Involving affected interest groups in wolf monitoring

In the intensely used and densely populated cultivated landscape of Lower Saxony, Germany, an efficient management of wildlife species is the basis of a low-conflict coexistence between wildlife and humans. Efficient... [ view full abstract ]

In the intensely used and densely populated cultivated landscape of Lower Saxony, Germany, an efficient management of wildlife species is the basis of a low-conflict coexistence between wildlife and humans. Efficient management requires reliable data.

Since 2011 the return of the conflictual wildlife species wolf (Canis lupus) is officially and scientifically documented by the Hunting Association of Lower Saxony (Landesjägerschaft Niedersachsen e.V.). The Hunting Association of Lower Saxony is an accredited nature conservation association and therefore has an unique position in nature conservation issues in Lower Saxony. 

The wolf monitoring in Lower Saxony is primarily passive. The reporting of probable wolf presence is done by hunters, trained volunteers or the public. Active measures, for example camera trap monitoring or surveying for wolf feaces, complement the monitoring and help to analyze the local wolf distribution. The documentation according to nationwide standards (SCALP - Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population) allows national comparability and scientific validity.

The number of wolf monitoring records reported increased with the growing wolf population. The number of 140 reports of probable wolf presence in the monitoring year 2011/2012 increased to 2420 reports in the monitoring year 2016/2017. Since the beginning of wolf monitoring 8237 reports have been processed so far. Out of these reports, 46% came from hunters, 9% from non-hunters and 45% from people who cannot be assigned to either group based on the available information. From these 8237 reports, 2648 reports are categorized as confirmed evidence of wolf presence. Evaluation shows that 64% reports of confirmed evidence of wolf presence was done by hunters, 8% from no-hunters and 28% from people who cannot be assigned to either group based on the available information.

The results show that hunters make a significant and important contribution to the wolf monitoring in Lower Saxony. This is due to the widespread distribution of hunters in the whole of Lower Saxony, as well as local networking of their established associations and their trust in the association to report to. Furthermore the experience of working with the hunters show the value of the support because of their knowledge of the local occurrence of wildlife through their hunting activity. The system in Lower Saxony is exemplary for the fact that for the monitoring of conflicting wildlife species the inclusion of affected interest groups is not only acceptance enhancing but plays an essential role for comprehensive monitoring.