NON-CONSUMPTIVE USE

LIFE18 NAT/IT/000972

OF WOLVES IN TOURISM:

GUIDELINES FOR RESPONSIBLE PRACTICES

Guidelines for responsible wolf tourism were developed within the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project. The Contents

document was further reviewed and endorsed by the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe IUCN/SSC

Specialist Group.

1. Introduction

4

Authors:

2. Wolf recovery and opportunities for tourism

5

Irena Kavčič, Francisco Álvares, Elisa Avanzinelli, Luigi Boitani, Irene Borgna, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Miha 3. From conflicts to coexistence

7

Krofel, John Linnell, Sabina Nowak, Ilka Reinhardt, Robin Rigg, Ricardo N. Simon, Laura Scillitani, Astrid Vik 3.1. Livestock husbandry

7

Stronen, Igor Trbojević, Theresa Walter and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek.

3.2. Public acceptance and fear

9

3.3. Illegal killing

10





ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


An online questionnaire was used as a tool to consult wolf conservation experts about the potential 3.4. Habitat loss due to infrastructure and disturbance

10

impacts of various wolf tourism practices. We would like to thank the following people for taking 3.5. Free-ranging dogs

10

time to complete the survey or contributing to the review of the document.

3.6. Habituation and food conditioning

10

4. Guidelines for responsible wolf tourism

11

Contributors:

4.1.General guidelines for all forms of wolf tourism

11

Vaidas Balys, Alistair Bath, Juan Carlos Blanco, Rachel Berzins, Simone Bobbio, Giulia Bombieri, Urs 4.1.1. Legal frameworks

11

Breitenmoser, Rok Černe, Duško Ćirović, Marta De Biaggi, Elena Di Bella, Filippo Favilli, Hélène Fournet, 4.1.2. Training guides

11

Irene Gambini, Djuro Huber, Claudio Groff, Klemen Jerina, Petra Kaczensky, Laura Kiiroja, Felix Knauer, Miroslav Kutal, Bojana Lavrič, Carlo Maiolini, Peep Männil, Ralph Manz, Francesca Marucco, Dime 4.1.3. Health and safety

11

Melovski, Joachim Mergeay, Anja Molinari-Jobin, Jānis Ozoliņš, Luca Pedrotti, Pierre-Yves Quenette, Daniele Regine, Elisabetta Rossi, Laurent Schley, Nuria Selva, Aleksander Trajce, Enrico Vettorazzo, 4.1.4. Preventing habituation and food-conditioning

12

Manuela Von Arx, Diana Zlatanova.

4.1.5. Preventing threats from dogs

12

Suggested citation:

4.1.6. Interpretation and benefits for local communities

12

Kavčič I., Álvares F., Avanzinelli E., Boitani L., Borgna I., Iliopoulos Y., Krofel M., Linnell J., Nowak S., 4.1.7. Linking tourism and conservation

13

Reinhardt I., Rigg R., Simon R.N., Scillitani L., Stronen A.V., Trbojević I., Walter T., Majić Skrbinšek A. 2022.

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices. Ljubljana, Biotechnical 4.2. Wolf tracking guidelines

16

faculty, Biology Department: 36 pp.t:

4.2.1. Specific guidelines regarding activities that include tracking 18

4.3. Wolf howling guidelines

19

4.3.1. Specific guidelines regarding activities that include howling 21

4.4. Wolf watching and photography guidelines

22

Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani 4.4.1. Specific guidelines for wolf watching and photography activities 25

COBISS.SI-ID 105666051

ISBN 978-961-6822-86-2 (PDF)

5. Best practice example of wolf-related tourism programmes 25

6. References

27

Annex 1: Facts about wolves

31

2



1. Introduction

In many early European cultures, humans shared an overall positive view of the wolf (Boitani, 1995; Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). But this changed with the anthropocentric view of nature brought about by Christianity as well as with the process of domestication and the advent of extensive animal husbandry (Boitani, 1995). Wolves were then strongly persecuted, leading to their extirpation in almost all their former range across the continent.

In the last few decades, however, wolves have returned to many parts of Europe from which they had been absent for centuries. Their recovery impacts a range of human activities and interests and is accompanied by a variety of social conflicts and diverging points of view on how wolves should be managed (Boitani and Linnell, 2015; Linnell and Cretois, 2018).

Conflicts and the negative economic impacts of wolf damage to livestock are the most pressing problems for wolf management today. Public debate and academic research on wolf–human relations tend to focus on these issues (Rode et al., 2021). The ecological roles of wolves in ecosystem structure and functioning are increasingly recognized (Hebbelwhite et al., 2005; Kuijper et al., 2013). However, although predator-prey interactions are highly context-dependent, most studies on this topic have been undertaken in large, natural landscapes. In most of Europe, human actions attenuate the ecological effects of large carnivores (Kuijper et al., 2016). Nevertheless, new values and the potential social benefits of human–wolf coexistence are underappreciated.

Wolves are an important generator of culture, ethnography and tradition (Álvares et al., 2011) and their presence brings educational and research benefits, income from regional and product marketing, as well as socio-economic benefits from wildlife tourism (Rode et al., 2021). Different forms of tourism associated with wolves, such as wolf watching, photographing, or observing signs of their presence have already been practiced for a couple of decades in North America (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996) and to a lesser extent in Europe (Koščová and Koščová, 2016; Bavo and Villar Lama, 2020; Notaro and Grilli, 2021). Although tourism can increase the value of the species locally, such activities can also have negative impacts on wolves and their habitat, especially with the growing demand for wildlife tourism (Curtin and Kragh, 2014).

The following guidelines were prepared by members of the LIFE WOLFALPS EU project group and the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe expert group of the IUCN/SSC to set specific recommendations for responsible non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism which has as little impact on wolves as possible. The aim of these guidelines is to promote tourism activities that go beyond direct sightings of wildlife by focusing on wolf presence and wolf-related cultural heritage, creating economic opportunities for local communities in areas with wolves and consequently leading to increased tolerance towards this species.

The wolf: a threat or an opportunity for sustainable rural development?

(Photo: Francesco Panuello, Maritime Alps Protected Areas archive) 3

4



2. Wolf recovery and opportunities for tourism

The wolf originally ranged over the entire northern hemisphere. Organized efforts aimed at exterminating wolves drove them to the brink of extinction in the 19th century in several countries (Mech and Boitani, 2003). The last century has seen a dramatic reversal in the status of large carnivores in Europe. Currently, there are probably more than 17,000 wolves in continental Europe excluding Russia and Belarus (Linnell and Cretois, 2018). They occur, either regularly or occasionally, in all countries except the island states (Ireland, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Malta).

In the past, the wolf was believed to have a mainly negative economic impact, because it killed livestock and game animals (Mech and Boitani, 2003). Today, there is growing understanding of the important roles that wolves can play in ecosystems: they may limit wild ungulate numbers, changing prey behaviour and distribution and thereby reducing pressure on vegetation (Hebbelwhite et al. 2005, Kuijper et al. 2013), while also providing carrion for scavengers (Selva et al., 2005), delaying wildlife disease transmission (Tanner et al., 2019, Szewczyk et al., 2021) and reducing the number of midsize carnivores (Krofel et al., 2017; Martins et. al, 2020).

Furthermore, many people that assign value to the existence and preservation of wolves in the wild consider that it is society’s responsibility to hand a complete and healthy ecosystem onto future generations (Weiss et al., 2007).

