FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The War on Transylvania’s Wolves

by

Romanian shepherds are well used to the threat of wolves.

Where the forests meet the open grasslands, bells and bottles hang from trees, clattering in the wind as warning to large carnivores.

Hefty guard dogs, some hybrids of wolves themselves, prowl protectively around flocks of sheep. Shepherds watch on, staying with their animals at all times, heavy sticks at hand.

‘The beast attacked like a lighting bolt’

But when Kilyén Sándor installed surveillance cameras around his farmyard in a Transylvanian village, it was thieves he was expecting to find rustling his animals. Situated in a well-populated valley and over three miles from the nearest forest, wolves were not something he had ever had to worry much about.

By the time I arrived at his house, Sándor’s problem with the canine ‘criminal’ was already national news. Just hours after the wolf had attacked his sheep, the crew of a national TV station had arrived, sieved through his CCTV footage for gory details and reported the incident with a grizzly hyperbole usually found in tabloid tales of murder cases.

“The beast attacked like a lightning bolt, in the middle of the night. The poor sheep ran away terrified and in just seconds the hungry animal had grabbed a little lamb … then he came back for five more.”

A stern promise of ‘retribution’

Sándor, the news anchor assured us, was set on retribution, and would be working with the local hunting association to make sure that he got it.

Sándor’s story, as reimagined by the media, is at once ancient myth and immediately relevant. Almost any Romanian would recognise the speed and cunning of The Big Bad Wolf from a number of local fairy tales, and could predict its eventual downfall at the hands of the vengeful.

At the same time, according to the officials at the ministry of environment, real life attacks on livestock are on the rise, and calls for culls can be heard across the country, both from livestock farmers and hunting businesses.

Wolves on the move….

Ovidiu Ionescu is a scientist, hunter and the man employed by the state to compile official information about wolves in Romania and come up with the yearly hunting quotas.

We meet at his office at the University of Forest Research and Management, in the medieval city of Brasov. Bear skulls hang alongside mounted antlers on the wooden walls. A map of the country hangs above his desk, peppered with hundreds of numbers which represent the distribution of wolves.

The wolf population, he says, lies somewhere between 2,300 and 2,750, by far the largest in Europe and, in the Carpathian Mountain regions at least, one of the most densely compacted populations on earth.

Officially, the population is slowly increasing and the wolves’ territories are spreading. It is the latter situation which most worries the government.

“There are new areas occupied by wolves, areas which at least the forest research institute consider that from economic and social point of view are not suitable for wolves”, says Ionescu.

“People don’t know how to react to the presence of the wolves and they don’t know how to protect their livestock in the way that people in the mountains do, so the levels of conflicts are very, very high. We harvest large carnivores where the damages are registered.”

Over count, over kill

While the evidence does suggest a spread in wolf territories, the numbers and stability of the population is strongly disputed by many independent conservationists. In reality, explains Attila Kecskes of Milvus Group, a wildlife conservation group in Transylvania,

“Nobody knows the status of the wolf population in Romania. Because there is no relevant and credible national data, nobody knows if the population is growing, is stable or decreasing.”

The problem, as he sees it, is that the main monitoring and management of wolves is done by the hunting associations which, since the privatization of hunting in 2002, have sprung up at an exponential rate.

There are now almost 1,000 associations, each responsible for an area considerably smaller than a wolves territory, and each with a bottom line of making a profit.

And for them, the wolf is competition. Wolf hunting brings in little money. It is the wolves’ prey – deer, chamois and wild boar – that keep the hunting associations in business. So the economic logic is clear – to get rid of the wolves.

Numbers are submitted – but are they accurate?

Every year, the hunting associations have to state the number of wolves in their areas, and give the numbers to Ovidiu Ionescu and the Forest Research and Management Institute.

“A wolf pack of four members has a territory of minimum 100 square kilometres”, says Kecskes. “Because the hunters do not talk to each other, it’s very probable that the same wolf pack is counted more than once, in more places. This is the biggest problem.”

With other members of Milvus group, Kecskes has been working on an independent study for the last three years, monitoring wolf numbers in a protected area of 2,500 km² at the foothills of Transylvania’s Carpathian Mountains.

While the official numbers given by the hunting associations came to 151 wolves, Milvus’ count was considerably lower – between 20 and 30.

The process is arbitrary – and inaccurate

Ovidiu Ionescu is aware that the hunter’s estimates are vastly inflated and, based on the theoretical estimates of how many wolves could live in each area, he calibrates the numbers down to a level that is at least ecologically possible.

