Room for wolf comeback in the Netherlands. A spatial analysis on the possibilities of settlement of wolves from European populations in the Netherlands: G. Lelieveld (2012)

Abstract
"Cumulative effects of climate change, pollution, over-harvesting, fragmentation, degradation and loss of habitat threaten biodiversity globally. In Europe, centuries long over-harvesting and persecution of large herbivores and carnivores resulted in local extinctions of large carnivores. At the end of the 20th century, legal protection resulted in stabilization and even increase of the European wolf populations. Now, the public debate forms a challenge in the recovery of wolf (Canis lupus) populations on the mainland of Europe. In West European countries, it is unclear where wolves can live after centuries of man manipulating the natural environment. To facilitate nature managers and policy makers to prepare for avoiding conflicts, it is important to know where wolves will settle in the Netherlands and what routes wolves will take to the Netherlands.
 
Based on presence of artificial surfaces, water bodies, human population density, road density and prey distribution and abundance, a habitat suitability model and a cost-distance analysis were done. Prey species were identified as all large ungulates occurring in the Netherlands: roe deer, red deer, fallow deer and wild boar.

Although the Netherlands is a dense populated country with high road density, wolves will still be able to find areas with low human disturbance and prey, mostly in the northeast of the Netherlands. There is room for at least 14 wolf packs. Although the French wolf population is less isolated, wolves from France and Germany will most likely migrate to the Netherlands via north and south of the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region. In a nearby area in the Netherlands a wolf was sighted in the summer of 2011.

However, the large degree of plasticity that wolves show cannot be modelled. The areas where wolves can live according to this research should be seen as areas where wolves are most likely to settle first. To account for the left out parameters, the scenario is conservative. Therefore, the suitability for 14 wolf packs should be considered as an ecological minimum based on the parameters used in this study. In addition, when wolves settle in the Netherlands, the parameters of the habitat suitability analysis have to be refined." [...]

Analysis of wolf migration routes based on the first scenario by cost-distance analysis with the wolf populations in Germany and France as source (both indicated with a wolf and cub) and modelled wolf range in the Netherlands as sink population (all three areas in dark green). In red are the areas most difficult to reach for wolves.

Migration routes
The two scenarios of migration routes for wolves from West-European populations to the Netherlands, analysed by a cost-distance analysis, are shown in Figure 6 below and in Figure 7 on the next page. The colours in the maps indicate the costs of the routes between the sources and sink populations, considering human population density, land use and road density. As mentioned in chapter 2.4.2, the first scenario assumes wolves are almost as strict in their suitability for migration as for habitat, whereas the second scenario assumes that unfavourable land use and population densities hinder wolves only slightly and that major roads prove relatively more challenging.

Both maps show that wolves from the French wolf population experience less costs to migrate than German wolfs. For example, the cost for French wolves to follow the river Rhine up north to the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan region is comparable to the cost of German wolves migrating to the Czech Republic. That French wolves have better possibilities to migrate is confirmed by frequent sightings of wolves in the Vosges Mountains (Lichtfield, 2009).

The path of the least resistance to the Netherlands would lead French wolves first to the north of the Rhine- Ruhr metropolitan region and then west to the Arnhem-Nijmegen region in the Netherlands. On three occasions in the late summer of 2011 several people stated to have seen a wolf in this region (Maanen, 2011). Wolves migrating from the German population will encounter more resistance due to unfavourable land use, almost exclusively agricultural lands and urban areas, in the west of Germany. [...]"

Distribution of wolf territories consisting of all non-water and non-urban areas within one kilometre of prime areas

Discussion
"This study examined which areas in the Netherlands are habitable for wolves considering human disturbance factors and prey abundance. The habitat suitability analysis showed that the Netherlands has ecological potential for a wolf population. This corresponds with experiences in Poland, Germany and France of wolves having no difficulties living in cultural landscapes (Jedrzejewski et al., 2008). Telemetry study of the one year old wolf ‘Alan’ showed that he had no problem avoiding humans when migrating from Germany to Belarus (Friedrich, 2010; Linnartz, 2012).

However, the large degree of plasticity that wolves show was not incorporated in the model. The areas where wolves can live according to this research should be seen as areas where wolves are most likely to settle first. The habitat suitability analysis gives a prediction based on a few parameters. Left out parameters are chance of mortality by collision with vehicles based on traffic intensity, speed and knowledge of roads with high risk of collision with other large animals. Traffic is one of the major factors of wolf mortality (Blanco and Cortes, 2007; Gazzola et al., 2005; Mech, 2006a). Other factors influencing the settlement and migration of wolves can be local and temporal effects of wildlife crossings, fences, steep canals, other landscape elements and hunting and tourism activities (Melis et al., 2009). To account for the left out parameters, the first scenario is conservative. Therefore, the resulting suitability for 16 wolf packs should be considered as an ecological minimum based on the parameters and cell size used in this study. [...]" 

"[...] The migration routes from source populations in Germany and France to the suitable habitats in the Netherlands was investigated in this study by cost-distance analysis. The suitable migration area in the Alps is in accordance with the habitat suitability model of the Alps (as shown in Appendix V) (Marucco et al., 2011). However, the analysis is done with large cell sizes and based on a few parameters. This implies that small-scale obstructions have not been taken into account. In addition, this type of analysis is sensitive to the settings of the parameters and the visualization, even though this effect was minimized as much as possible by performing two different scenarios. Therefore, the cost-distance analysis still gives an indication which areas are less accessible for wolves and which routes will be easier to migrate."

The areas where wolves settle and migrate are not solely ecologically based. A small wolf population or even a single wolf can form a conflict when considering the viewpoints of the cattle-breeders. Society’s attitude to wolves can be a problem, especially in West Europe where wolves recover after having long been exterminated. Here the level of human fear and intolerance of wolves is markedly higher than in regions where man and wolf have been coexisting for a long time (Linnell et al., 2003). It is in the best interest of the public and the wolves that conflicts are avoided by taking early action."

 Room for wolf comeback in the Netherlands. A spatial analysis on the possibilities of settlement of wolves from European populations in the Netherlands: G. Lelieveld (2012) http://bit.ly/QRz7YV (Publicado en http://www.wolveninnederland.nl/ )

Les gardiens de nos troupeaux. Un film de Paul Aurélien Combre (2010)

Les gardiens de nos troupeaux. Un film de Paul Aurélien Combre. Produit par Mona Lisa Production. Durée : 9 min. Public : usagers de l’espace rural et montagnard.

Film d’information sur les chiens de protection

"Pour protéger leurs troupeaux contre les prédateurs, les éleveurs et bergers utilisent à nouveau des chiens de protection. Ce ne sont pas des chiens de compagnie, ni des chiens de conduite: ils défendent le troupeau contre toute intrusion en raison de leur fort attachement aux brebis.

De l’hiver autour de la bergerie à l’été en alpage, découvrez leur travail et celui des bergers. Les chiens de protection sont de retour, apprenez à mieux les connaître et adoptez les bons gestes."

Ce film d'information grand public vise à informer les usagers de l'espace pastoral sur la présence et le rôle des chiens de protection des troupeaux domestiques. II apporte quelques conseils simples et essentiels sur les gestes à adopter en leur présence. D'autre part, il présente et valorise le pastoralisme en montagne, et sensibilise les usagers sur le partage de l'espace rural entre activités agricoles et activités de loisirs.

Ce projet documentaire a fait l'objet d'un important travail de concertation conduit par la DREAL et la DRAAF Rhône-Alpes en collaboration avec un comité de pilotage composé : des Fédérations Régionales Ovines du Sud-Est et Rhône-Alpes, l’Assemblée Permanente des Chambres d’Agriculture, du CERPAM, la Maison de la Transhumance,  la Société Centrale Canine, l'Institut pour la Promotion des  Chiens de Protection (Jean-Marc Landry, expert et  consultant), les DDT/ DDTM de l'arc alpin, la DREAL PACA,  les ministères de l'écologie et de l'agriculture.

Le film a été tourné tout au long de l’année 2009 dans les  Alpes, à Rougon (Alpes de Haute-Provence) et au col de  Vars (Hautes-Alpes).

Paru en mars 2010 Disponible en DVD et CD – Format 16/9 – Son : Stereo.

Film réalisé dans le cadre du "plan national d’actions sur le loup 2008-2012 dans le contexte français d’une activité importante et traditionnelle d’élevage"

Version librement téléchargeable et diffusable dans un cadre strictement gratuit 

Se puede descargar aquí 

Información recogida de Le Loup en France en esta página de Le site de l'État consacré au loup: http://www.rdbrmc-travaux.com/loup/

Fotografía de Alex_Moret

Le loup, le chien de protection et le tourisme    

Il n’existe pas en Europe d’études sur l’impact de la présence de loups sur la fréquentation touristique. Si certains affirment que le loup dissuade des touristes, il est probable que l’impact global est plutôt positif, comme c’est le cas dans certains parcs nationaux américains ou suédois.

En revanche la présence de chiens de protection dans les alpages peut inquiéter certains randonneurs qui préfèreront alors éviter ces zones. Bien que les études menées dans le Mercantour et le Queyras tendent à prouver que les interactions agressives des chiens de protection envers les promeneurs sont rares, voire exceptionnelles, des plaintes sont déposées chaque année par des personnes effrayées par la présence de ces impressionnants chiens "en liberté" et des cas de morsures sont parfois observés, souvent liés à une méconnaissance des pratiques pastorales et du rôle de ces chiens.

Pour réduire les éventuels incidents entre les chiens de protection et les usagers de l’espace montagnard et rural, des supports d’information ont été créés à destination du grand public.

Des panneaux de signalisation sont disposés à proximité des alpages. Ils indiquent la présence de troupeaux domestiques accompagnés de chiens et la conduite à tenir en leur présence, ainsi que les règles élémentaires de respect du troupeau, du berger et de son travail.

Pour compléter ce système d’information, des plaquettes, brochures d’information et affiches sur les chiens de protection sont distribuées dans différents points d’information (offices de tourisme, maisons des parcs nationaux, points d’information des Parcs naturels régionaux....). Elles présentent le chien de protection, son éducation et son rôle dans les troupeaux domestiques, et sensibilisent le public randonneur à la conduite à tenir en leur présence.  

Quels Comportements adopter en présence de chien de protection?

Nouveau panneau 2011Descargar aquí

Lors de vos randonnées en montagne, vous pouvez rencontrer des troupeaux de moutons au pâturage. Les chiens de protection sont là pour les protéger de toute agression. La règle d’or: gardez vos distances avec le troupeau. 

Le chien de protection n’est pas un chien de compagnie, il ne faut donc pas essayer de le caresser, de lui donner à manger ou de s’en approcher pour le prendre en photo. Il n’est cependant pas dressé pour être agressif mais il est éduqué pour être dissuasif. En arrivant à proximité d’un troupeau, il peut s’approcher de vous, jusqu’à vous sentir, parfois en aboyant. Restez calme, laissez-vous renifler, parlez-lui calmement, évitez les gestes brusques, de le menacer avec un bâton ou une pierre et évitez de crier. 

Panneau de 2007 à 2010 Descargar aquí

Contournez le troupeau quand cela est possible plutôt que de le traverser, même s’il se trouve sur le sentier que vous suivez! S’approcher trop près du troupeau, tenter de caresser ou de prendre un agneau dans ses bras peut-être interprété par le chien de protection comme un acte d’agression envers les animaux qu’ils protègent.

Si vous êtes à vélo, descendez lorsque vous êtes à proximité du troupeau et contournez calmement le troupeau en marchant. 


 
Si vous vous trouvez sur un secteur où les chiens de compagnie sont autorisés, pensez à les tenir en laisse. Même le plus petit chien peut partir en courant en direction du troupeau. Le chien de protection risque d’interpréter cette action comme une tentative de prédation et s’interposera. Ne portez pas votre chien dans vos bras à l’approche du chien de protection.

N’oubliez pas que la montagne est aussi un espace de travail. Respecter la quiétude du troupeau, c’est respecter le travail des éleveurs et des bergers.


Un divertido y didáctico cómic. Descargar aquí

Conservation and control strategies for the wolf (Canis lupus) in western Europe based on demographic models: Guillaume Chapron et al. (2003)

Abstract
Securing the long-term acceptance of large carnivores such as the wolf (Canis lupus) in Europe and North America raises a difficult challenge to conservation biologists: planning removals to reduce depredations on livestock while ensuring population viability. We use stochastic-stage-structured population models to investigate wolf population dynamics and to assess alternative management strategies. Among the various management strategies advocated by agencies, zoning that involves eliminating wolves outside a restricted area should be designed with caution, because probabilities of extinction are extremely sensitive to the maximum number of packs that a zone can support and to slight changes in stage specific survival probabilities. In a zoned population, viability is enhanced more by decreasing mortality rates in all classes than by increasing wolf zone size. An alternative to zoning is adaptive management, where there is no limit on pack number but population control can be operated whenever some predefined demographic conditions are met. It turns out that an adaptive management strategy that removes a moderate percentage (10%) of the population following each year of more than 5% of total population growth would provide visible actions addressing public concerns while keeping extinction probability low.

Introduction
Conflicts with human populations remain the major threat to carnivore persistence. Carnivore may kill domestic and game animals as well as threaten humans and, as a consequence, many carnivore species have been facing widespread persecution. Protected
areas often offer insufficient protection, as they may be too small to encompass full home ranges, and substantial mortality is caused by contact with people at reserve borders. Large carnivore conservation may be successful in the long term only if people can accept free ranging predators in their area. This can be achieved if adequate conservation strategies maintaining viable populations while allowing removal of individuals are implemented.
Focusing on the recent expansion of the wolf Canis lupus in Western Europe, this paper addresses thedual nature of the conservation problem raised by large carnivores: regulating the population to address public concern, while maximizing population viability. [...]

[...] In this paper, we develop stochastic models to study the dynamics of a recolonizing wolf population and compare several management strategies, with an emphasis on the wolf population in the Western Alps. We model a zoning strategy where wolves are tolerated in a restricted area only, and an adaptive management strategy where some wolves are removed whenever the annual population growth rate reaches a given threshold. We examine whether such strategies would make it possible to maintain a viable population while allowing for population control to minimize depredation on livestock. [...]

Methods

Pack of wolves with Alpha chief (first)

Wolf biology
The unit of a wolf population is the pack, consisting of a breeding pair and their offspring (from one or more generations). The dominant adult female in each pack breeds every year, usually producing a single litter. Subordinates rarely become dominant in their natal pack. Pups reach their adult size by winter, and most of them disperse as yearlings. A dispersing wolf may colonize a vacant territory, or it may join another pack and replace a missing breeding member. When both breeding adults die, the pack usually disintegrates, leaving the territory vacant and creating an opportunity for recolonization.Wolves are not habitat-specific and can live wherever they have sufficient food resources and are tolerated by humans. There is no simple relationship between human density and wolf persistence in a given area. [...]
 

Life cycle modelling
All our population projections involve the same sequence of events. (i) Winter mortality affects the whole population and accounts for annual mortality. (ii) Dispersal of subordinates is conditional to the survival of the breeding pair: if the breeding pair disappears (both partners die), remaining pack members disperse, but if at least one breeder survives, subordinates disperse with some probability specific to their class. (iii) Dispersing wolves search for a vacant territory and a partner. We neglect the probability that a dispersing wolf joins an extant pack where no breeder is missing. (iv) Reproduction takes place in spring if
a breeding pair is present. Age at first reproduction is always 22 months (dispersing juveniles must wait one year before looking for a mate). Only one litter is produced per year. (v) Pup mortality takes place in summer and accounts for infectious diseases that are often deadly for pups. In autumn, the distributon of wolves in the population is censused and then updated according to the following scheme (see also Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Life cycle graph for a wolf stage-structured population. P: Pups, J: Juveniles, S: Subadults, Di: Dispersers, A: Adults, Do: Dominants. All stages are in packs except dispersers. See text for arrow details.