The wolf is considered to be the most charismatic of all terrestrial wildlife species living in Europe (Albert et al., 2018), showing its potential to attract tourists and develop wolf-related tourism activities. Wolf presence can increase the natural value of an area and form the core of a marketing strategy for a region, diversifying existing nature-based tourism offers or creating new ones. Wolf tourism can generate direct income and gains in employment, as well as indirect income for hotels, restaurants and other tourist infrastructure. A study conducted in Yellowstone National Park (USA), for example, estimated that more than $35.5 million are generated annually by visitors to the three-state region (Wyoming, Montana, Idaho) specifically to see or hear wolves in the park (Duffield at al., 2008).

Moreover, the wolf has shaped the cultural heritage and local identity of many regions and brings educational and research benefits (Rode et al., 2021). Alternative income for local communities generated through wolf tourism can lead to increased tolerance toward wolves at the local level (Álvares et al., 2011). Moreover, tourism can educate visitors about wolf ecology and coexistence, raising awareness and promoting conservation efforts on an international level.

The wolf is an elusive species, usually avoiding humans, and opportunities to see wolves without professional guides are rare (Mech and Boitani, 2003). To meet the demands of tourists, wolves are sometimes tracked in the wild, attracted to areas by artificial feeding (Nowak et al., 2021a) and encouraged to respond to human howling (Wilson and Heberlein, 1996), all of which can cause negative impacts on the species.

Considering the growing number of people interested in wildlife tourism, guidelines for tourism organizations, tourist guides and representatives of protected areas on how to develop responsible wolf-related tourism are needed.

The presence of wolves provides opportunities to generate economic benefits through ecotourism (Photo: Francesco Panuello, Maritime Alps Protected Areas Archive)

5

6



3. From conflicts to coexistence

3.1. Livestock husbandry

Understanding threats to wolf conservation

Wolf depredation on livestock is

is crucial for the development of sustainable

a source of conflict in most areas

and responsible wolf tourism programmes.

where wolves and livestock overlap.

Inappropriate practices can lead to conflicts,

Attacks on domestic animals, which

which often result in low tolerance towards

in Europe involves mostly sheep but

wolves and illegal killing (Suutarinen and Kojola,

also goats, cattle, horses, donkeys and

2017), one of the most important causes

semi-domestic reindeer, can have a

of wolf mortality. Responsible wolf tourism

significant negative influence on levels

programmes should raise awareness about

of public tolerance and acceptance of

the most common threats to wolf populations,

wolves, with important implications

help improve understanding of human–wolf

for their conservation. Measures are

conflicts and provide objective and accurate

available which can reduce or mitigate

information about wolves.

the impact of wolf depredation on

livestock. Most Member States of the EU

The following sections outline the most

have compensation systems for economic

relevant threats to wolves in Europe,

losses caused by large carnivores.

followed by specific recommendations on

However, preventing damage is better than

how to create wolf tourism programmes

paying compensation after it occurs. Electric

that cause minimal disturbance to the

fences, fladry1, livestock guarding dogs and

species, create alternative income

human surveillance appear to be the most

streams for local communities and tap

effective approaches, particularly when two

into a rich cultural heritage relating

or more of them are combined (Rigg et al.,

to the long history of coexistence

2001; Iliopoulos et al., 2009, 2019; Reinhardt

between wolves and humans in Europe.

et al., 2012; Bruns et al., 2020).

Additional information about wolves

and their complex relationship with

Tourism programmes can help raise awareness

humans is given in Annex 1.

of effective measures for damage prevention

and the complexity of coexistence between

carnivores and people. Tourists should be

informed about appropriate behaviour in regions

with livestock guarding dogs (AGRIDEA, 2016),

especially when walking through pastures.

Livestock and working dogs should be disturbed as

little as possible. Tourists should keep their distance

from herds so that livestock guarding dogs do not

perceive them as a threat and attack them. Tourist

visits to best practice farms and direct dialogue with

interested farmers are to be encouraged to improve

understanding of human–wolf relationships and to

offer opportunities associated with wildlife-based

tourism to farmers and locals. Tourists can participate

in specific activities for protecting livestock, such as

The need to protect livestock

installation or removal of electric fences, surveillance

from wolves and other predators

of livestock and help with livestock guarding dogs.

has given rise to a cultural

heritage associated with

pastoralism that can enrich

wolf-related tourism activities

1

(Photo: Christine Sonvilla,

Fladry consists of a line of flags hung from a rope,

www.sonvilla-graf.at)

intended to deter wolves.

7

8



3.2. Public acceptance and fear

illegal killing is a major pressure and threat for the conservation of wolves (FACE, 2021). This situation is worrying given the fact that poaching is very difficult to detect compared to other causes of death so its prevalence probably tends to be under-Human–wolf conflicts often lead to negative public attitudes toward estimated (Liberg et al., 2011). Tourism can help to conserve wolves and reduce illegal killing by making animals more valuable wolves and can present a potential threat for the survival of wolves alive than dead.

(e.g. more illegal killing, increasing demands for reduction of wolf numbers in the area, etc.). In addition to conflict over livestock depredation, conservation of wolves in human-dominated

3.4. Habitat loss due to infrastructure and human disturbance landscapes has to grapple with other types of human–wolf conflict, such as perceived competition with hunters for wild prey, killing of As the human population continues to grow, fragmentation and habitat loss pose important threats to wildlife including wolves.

hunting dogs (Bassi et el., 2021; Iliopoulos et al., 2021) and fear of Human activities, including mass tourism, reduce the availability of potential refuges and reproductive sites, which are the most being attacked (Bisi et al., 2010).

vulnerable places for wolves. Responsible wolf tourism programmes must take into consideration the need to prevent further habitat loss and fragmentation, as well as human disturbance in sensitive areas for wolf conservation, especially denning areas Although the degree to which wolves pose a threat to human safety and rendezvous sites2. All activities must be done in such a way as to minimize disturbance of wildlife, preferably in close has been heavily debated in Europe, the number of confirmed

cooperation with researchers, wildlife managers or other personnel responsible for the management of the species.

wolf attacks is very low. In Europe and North America, during the period from 2002 to 2020 there were 12 confirmed attacks on humans with a total of 14 victims, two of whom were killed (Linnell et al., 2021). In many cases, attacks were associated 3.5. Free-ranging dogs

with situations where wolves demonstrated habituated,

fearless behaviour and had been utilising anthropogenic

A growing body of literature demonstrates that free-ranging and feral dogs can have significant detrimental effects on natural food sources before the time of the attacks (see section 3.6

environments. For example, they may prey on a variety of wildlife species and hence compete for prey and carrion with sympatric Habituation). Food-conditioning and habituation is often the carnivores such as wolves (Wierzbowska et al., 2016; Conceicão-Neto et al., 2017). Dogs can carry pathogens transmissible result of intentional feeding by people or illegal keeping of to wildlife and humans. Additionally, dogs can interbreed with wolves and produce viable hybrid offspring. Such hybridization wolf pups in captivity (Nowak et al., 2021a). However, one

may compromise the genetic identity of wolf populations, potentially affecting their physique, behaviour, physiology, ecology fatal attack documented in Alaska involved healthy wolves

and conservation value (Mech and Boitani, 2003). Free-ranging and feral dogs therefore represent a serious threat to wolf with no signs of unusual behaviour or food attractants

conservation.