This process, he admits, is “completely arbitrary”, and the final numbers are still well over double those found in the independent study. Yet it is from this number that the hunting quota is drawn, allowing for between 10% and 30% of the population to be shot each year – far more than the diminished wolf numbers could support.

Add to this the threat of poaching, which Milvus Group speculate could equal or even exceed those killed officially, and the situation is potentially very grave for the wolf.

Wolves forced to breed with wild dogs

Hunting does not only diminish the number of wolves, it also changes their behaviour, says Kecskes:

“The tendency in the hunting family is to follow the western countries’ practices which resemble a kind of animal husbandry. Wilderness disappears and the natural ecological role of wolves is altered.”

He points to studies which show that in areas where hunting is carried out even at a moderate level, wolf packs start to split and shrink in size and individuals start to breed with wild dogs.

This in turn leads to a spread in wolf territories as new packs search out territories of their own. With available wild spaces thin on the ground, and with wolves increasingly emboldened by the DNA of dogs, new packs are claiming territories ever closer to human settlements.

And in these places damages to livestock go up, hunters take out their ‘retribution’ on local wolves – and the cycle goes on.

A world without wolves.

Though there is little agreement between the state and NGOs over wolf management, all agree on one thing – the loss of the wolf would mean a fundamental change in the ecology of the Romania’s forests.

As wolves disappear, grazing animals such as deer and wild boar would increase rapidly. This would damage the ability of forests to regenerate naturally, which in turn would alter almost the entire ecosystem, from bird habitats to the species and populations of fish in the rivers.

The topography would change, with the loss in trees leading to increased erosion, and even the routes taken by rivers would alter.

Naturally, some hunters argue that they could take the role of carnivores, keeping ungulate levels down – and profiting in the process – as is the model in much of the rest of Europe.

But a comparative study made between the German Alps and the Romanian Carpathians shows that the influence of hunters on ungulate behaviour differs dramatically from that of wolves.

German forests are unable to regenerate naturally

Though both areas have a similar amount of ungulates, the German forests were shown to be failing to regenerate naturally. The ungulates would concentrate in a single area and stay there until all the food was gone, then move on and repeat the process.

In Romania, a concentration of ungulates would quickly attract wolves and other large carnivores, causing the grazing animals to move on before they had over-depleted the forest resources.

For now, the ecological process of many of Romania’s forests still function. But, with hostility to the wolf entrenched in the very system in place to protect it, this could soon change.

And as the reality of the wolf situation so unclear, even an acute decline in this iconic species, in its greatest European stronghold, could go unnoticed until it is too late.

Luke Dale-Harris is a freelance reporter and investigative journalist in living in Transylvania, covering environmental and human rights abuse issues.

This essay originally ran in the Ecologist.

More articles by:
January 18, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Destabilizer: Trump’s Escalating Threats Against Iran
John W. Whitehead
Silence Is Betrayal: Get Up, Stand Up, Speak Up for Your Rights
Andrew Day
Of “Shitholes” and Liberals
Dave Lindorff
Rep. Gabbard Speaks Truth to Power About the Real Reason Korea Has Nukes
Barbara G. Ellis
The Workplace War: Hatpins Might Be in Style Again for Women
Binoy Kampmark
Corporate Sickness in May’s Britain
Ralph Nader
Twitter Rock Star Obama’s Silence Must Delight Trump
John G. Russell
#Loose Lips (Should) Sink … Presidencies … But Even If They Could, What Comes Next?
David Macaray
The “Mongrelization” of the White Race
Ramzy Baroud
In Words and Deeds: The Genesis of Israeli Violence
January 17, 2018
Seiji Yamada
Prevention is the Only Solution: a Hiroshima Native’s View of Nuclear Weapons
Chris Welzenbach
Force of Evil: Abraham Polonsky and Anti-Capitalist Noir
Thomas Klikauer
The Business of Bullshit
Howard Lisnoff
The Atomized and Siloed U.S. Left
Martha Rosenberg
How Big Pharma Infiltrated the Boston Museum of Science
George Wuerthner
The Collaboration Trap
David Swanson
Removing Trump Will Require New Activists
Michael McKinley
Australia and the Wars of the Alliance: United States Strategy
Binoy Kampmark
Macron in China
Cesar Chelala
The Distractor-in-Chief
Ted Rall
Why Trump is Right About Newspaper Libel Laws
Mary Serumaga
Corruption in Uganda: Minister Sam Kutesa and Company May Yet Survive Their Latest Scandal
January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail