or whole packs responsible for chronic attacks should also be reduced. These interventions are often complex and very expensive for public coffers. For example, an estimate mentioned in the study reports that in Idaho the average cost to reduce a single wolf by a state agency was 9,617 dollars.

Well, the analysis of the data showed unequivocally that the legalization of the wolf hunt has had no significant effect on the need for these targeted felling. The counties with the open hunt have not seen government interventions decrease compared to those without. This result questions the idea that hunting can be a tool to lighten the commitment, even economic, of the state in the management of conflicts.

What this study teaches us

American research does not deny that other motivations for wolf hunting (social, economic or related to the management of other wild species) can exist, but focuses on its effectiveness as a tool to mitigate conflicts with breeding. And on this point, the data are clear: the benefits are minimal and do not justify the idea that it is a panacea.

The authors conclude by soliciting “caution in the implementation of wildlife management strategies based on assumptions or non -tested statements”. In such a polarizing theme as the management of the wolf, relying on rigorous scientific tests is essential for making informed decisions. The study suggests that, instead of focusing on a single solution, an integrated approach would be more effective that includes non -lethal prevention methods (such as fences and guard dogs), a better cattle management with pasture and equivalent compensation for breeders. Coesistence is a complex challenge that, apparently, cannot be resolved simply by pressing a trigger.

Don’t you want to lose our news?