(Butler et al., 2010). Nevertheless, considering that there

are close to 60,000 wolves in North America and more

Moreover, pet dogs running free can also trigger a wolf attack on dogs (Linnell et al., 2021). Although in such situations wolves than 17,000 in Europe outside Russia, all sharing space

are mainly interested in the dog (MacNay, 2002), it can be extremely stressful for any person involved. Dogs roaming in core with hundreds of millions of people, it is clear that the risk areas of wolf territories may disturb wolf pups and force parental pairs to move litters to other, less suitable places. In areas of being attacked by a wolf is vanishingly small (Linnell et also frequented by bears, free running dogs may even provoke a bear attack. Tour operators can help raise awareness about the al., 2021).

hybridization threat and about the importance of keeping dogs on a leash when hiking in wild areas to avoid wildlife disturbance and the risk of triggering large carnivore attacks.

Perceptions and attitudes towards wolves are influenced

by knowledge of the species (Ericsson and Heberlein,

2003; Gosling et al., 2019). Tourism can therefore act as

3.6. Habituation and food conditioning

an educational platform to increase public awareness

of, among other topics, the potential ecological value

of wolves, the low risk of attacks on humans and

Habituation is a learning process where an animal becomes used to repeatedly occurring stimuli which have neither positive nor effective measures to protect livestock as well as

negative consequences. Habituated wolves have learned that humans pose no threat to them and become used to the presence the importance of keeping safe distances and never

of humans. This level of habituation is not problematic if wolves tolerate people, buildings, vehicles and human activities at a feeding wildlife in order to avoid habituation.

certain distance without taking any direct interest in people themselves (Reinhardt et al., 2020).

However, strong habituation, when wolves tolerate the immediate presence of people at close distance (within 30 m), is a behaviour that may become problematic. Habituation may be reinforced by food conditioning, where animals connect the 3.3. Illegal killing

presence of humans or places of human presence (e.g. camp grounds, backyards, feeding areas in front of hunting blinds or wildlife photography hides) with the availability of food (Nowak et al., 2021a).

Due to conflicts with human activities, wolves

continue to be perceived as pests and are often

In contemporary Europe, the most likely cause of problematic wolf behaviour toward humans is strong habituation to the illegally shot, snared and poisoned (Fritts et al.,

immediate presence of humans in connection with food conditioning. Most of the few reported wolf attacks since the middle Wolves normally avoid people and are not considered a

2003; Galaverni et al., 2016; Musto et al., 2021;

of the last century in Europe and North America had a history of wolves showing signs of strong habituation (Reinhardt et al., dangerous species for humans (Photo: Augusto Rivelli,

Nowak et al., 2021b). Reports from EU Member

2020; Nowak et al., 2021a). It is therefore crucial for tourism operators to understand that any form of deliberate feeding of Maritime Alps Protected Areas archive)

States under the Habitats Directive indicate that

wolves for the purpose of wolf tourism is potentially harmful for the species and can lead to the death of the wolf.

9

10

4. Guidelines for responsible wolf tourism

If wolves follow humans or approach them to within 30 metres, guides should react aggressively: speak loudly, shout and/or The following guidelines are designed to enable the provision of high quality, educational programmes for tourists which at the clap their hands to intimidate the animal. Precautions should be taken when handling wolf scats (e.g. smelling, touching, taking same time have as little negative impact as possible on wolves, the surrounding nature and local people living in the area. They samples) to avoid potential infestation of parasitic diseases (e.g. Echinococcus).

are not exhaustive and should be adapted to the local circumstances in each country. We distinguish between general guidelines that apply to all forms of wolf tourism and specific guidelines for wolf tracking, wolf howling and wolf watching activities.

4.1.4. Preventing habituation and food-conditioning

4.1. General guidelines for all forms of wolf tourism

It is essential that all precautions are taken to prevent wolves from developing bold behaviour, which is usually a consequence of strong habituation (see section 3.6). Deliberate artificial provisioning of food for wolf watching or photographing is strongly 4.1.1. Legal frameworks

discouraged (Council of Europe, 2018). In case of encounters with wolves, they should be treated according to the principle: do not approach, do not feed.

The legal status of wolves in Member States of the European Union is specified in the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) with the main objective to maintain or achieve a “favourable conservation status” for the species. Due to a significant number of Visitors should never be encouraged to get close to animals. They should never feed wolves or use bait for photography. Left-country-specific exceptions, different legal regimes apply to wolves depending on their location within the EU (Trouwborst and over food or other organic waste should not be disposed of in the forest, to prevent food conditioning.

Fleurke, 2019). By default, wolf populations are listed under Annexes II and IV. Annex II requires the establishment of “Special Areas of Conservation” for the species while Annex IV requires strict protection, prohibiting any destruction or damage to the Wolf-based tourism activities should not be conducted in areas of known or suspected dens and rendezvous sites during the population (but with derogations still possible under Article 16) (Kaczensky et al., 2013). Wolves in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, pup rearing season, between mid-April and mid-September, in order to prevent habituation of pups to human presence during Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and parts of Greece (north of the 39th parallel), Finland (reindeer management area) and Spain (north this sensitive period and to avoid potential abandonment of dens and rendezvous sites. If there is any evidence that tourism of the Duero River) are listed in Annex V, which gives significantly more leeway to authorities regarding the tools they can use to activities are disturbing wolves or other wildlife, or that wolves are becoming habituated to people (which, ultimately, will be manage wolf populations (Trouwborst and Fleurke, 2019).

harmful for them), tourism activities should be temporarily cancelled.

Almost all European countries have also ratified the Bern Convention. In most signatory countries, the wolf is listed under Appendix II, which stresses the need for strict protection and minimization of disturbance in wolf reproduction areas. However, 4.1.5. Preventing threats from dogs

many Central and Eastern European countries have filed reservations from strict protection (Linnell et al., 2017).

Legislation differs between countries and regions. Organizations and enterprises offering wolf tourism services must ensure It is not recommended to bring dogs to activities aimed at observing or tracking wolves. If tourists are accompanied by their that all necessary permits, notices and other arrangements have been secured and that all planned activities are carried out in dogs, they should keep them on a leash at all times. When visiting pastures with working livestock guarding dogs, dogs should full compliance with the applicable national, regional and local legislation (e.g. park regulations, national legislation, conservation be left at home.

measures of Natura 2000 sites, etc.).

4.1.6. Interpretation and benefits for local communities

4.1.2. Training guides

For many visitors, interpretation and learning about wildlife are major components of the experience. Interpretation should To achieve visitor satisfaction and to ensure that the tourism experience does not negatively impact wolves or other wildlife, include an overview of wolf biology, ecology, behaviour, impact of wolves on ecosystems and wolf-related cultural heritage (see it is very important that all forms of such tourism are conducted with the assistance of a well-trained, experienced guide who Annex 1). Large carnivore tourism in Europe is not practiced in secluded wilderness areas, but in human dominated landscapes can guarantee safety and provide detailed and accurate information on the biology, ecology and behaviour of wolves. Guides where various forms of land use overlap (e.g. forestry, agriculture, livestock grazing, hunting and tourism). Besides explaining the offering wolf-related tourism programmes should have received formal training offered by official organisations that train benefits of wolf presence, interpretation therefore also needs to cover problems that arise and possible mitigation measures.

outdoor tourism or nature guides. Such training should be conducted in close cooperation with large carnivore experts, biologists, Meetings and guide-mediated discussions with representatives of different stakeholder groups can be included in wolf tourism foresters or park rangers and should cover basic aspects of wolf biology, ecology and behaviour, human–wolf interactions (see activities to illustrate the complexity and diversity of perceptions of wolf conservation and management: for example, meeting also Annex I) and guidelines for responsible tourism.

a sheep breeder who uses electric fences or livestock guarding dogs for herd protection, or meeting a shepherd on alpine pastures. If this is not possible, simulated discussions with visitors on the topic of management and human–wolf coexistence are encouraged (e.g. role-playing as a form of experiential learning that allows visitors to relate to other stakeholders; Oražem and Tomažič, 2019).