1. Surviving pups become juveniles.
2. Surviving juveniles that have not dispersed become subadults.
3. Surviving juveniles that have dispersed become dispersing wolves.
4. Surviving subadults that have not dispersed become adults.
5. Surviving subadults that have dispersed and found a territory and a mate become pack breeders.
6. Surviving adults that have not dispersed remain in the adult class.
7. Surviving adults that have dispersed and found a territory and a mate become pack breeders.
8. Dispersing wolves that found a territory and a mate become pack breeders.
9. Surviving pack breeders keep the same status.
10. Surviving pack breeders give birth to pups. [...]

Spatial structure
Subordinate dispersal probabilities are not equal between packs as they depend upon the actual survival of pack leaders. Therefore, our model describes explicitly the spatial arrangement of territories and individual movements between them. We assume that any territory may be either empty, or occupied by one pack. We fix the environment carrying capacity to K = 20 territories. One pack can occupy only one territory and this induces a ceiling-type density dependence on pack numbers. [...]

Stochastic simulations
Reproduction occurs in territories containing a male and a female breeder. Survival and fecundity are treated as binomial and Poisson variates, respectively. Our Monte Carlo simulations involve 250 runs each. We tested on a restricted number of simulations that a higher number of runs did not change result precision. A population qualifies as extinct once all classes are empty. [...]

Discussion
Our analysis shows that a wolf population has a high potential growth rate under favourable ecological conditions, but can decline dramatically in response to reduced survival. The wolf is a species sensitive to high killing rates, as exemplified by its eradication from many areas, in contrast with smaller, more versatile species such as the red fox (Vulpes vulpes). However, the wolf shows a strong ability for recolonization once persecutions are stopped. Maximum annual growth rates obtained from field studies can reach 43%. [...]

Fig. 3a. Extinction probabilities as a function of changes of parameters
under median scenario S2.

[...] Population growth is more sensitive to the survival probability of dominants (Fig. 3a). This result is not surprising, because wolf complex social structure results in a lower number of reproductive units in the population compared to other solitary species, thereby implying a high sensitivity to the survival of breeders. [...] 
[...] Our study is aimed at identifying management strategies to help maintaining a viable population while allowing for population control to reduce depredations on livestock. One important conclusion is that viability thresholds under a zoning strategy are extremely sensitive to the number of packs and to slight changes in demographic parameters. In particular, population viability critically relies on securing a sufficient number of packs in the wolf zone while keeping their mortality rates as low as possible. As a consequence, for a population under or at its zoned viability threshold, the removal of wolves should be firmly discouraged. Although zoning strategies are likely to be implemented in the future for wolves in western Europe, such strategies should be considered carefully and implemented only when enough demographic data are available, so that reliable estimates of population size and parameters are available. [...]

Fig. 4. Extinction probabilities as a function of initial population
size (in packs). Carrying capacity is 20 packs.

[...] The question of wolf management has become a public and political matter in countries (including France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and USA), where previously extirpated wolf populations are now roaring back, inflicting damages to cattle farming activities that have lost the tradition to cope with large carnivores. [...] 

Fig. 5. Extinction probabilities calculated when population (in
packs) is prevented for exceeding its initial size. This corresponds
to a zoning management strategy.

[...] Focusing on an absolute number of packs that would secure the viability of the Alpine wolf population remains hazardous given the current uncertainty on population size and parameters. We would only suggest that no zoning should occur before the population reaches more than 12 packs (Fig. 5). Our simulations suggest that it should nonetheless be possible to implement a moderate number of wolf removals following years of moderate or large population growth. [...]
[...] Our study has broader implications for the management of social carnivores. An important conclusion of our model is that the difference between a viable and unviable population takes place over a short parameter space (Figs. 4 and 5). [...]
[...] One more general conclusion of our modelling exercise is that the control of population or the design of reserves, particularly for social species where the parameter space between viability and decline is reduced, requires the development of species-specific demographic models. Indeed, the social structure of the species needs to be fully explicit in the life cycle graph. This can be achieved by incorporating classes of social status rather than age classes, with probabilistic transitions between them.

Conservation and control strategies for the wolf (Canis lupus) in western Europe based on demographic models. Guillaume Chapron, Stéphane Legendre, Régis Ferrière, Jean Clobert, Robert G. Haight. Comptes Rendus Biologies (CR BIOL) 326 (2003) http://bit.ly/PV066f (Publicado en: http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/ )