Time to stop crying wolf – on both sides of the debate

Wolves are making a comeback in many parts of Europe, after centuries of persecution. The continent has seen a 58% increase in a decade, and populations of brown bears, lynx and wolverines are also on the rise. Yet conservation policies tend to be stuck in a crisis mindset designed for species on the brink of extinction. That approach no longer fits today’s reality, and may even fuel the mounting backlash against nature restoration efforts, argue researchers in a new commentary in the journal Conservation Letters.

“Ultimately, success means moving beyond species survival to fostering coexistence that balances ecological recovery with social legitimacy,” says Centre researcher Erica von Essen, co-author of the commentary with Hanna Pettersson from the University of York.

In other words, the time has come to move beyond an emergency modality to managing the species recovery.

From decline to coexistence

Increased abundance is difficult to adjust to, for a number of ecological and political reasons, the authors argue. The recent decision to downlist the wolf in the EU from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’ status marks a turning point. It has sparked tensions between conservation NGOs defending strict protection and rural communities seeking more flexible management.

Von Essen and Pettersson stress that this shift should not necessarily be seen as a rollback. Instead, it can be an opportunity to modernize conservation with adaptive, inclusive, and cross-border approaches – including tools like zoning strategies and upper population limits to balance ecological and social needs.

Why old narratives fall short

“Politics, lobbying, and sensationalism have always played a significant role in European carnivore conservation efforts, on both sides of the debate,” the authors write.

Farmers and hunters often frame themselves as victims, sharing dramatic social media posts of carnivore attacks to argue that green policies threaten rural life.

On the other hand, some conservation NGOs have struggled to move past the wolf-as-victim narrative. For example, they respond to reports of species recovery as a whole in Europe by re-framing the scale: suggesting wolves for example can be threatened locally as sub-populations.

Such NGOs also have a tendency to exaggerate the ecological role of wolves, frequently citing the reintroduction of wolves in the Yellowstone National Park in the U.S. as proof of their transformative effect on whole landscapes. But this claim does not hold up well, at least not in Europe, the authors write. Contrary to widespread claims, there is limited evidence that more carnivores will make these landscapes more ‘balanced,’ such as by resolving ungulate overpopulation, they argue:

“The best available science to date has shown that such effects for wolves are highly variable and usually undetectable in most European contexts.”

New narratives for coexistence

The commentary is timely, given ongoing efforts to set targets for the EU Nature Restoration Law. Moving forward, von Essen and Pettersson argue, we need new visions and policies for wolves in European landscapes.

These cannot “hinge on wolves cleaning up our ecological mess for us”, nor be authored solely by conservationists or farming and hunting groups, they write. Instead, coexistence policies must be grounded in scientific evidence, adaptive management, and transparent dialogue – ensuring that both ecological and socio-economic realities are considered.