4.1.3. Health and safety

Cultural heritage related to wolves should be promoted within wolf tourism activities: seeing old traps built to catch wolves To ensure the safety of visitors in large carnivore areas and reduce impacts on wolves and other wildlife, safety recommendations (Álvares et al., 2011) or measures implemented to protect livestock from attack (e.g. night enclosures, livestock guarding dogs), on proper behaviour in large carnivore areas should be the mandatory starting point for all forms of wolf-related tourism.

among others, will allow visitors to better contextualize the long and dynamic interactions between wolves and people.

A maximum of eight visitors per guide are recommended to optimize the wildlife experience and ensure safety. Visitors should Responsible tourism programmes should prioritise local services and products including accommodation, guides, food, always stay close to the guide and use trails or marked paths.

handicrafts and other souvenirs. Where possible, products or services labelled as large carnivore friendly should be promoted.

11

12



Large carnivore friendly labels are awarded to practices that reduce large carnivore damages or promote coexistence between large carnivores and people: for example, the bear friendly label in Slovenia and Croatia (Kavčič and Majić Skrbinšek, 2019) and the Terre di Lupi label in Italy (Borgna et al., 2018).

All forms of wolf tourism should engage local residents, generate alternative income streams and maximize benefits for local

communities (Karamanlidis et al., 2016). Where possible, locals should be invited to actively participate in monitoring activities with researchers (e.g. tracking or howling surveys; Ražen et al., 2020; Rigg et al., 2014) to build trust and improve tolerance towards wolves in the area.

4.1.7 Linking tourism and conservation

Volunteering tourism is a leisure activity whereby tourists pay to participate in research, monitoring and other activities related to the conservation of species and habitats under the guidance of qualified personnel. Tourists can, under supervision of researchers, protected areas staff or other appropriate personnel, participate in tracking wolves, checking remote cameras, collecting samples for DNA analysis (Rigg et al., 2014), simulated howling surveys (Ražen et al., 2020) or helping farmers implement livestock

protection measures (Richter et al., 2018; Soethe, 2020).

A recommended good practice for all forms of wolf-based

tourism could be the development of a tourism user fees,

where a portion of revenue from each wolf-related tourism

programme is put towards a special fund to support local

initiatives for reducing conflicts or other conservation efforts.

An old trap built to catch wolves in Portugal is an

example of wolf-related cultural heritage

(Photo: Francisco Álvares)

13

14



4.2. Wolf tracking guidelines

Wolves generally avoid humans and usually respond to human

encounters by fleeing and retreating to cover. Therefore, wolf tourism activities often require knowledge about the movements of wild animals and an ability to track them by searching the habitat for fresh signs of presence. However, this must be balanced

with consideration of potential negative impacts. For example, following recent wolf tracks can lead to – and disturb – wolves on a fresh kill, resting site, denning or pup-rearing site (see Annex I for details). Moreover, activities that encourage walking off trails may disturb other wildlife, cause conflicts with local people and breach regulations or disrupt wildlife monitoring and other activities.

In particular, disturbing fresh kill sites risks deterring wolves or other species from returning to feed. The wolf pup-rearing season takes place between April and September. There

is concern about the potential adverse effects of human

activities near wolf dens and rendezvous sites. Wolves

may abandon such sites if disturbed. Pups less than six

weeks old have limited mobility, which makes them more

vulnerable to disturbance than older pups that are able to

follow adults to safety (Frame et al., 2007).

Wolf footprints have four toe pads and one larger

palm pad. Small impressions made by claws are

usually visible. Tracking wolves off trails should

only be done by backtracking, i.e. following prints

back towards where they came from

(Photo: Miha Krofel)

15

16



4.2.1. Specific guidelines regarding tourist activities that include looking for wolf tracks

• W olves are highly vulnerable to human disturbance during pup-rearing season, so all wolf tracking activities between 15th April and 15th September should be limited to forest roads, tourist trails and other established paths. If the location of a den or rendezvous site is known or suspected, then that area should be avoided during this period.

• We r

ecommend conducting wolf tracking in autumn and winter,

when it is less disturbing for reproduction. This also creates tourism opportunities outside the main season. If in full compliance with the applicable national, regional and local legislation, and particularly in areas with snow cover, winter is recommended for wolf tracking tourism. To avoid disturbance of other wildlife or conflicts with other land users, artificial winter-feeding sites for wild ungulates should not be approached.

• To a

void disturbance, wolf tracks should not be followed off

trail in the direction of travel but backwards only.

• If this is no



t in conflict with local regulations, wolves can

be backtracked off roads and trails but only outside the pup-rearing period (i.e. before 15th April and after 15th September).

• If a

fresh kill is found, it should not be approached or touched as this may deter animals from returning to feed.

• Baiting and f



eeding of wolves to attract them to a

certain location should not be conducted as part of

responsible tourism.

• Due to



possible health risks, scats and other samples

should not be collected by tourists unless accompanied by qualified personnel or a trained guide. Participants

are strongly encouraged to report any signs of wolf

presence they might find to researchers or authorized

monitoring personnel.

• If wolv



es are sighted, they should not be approached

or disturbed with loud noises or bright lights.

Wolf scats often contain a lot of hair and bone

fragments and are usually left in prominent places

such as on forest roads (Photo: Francisco Álvares)

17

18



4.3. Wolf howling guidelines

Howling is a form of long-distance communication. It serves several purposes, the most important being to enable members of a pack to maintain or establish contact with each other, to help a pack to re-join after hunts, to localise pups or for pups to alert adults in case of emergency. Pack howling is also frequent before setting out on a hunt and after reunion (Nowak et al., 2007).

Another role of howling is to inform neighbouring packs that a territory is occupied (Harrington and Asa, 2003), helping residents and intruders to avoid confrontations. Howling is usually more intense during summer, when packs occupy restricted areas (home-sites) and there is an increased need for communication between growing pups and pack mates (Nowak et al., 2007).

Wolves respond to simulated howling, particularly during summer and early autumn. The elicited howling survey is a common method to monitor wolves in some areas (Nowak et al., 2007; Potočnik et al., 2010). This approach consists of acoustic stimulation produced through human-simulated wolf howls by trained humans that wolves may respond to, allowing the presence of territorial wolves and reproductive events to be confirmed (Nowak et al. 2007; Ražen et al., 2020).

Simulated wolf howling sessions are a popular ecotourism activity, but no exhaustive evaluation has been made on potential impacts (Leblond et al., 2017). It may be invasive to residential wolf packs and could provoke negative reactions from local people, especially in places where the recent return of wolves is causing problems for sheep herders (Suter et al., 2017). Moreover, howling can enable poaching as it reveals the position of the pack. Therefore, simulated howling should not be conducted in the framework of tourist activities due to the possible negative impact on wolves. In Piedmont, Italy, Natura 2000 conservation measures have banned this activity for tourism purposes within Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) in alpine areas where wolves are established.

Nevertheless, tourists can be involved in wolf howling surveys where these are conducted within official wolf monitoring programmes (e.g. Slovenia, France, Italy). In Slovenia, howling surveys are implemented to monitor wolves on a national scale using the citizen science approach, with trained volunteers involved in collecting data (Potočnik et al., 2010; Ražen et al., 2020). Because howling surveys are conducted only in favourable weather conditions, traditional tourism programmes, tied to certain dates, would be hard to implement.

However, limited numbers of small-scale, individual tourism programmes could be implemented in which tourists accompany researchers during national monitoring surveys. We encourage cooperation between tourism organization and wolf researchers and managers to find appropriate solutions for individual countries.

As an alternative to simulate howling, guided night walks are recommended to give tourists the opportunity to listen for spontaneous wolf howling. In cooperation with wolf researchers or managers, and taking all possible measures to avoid causing disturbance, passive acoustic sensors could be set up in the proximity of rendezvous sites to obtain recordings of local wolf packs that can be played to tourists who are not lucky enough to hear spontaneous howling during guided walks.

Simulated wolf howling sessions can disturb wolves and should only be conducted in connection with official wolf monitoring activities (Photo: Alessio Barale, Maritime Alps Protected Areas archive)

19

20



4.4. Wolf watching and photography guidelines

There are several locations across Europe with open

landscapes and good visibility where wolves can be observed

at long distances. Various parts of Spain, such as the Sierra de la Culebra (Zamora) or the reserve of Riaño (León),

have become national and international destinations for

wolf watching tourism in recent years (Almarcha and

Pastor-Alfonso, 2020). General recommendations for

responsible wolf tourism in Spain are given in the manual

“Best practice for bear, wolf and lynx watching in Spain”

(MAPAMA, 2017).

Wolf watching activities should be performed only

in open landscapes, where wolves can be observed

from long distances in order to avoid disturbance

and habituation. The recommended distance for

responsible wolf watching depends on the landscape

characteristics of the area. An appropriate distance

is one in which the watcher remains unnoticed by

4.3.1. Specific

the animal, enabling it to act according to its natural

behaviour. Where topography and vegetation cover

guidelines regarding

do not allow long-distance observations, wolves can

activities that include

sometimes be observed from wildlife photography

hides. These should be built from soundproof

howling

materials to silence movements inside and have

proper ventilation, for example a high chimney

• Wolf howling as a tourism

that does not disperse human scent at ground

activity should be avoided,

level (Karamanlidis et al., 2016).

unless the activity relates

to official wolf research or

Special attention should be given to wolf

monitoring and is directly

watching and photography carried out around

managed by qualified and

rendezvous sites, as such activities can have

authorized personnel. In some

potential impacts on wolf reproduction and

areas, simulated wolf howling

increase the risk of poaching if such locations

as a tourism activity is forbidden

become public knowledge.

(e.g. in Natura 2000 sites in

Piedmont, Italy).

• The activity can be performed only

if the group is passively listening

to hear wolf spontaneous howls

without inducing them.

• If the activity includes night walks

to listen for spontaneous howls,

visitors are required to always stay

close to the guide and not stray

off established trails to reduce

disturbance of wildlife. In areas

Wolves can be observed from long

with bears, briefings on safety and

distances in open landscapes

awareness of appropriate behaviour in

(Photo: Miha Krofel)

case of bear encounters are necessary.

21

22



Use of binoculars and telescopes facilitates observation from long distances to avoid disturbing wolves (Photo: Francisco Álvares) 23

24



4.4.1. Specific guidelines for wolf watching and photography activities

• Wolf watching and photography should not be conducted near dens or rendezvous sites.

• Visiting pastures or farms where damage

prevention methods are used, helping

• Wolves should be observed and photographed from a distance, using binoculars or telescopes, or sound- and smell-farmers to install wolf-proof electric

proof wildlife photography hides.

fencing. Visiting wolf-related rural

architecture such as old wolf traps,

• An appropriate distance for open-landscape wolf watching is around 800–1,000 m and never closer than 500 m.

corrals and shepherd huts for livestock

protection against wolf attacks.

• Wolf observation points must be chosen with sensitivity and preferably located within areas already used for human activities.

• Direct dialogue between visitors

and local people, large carnivore

• Access to wolf observation points must be done so as to minimize disturbance. Noise and movement should be kept to a experts, foresters, hunters and

minimum and critical wolf habitat (e.g. rendezvous sites) must be avoided, therefore close cooperation with researchers, other stakeholders affected by wolf

wildlife managers or other experts is necessary.

presence.

• Use of bait, simulated howling, sound recordings or other techniques for attracting animals should not be used.

• Simulated discussions (e.g. role-

play) with visitors on the topic

• Use of spotlights or any other kind of lighting at night should not be used and may be forbidden in critical areas.

of management and human–

wolf coexistence to illustrate

the complexity and diversity

5. Best practice example of wolf-related tourism programmes of perceptions about wolf

conservation and management.

Best practice wolf tourism does not focus primarily on observing wolves, but on experiencing their habitat and the presence of

• Promotion of local accommodation

wolves in their natural environment. This is done through guided walks, where visitors search for signs of wolf presence (tracks, and other services, souvenirs

scats, scent-marks, howls). Guides should provide information on wolf biology and help to raise awareness about the effect of and products (e.g. wolf-friendly

the species on other animals, forests and humans. The local culture of the areas where wolves are present or are recolonizing products, refreshments from

should be presented and opportunities to meet local people who are directly affected by wolf presence can be offered to improve farms, cheese from shepherds,

visitor understanding of the complex situation of coexisting with wolves.

local handicrafts) to maximize

Below we provide specific recommendations on what to include in wolf tourism programmes to help tour operators design benefits for local communities.

responsible itineraries that promote good practices of coexistence and bring benefits to both local communities and wolves.

WHAT TO INCLUDE:

• Informational briefing at the beginning to share scientific information about wolf biology, explain threats to wolves and improve understanding of human–wolf conflicts and challenges of coexistence.

• Explanation on how to identify and interpret animal tracks of different animals living in areas with wolves.

• Wolf tracking. This should be done in the opposite direction of travel and, between 15th April and 15th September, should be restricted to forest roads, tourist trails or other established paths (see section 4.2.1).

• Wolf watching from long distances if the landscape allows.

• Sensory experiences such as listening for sounds of wildlife at night, including spontaneous wolf howls. From 15th April to 15th September, night walks should be restricted to forest roads, tourist trails or other established paths to avoid disturbance during the pup rearing season.

• Viewing images (photos, videos) of wolves and other wildlife obtained by camera-trapping in the region. Taking part in Winter is the recommended

setting and checking camera traps on forest roads frequented by wolves. When possible, taking home the obtained video-time for tracking wolves to

footages.

avoid disturbing them during

the reproduction period

• Listening to sound recordings of wolf howls. Recordings should not be used for elicited howling.

(Photo: Miha Krofel)

25

26

6. References

Černe R., Krofel M., Jonozovič M., et al. 2019. A fieldguide for investigating damages caused by carnivores: Brown bear, grey wolf, golden jackal, red fox, Eurasian lynx. Slovenia Forest Service - LIFE DINALP BEAR project, Ljubljana, Slovenia, 88 pp.

Albert C., Luque G.M., Courchamp F. 2018. The twenty most charismatic species. PLoS ONE, 13, 7: e0199149. https://doi.

Duffield J., Neher C., Patterson D. 2008. Wolf recovery in Yellowstone: Park visitor attitudes, expenditures and economic impacts.

org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199149.

Yellowstone Science, 25: 1.

Almarcha P., Pastor-Alfonso M.J. 2020. El turismo lobero en la Sierra de La Culebra (España). Revista Lider, 21: 137-160 (In Ericsson G., Heberlein T. 2003. Attitudes of hunters, locals, and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back.

Spanish).

Biological Conservation, 111: 149–159.

Álvares F., Domingues J., Sierra P., Primavera P. 2011. Cultural dimension of wolves in the Iberian Peninsula: implications of FACE. 2021. Combatting the greatest threat to wolves in Europe: illegal killing. https://www.face.eu/2021/09/intergroup-ethnozoology in conservation biology. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 24(3): 313-331.

combatting-the-greatest-threat-to-wolves-in-europe/.

Bassi E., Pervan I., Ugarković, D., et al. 2021. Attacks on hunting dogs: the case of wolf-dog interactions in Croatia. European Frame P., Cluff H., David H. 2007. Response of wolves to experimental disturbance at homesites. The Journal of Wildlife Journal of Wildlife Research, 67: 4.

Management, 71: 316-320.

Bavo P., Villar Lama A. 2020. Lobo ibérico y turismo en la “España vaciada”. TERRA. Revista de Desarrollo Local, 6: 179-203

Fritts S., Stephenson R., Hayes R., Boitani L. 2003. Wolves and humans. In: Mech D, Boitani L (Eds.), Wolves: behavior, ecology, 10.7203/terra.6.16822.

and conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Bisi J., Liukkonen T., Mykrä S., et al. 2010. The good bad wolf—wolf evaluation reveals the roots of the Finnish wolf conflict.

Galaverni M., Caniglia R., Fabbri E., et al. 2015. One, no one, or one hundred thousand: how many wolves are there currently in European Journal of Wildlife Research, 56: 771–779 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-010-0374-0.

Italy? Mammal Research, 61: 13-24.

Boitani L. 1995. Ecological and cultural diversities in the evolution of wolf–human relationships. In: Carbyn L.N., Fritts S.H., Seip González J., Talegón J., Vallejo J. R., Álvares F. 2019. LVPVS MORBOS SANABAT. El carácter utilitario del lobo ibérico y su dimensión D.R. (Eds.), Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: simbólica. Paso Honroso Ed., Salamanca.

3-11.

Gosling E., Bojarska K., Gula R., Kuehn R. 2019. Recent arrivals or established tenants? History of wolf presence influences Boitani L., Ciucci P. 2009. Wolf management across Europe: Species conservation without boundaries. In: Musiani, M., Boitani, attitudes toward the carnivore. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 43(4): 639–650.

L., Paquet, P. (Eds.), A new era for wolves and people: Wolf recovery, human attitudes, and policy, University of Calgary Press: 15-39.

Harrington F.H., Asa C.S. 2003. Wolf communication. In: Mech D, Boitani L (Eds.), Wolves: behavior, ecology, and conservation.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Boitani L., Linnell J. 2015. Bringing large mammals back: Large carnivores in Europe. In: Pereira H., Navarro L. (Eds.), Rewilding European landscapes, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12039-3_4.

Hebbelwhite M., White C.A., Nietvelt C.G., et al. 2005. Human Activity Mediates a Trophic Cascade Caused by Wolves. Ecology, 86, 8: 2135-2144.

Boitani L., Álvares F., Anders O., et al. 2015. Key actions for large carnivore populations in Europe. Institute of Applied Ecology, Rome, Italy. Report to DG Environment, European Commission, Bruxelles.

Huber J., Von Arx M., Bürki R., et al. 2016. Wolves living in proximity to humans. KORA Bericht Nr, 76: 1-19.

Bruns A, Waltert M, Khorozyan I 2020. The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and Iliopoulos Y., Sgardelis S., Koutis V., Savaris D. 2009. Wolf depredation on livestock in central Greece. Acta Theriologica, 54: 11-22.

implications for their co-existence with humans. Global Ecology and Conservation 21: e00868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

Iliopoulos Y., Astaras C., Lazarou Y., et al. 2019. Tools for co-existence: Fladry corrals efficiently repel wild wolves (Canis lupus) from gecco.2019.e00868.

experimental baiting sites. Wildlife Research. 10.1071/WR18146.

Butler L., Dale B., Beckmen K, Farley. 2011. Findings related to the March 2010 fatal wolf attack near Chignik Lake, Alaska.

Iliopoulos Y., Antoniadi E., Kret E., et al. 2021. Wolf–hunting dog interactions in a biodiversity hot spot area in northern Greece: Wildlife Special Publication, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Wildlife Conservation, USA.

Preliminary assessment and implications for conservation in the Dadia-Lefkimi-Soufli Forest National Park and adjacent areas.

Borgna I., Caliari S., Barabino A., et al. 2018. Art, science, school and… cheese. Most original communication actions implemented Animals, 11(11): 3235.

by the LIFE WOLFALPS Project. In: Marucco F., Maiolini C., Gandolfi M., Boitani L. (Eds.), Wolf-human coexistence in the Alps and Kaltenborn B.P., Brainerd S.M. 2016. Can poaching inadvertently contribute to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia?

in Europe. Abstract Book of the International Final Conference of the LIFE WOLFALPS project, 19-20 March 2018, Trento, Italy.

European Journal of Wildlife Research, 62: 179-188.

84 pp.

Kaczensky P., Chapron G., von Arx M., et al. 2013. Status, management, and distribution of large carnivores - bear, lynx, wolf & Chapron G., Kaczensky P., Linnell J.D.C., et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated wolverine - in Europe. Part 1 - Europe summaries. Report: 1-72. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Report prepared for the landscapes. Science, 346: 1517-1519

European Commission.

Conceicão-Neto N., Godinho R., Álvares F., et al. 2017. Viral gut metagenomics of sympatric wild and domestic canids, and Kavčič I., Majić Skrbinšek A. 2019. Bear friendly labelling promoting coexistence with bears. Carnivore Damage Prevention News, monitoring of viruses: insights from an endangered wolf population. Ecology and Evolution, 7(12): 4135-4146. DOI: 10.1002/

18: 1-7.

ece3.2991.

Karamanlidis A., Kavčič I., Majić Skrbinšek A., et al. 2016. Non-consumptive use of brown bears in tourism: guidelines for responsible Council of Europe. 2018. Recommendation No. 198 of the Standing Committee on the use of artificial feeding as a management practices. Ljubljana, Biotechnical faculty, Biology Department: 22 pp.

tool of large carnivore populations and their prey, with a particular emphasis on the brown bear, 30 November 2018, Rec(2018)198E, available at: https://rm.coe.int/recommendation-on-the-use-of-artificial-feeding-as-a-management-tool-Koščová N., Koščová M. 2017. Conditions for wildlife watching tourism development in Slovakia. Folia Geographica, 59(1): 82–97.

o/16808e4cad (accessed 21 February 2022).

Krofel M., Giannatos G., Ćirovič D., et al. 2017. Golden jackal expansion in Europe: a case of mesopredator release triggered by Curtin S., Kragh G., 2014. Wildlife tourism: Reconnecting people with nature. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19(6): 545-554

continent-wide wolf persecution? Hystrix: Italian journal of mammalogy, 28(1): 9-15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2014.921957.

Kuijper D.P.J., Kleine C., Churski M., et al. 2013. Landscape of fear in Europe: wolves affect spatial patterns of ungulate browsing in Białowiez.a Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecography, 36: 1263-1275.

27

28

Kuijper D.P.J., Sahlén E., Elmhagen B., et al. 2016. Paws without claws? Ecological effects of large carnivores in anthropogenic Oražem V., Tomažič I. 2019. Role-play. Wolf and human – challenges of coexistence. Educational material prepared within the landscapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283: 20161625.

project LIFE WOLFALPS EU (LIFE18 NAT/IT/000972). https://www.lifewolfalps.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/E.4_Role-LCIE. 2019. Management of bold wolves. Policy Support Statements of the Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe.

play-cards_ENG_final.pdf.

Leblond M., Dussault C., St-Laurent M-H. 2017. Space use by gray wolves (Canis lupus) in response to simulated howling: a case Pitulko V.V., Kasparov, A.K. 2017. Archaeological dogs from the Early Holocene Zhokhov site in the Eastern Siberian Arctic.

study and a call for further investigation. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 95(3): 221-226. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2016-0191.

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 13: 491-515.

Liberg O., Chapron G., Wabakken P., et al. 2012. Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Potočnik H., Krofel M., Skrbinšek T., et al. 2010. Monitoring volkov z izzivanjem tuljenja. SloWolf Report (LIFE08 NAT/SLO/000244

Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 279: 910–915.

SloWolf) (In Slovenian). http://www.volkovi.si/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2010-potocnik-et-al.-howling-porociloslowolf.pdf.

Linnell J.D.C., Cretois B. 2018. The revival of wolves and other large predators and its impact on farmers and their livelihood in rural Ražen N., Kuralt Ž., Fležar U., et al. 2020. Citizen science contribution to national wolf population monitoring: what have we regions of Europe. European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development 106.

learned? European Journal of Wildlife Research, 66: 46.

Linnell J.D.C., Løe J., Okarma H., et al. 2002. The fear of wolves: a review of wolf attacks on humans. Norwegian Institute for Nature Reinhardt R., Kaczensky P., Frank J., et al. 2020. How to deal with bold wolves – Recommendations of the DBBW. BfN-Skripten Research Oppdragsmelding, 731: 1-65.

577. https://www.dbb-wolf.de/mehr/relevante-literatur.

Linnell J.D.C., Trouwborst A., Fleurke F.M. 2017. When is it acceptable to kill a strictly protected carnivore? Exploring the legal Richter T., Hoffman S., Thies K., Schuette P., 2018. Volunteers promote wolf and livestock coexistence. In: Pathways Europe constraints on wildlife management within Europe’s Bern Convention. Nature Conservation 21: 129-157. https://doi.org/10.3897/

2018: Resurrecting the Wild!?: 174.

natureconservation.21.12836.

Rigg R. 2001. Livestock guarding dogs: their current use worldwide. IUCN/SSC Canid Specialist Group, Oxford, UK. https://lciepub.

Linnell J.D.C., Kovtun E., Rouart I. 2021. Wolf attacks on humans: an update for 2002–2020. NINA Report 1944. Norwegian Institute nina.no/pdf/634994135320630456_IUCN%20CSG%20Occasional%20Papers%20Rigg%20LGDs.pdf.

for Nature Research.

Rigg R., Skrbinšek T., Linnell J., 2014. Engaging hunters and other stakeholders in a pilot study of wolves in Slovakia using Lozano J., Olszańska A., Morales-Reyes Z., et al. 2019. Human-carnivore relations: A systematic review. Biological Conservation, non-invasive genetic sampling. Final report. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/carnivores/pdf/

237: 480–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.002.

pa_slovakia_finalreport.pdf.

Majić Skrbinšek A., Skrbinšek T. (Eds.). 2018. Dynamics of public attitudes toward wolves and wolf conservation in Italian and Rio-Maior H., Beja P., Nakamura M., Álvares F. 2018. Use of space and homesite attendance by Iberian wolves during the Slovenian Alps during the implementation of LIFE WOLFALPS project, Technical report, Project LIFE 12 NAT/IT/00080 WOLFALPS.

breeding season. Mammalian Biology, 92: 1-10.

MAPAMA 2017. Best practices for bear, wolf and lynx watching in Spain. Ministerio de agricultura y pesca, alimentación y medio Rode J., Flinzberger L., Karutz R., et al. 2021. Why so negative? Exploring the socio-economic impacts of large carnivores from a ambiente. Publicaciones de la SGAPC. Available at: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/conservacion-de-la-European perspective, Biological Conservation: 255.

biodiversidad/bestpracticesforbearwolfandlynx_tcm30-201026.pdf.

AGRIDEA 2016. Safe encounters with livestock guardian dogs. Viewed 10 November 2021, http://www.protectiondestroupeaux.

Martins I., Krofel M., Mota P.G., Álvares F. 2020. Consumption of carnivores by wolves: A worldwide analysis of patterns and ch/en/herdenschutzhunde/tourismus-und-herdenschutzhunde/when-encountering-livestock-guardian-dogs/.

drivers. Diversity, 12: 470. DOI:10.3390/d12120470.

Selva N., Jędrzejewska B., Jedrzejewski W., Wajrak A. 2005. Factors affecting carcass use by a guild of scavengers in European McNay M.E. 2002. A case history of wolf-human encounters in Alaska and Canada. – Alaska Department of Fish and Game. –

temperate woodland. Canadian Journal of Zoology-revue Canadienne De Zoologie, 83: 1590-1601.

Wildlife Technical Bulletin 13.

Soethe N. 2020. Herd protection aid by Wikiwolves: the potential and limits of a network of volunteers. Carnivore Damage Mech L. D., Boitani L. 2003. Wolves: Behavior, ecology, and conservation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Prevention News 19: 31-35.

Musto C., Cerri J., Galaverni M., et al. 2021. Men and wolves: Anthropogenic causes are an important driver of wolf mortality in Suter S., Giordano M., Nietlispach S., et al. 2016. Non-invasive acoustic detection of wolves. Bioacoustics, 26: 1-12.

human-dominated landscapes in Italy. Global Ecology and Conservation, 32(6): e01892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.

Suutarinen J., Kojola I., 2017. Poaching regulates the legally hunted wolf population in Finland. Biological Conservation, 215: e01892.

11-18.

Mysłajek R.W, Romański M., Kwiatkowska I., et al. 2021. Temporal changes in the wolf Canis lupus diet in Wigry National Park Szewczyk M., Łepek K., Nowak S., et al. 2021. Evaluation of the presence of ASFV in wolf feces collected from areas in Poland (northeast Poland), Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 33(6): 628-635.

with ASFV persistence. Viruses 13(10): 2062.

Notaro S., Grilli G. 2021. Assessing tourists’ preferences for conservation of large carnivores in the Italian Alps using a discrete Tanner E., White A., Acevedo P., et al. 2019. Wolves contribute to disease control in a multi-host system. Scietific Reports, 9, choice experiment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1924124.

7940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44148-9.

Nowak S., Jędrzejewski W., Schmidt K., et al. 2007. Howling activity of free-ranging wolves (Canis lupus) in the Białowieża Trouwborst A., Fleurke F.M. 2019. Killing wolves legally: Exploring the scope for lethal wolf management under European nature Primeval Forest and the Western Beskidy Mountains (Poland). Journal of Ethology, 25: 231–237.

conservation law. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 22(3): 231-273.

Nowak S., Mysłajeka R.W., Kłosinska A., Gabrys G. 2011. Diet and prey selection of wolves (Canis lupus) recolonising Western Weiss A., Kroeger T., Haney J., Fascione N. 2007. Social and ecological benefits of restored wolf populations. In: Transactions of and Central Poland. Mammalian Biology, 76: 709–715.

the 72nd North American wildlife and natural resources conference, Portland, OR, USA: 297–319.

Nowak S., Szewczyk M., Tomczak P., et al. 2021a. Social and environmental factors influencing contemporary cases of wolf Wilson M.A., Heberlein T.A., 1996. The wolf, the tourist, and the recreational context: New opportunity or uncommon circumstance?

aggression towards people in Poland. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 67:69.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife: An International Journal, 1, 4: 38-53, https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209609359077.

Nowak S., Żmihorski M., Figura M., et al. 2021b. The illegal shooting and snaring of legally protected wolves in Poland. Biological Wierzbowska I. A., Hędrzak M., Popczyk B., et al. 2016. Predation of wildlife by free-ranging domestic dogs in Polish hunting Conservation, 264, 5. 109367. 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109367.

grounds and potential competition with the grey wolf. Biological Conservation, 201: 1-9.

29

30





Annex 1: Facts about wolves

• SIGNS OF PRESENCE: TRACKS AND SCATS

• WHAT DOES A WOLF LOOK LIKE?

A wolf leaves tracks that are typical of large canids. A wolf’s footprint is similar to that of a large dog, consisting of four The wolf ( Canis lupus) is the largest member of the dog family and the second largest predator in Europe, after the brown toe pads and one larger palm pad. It is elongated and symmetrical, 8–11 cm long (without claws) and 7–10 cm wide. Four bear. European wolves are about the same size as a German shepherd dog: 100 to 120 cm in length, with a shoulder height distinct, long, and strong claws are usually visible in a wolf’s paw print. When moving across soft snow or wet ground, a wolf from 60 to 90 cm. Adults have an average weight of 30–50 kg but this varies geographically, with wolves in northern will spread its toes as far apart as possible. When it does this, its tracks might get confused with those of a lynx. However, Europe being generally bigger and heavier. Females weigh about 20% less than males. The tail of the wolf is on average lynx paws are smaller, typically 7–8 cm long and 6–7 cm wide. Moreover, lynx have retractable claws, like a domestic cat, 40–45 cm long and extends to the ankle joint of the hind limbs.

which are therefore usually not visible in lynx footprints except, for example, in steep or slippery terrain. Fox prints are similar in shape to those of wolves but are much smaller, usually measuring about 5 cm in length and 4 cm in width. Golden Morphologically, the wolf is distinguished from the dog by its narrow chest, long limbs with big paws, strong neck, large skull jackal prints are smaller and the forelimbs often have the two middle toe pads partially merged.

with wide forehead, powerful but elongated jaws with long canines and strong, well-developed molars (called “carnassials”).

If we observe the head of a wolf, it appears frontally triangular, flattened and wide. In profile, the head of a wolf is almost flat Many dogs have clearly different paw prints to those of wolves. Often, they are smaller and some have clearly rounder from the top of the skull to the tip of the nose. The head of a dog in profile has a steeper angle with a more evident “frontal paws. But there are also dog breeds where you cannot distinguish single paw prints from wolves. Dog tracks often lead in stop” (jump between forehead and nasal rostrum). The eyes are slanting and typically yellow, but in various shades from zigzags, circles, bows, jumping off the road and back, while wolves move with purpose and determination, which means the bright yellow to amber.

footprints are in line with each other and the steps are narrow. Nevertheless. wolf tracks are sometimes hard to distinguish from dog tracks, especially in human dominated areas, and guidance of an experienced researcher or tracker is often The colour of the coat of European wolves tends to be beige, with tawny or dark shades of brown on top of the neck, needed. To distinguish a wolf track from a dog track with certainty, it is often necessary to collect biological samples (e.g.

shoulders and back. Only the forehead is very grey, the back of the ears reddish and the bottom of the muzzle, throat and scats, urine) for molecular genetic analysis or obtain an image of the animal from camera trapping.

belly are significantly lighter, beige or cream. Depending on the population of origin, the shade of the coat varies, which can be diagnostic for some populations allowing phenotypic recognition (e.g. black tip of the tail, white mask and black bands Wolf scats are usually composed of hair, bone fragments and other material of their predominantly carnivorous diet. Adult are present on the forelimbs for the Iberian and Apennine populations). In central and southern Europe, wolves change wolf scats are similar in size to those of a large dog, often with visible hair, whereas domestic dog scats are generally more between summer and winter coats, being almost short-haired and lighter in summer and with a dense, more contrasted uniform in texture and shape without noticeable hair or bone fragments. Wolf scats are also characterized by a strong and winter coat that most people associate with the typical wolf appearance.

characteristic smell.

Comparison of wolf (A) and dog (B) skull morphology (Pitulko and Kasparov, 2017) The footprint of an adult wolf and wolf trail (Drawings: Igor Pičulin) 31

32





Usually a wolf print has more space than a dog print between the middle two toe pads and the larger metacarpal (palm)

• WOLF REPRODUCTION

pad. A line connecting the front edges of the outer toe pads may not even touch the back edges of the middle toe pads of Wolves reproduce once a year. A pair mates between January and March, depending on the latitude and gestation lasts a wolf, whereas in the case of a dog this line usually runs through the centre of the middle two toe pads (Černe et al., 2019, about 63 days, the same as in dogs. Usually three to six blind pups, covered in short, almost black fur are born in a den drawings: Igor Pičulin)

between March and May. Pups’ eyes open at 10 to 14 days after birth and they start venturing out of the den and exploring the surroundings after four weeks. At 14 weeks, pups are usually big enough to abandon the den and are taken to a rendezvous site, where they remain until they are old enough to join the pack on hunting trips, usually from September or later. Wolves reach their adult size at 10 to 12 months of age and are sexually and socially mature by the age of two years.

• WOLF HABITAT

Wolves can survive in a broad range of habitat types with diverse food sources. In North America and Asia, they are found in tundra, prairies, steppes, semi-deserts, mountains and northern forests. In Europe they primarily occur in a mosaic of forests and open habitats, including agricultural landscapes. This adaptability to diverse habitat types has ensured wolf resiliency; however, it has also increased conflicts with human interests and made it difficult to keep wolves separated from areas used by people. The segregation of large carnivore habitats from human landscapes that has been proposed by several North American authors is not an option in Europe (Boitani and Ciucci, 2009). In Europe, wolves frequently occur in human-dominated landscapes with high road density and multiple human-related activities. In these areas, each pack territory may comprise several human settlements and even cities. Therefore, refuge conditions in the form of dense vegetation (e.g. forests and scrublands) with limited human disturbance, are a key habitat factor for wolves, particularly for resting and breeding. There is no alternative for management other than to try to integrate wolves as much as possible within human-dominated landscapes.

A

B

C

• BEHAVIOUR

Wolves are strongly territorial animals that live in packs whose members cooperate in hunting, reproduction and protection of their territory. The pack is a reproductive unit: it is a family group of two parents and their offspring. Generally, only the two parents reproduce, however double reproductions may occur in certain circumstances. The pack is composed, on average, of between three and eleven individuals, depending on the region. Usually, packs are larger from summer to the beginning of winter, when pups of the year and some young wolves of the previous year might be present at the same time.

Yearlings often disperse during the winter.

The size of wolf pack territories varies greatly and is dependent on the prey availability in each area, the geography of the region and the degree of human activity. Once a wolf pair settles in an area, it occupies an exclusive territory and founds a family group that regulates itself annually. Wolf population density cannot increase indefinitely, as each pack Golden jackal footprint, with connected front pads (a), footprint of a fox (b) and lynx (c) (Drawings: Igor Pičulin) actively defends its territory from wolves of a neighbouring pack. Scent marking and howling are used to establish the borders of their territory. Internal use of the territory is different within the year, depending mainly on the supply of prey and reproductive activities. During the breeding season wolves stay close to, or regularly return to, the den and to rendezvous

• WHAT DO WOLVES EAT?

sites. At other times of year they roam more widely over their territory but there are always certain preferred trails and Wolves are generalist, opportunistic carnivores: they feed on the most available and accessible species in their habitat, locations which they use more frequently.

so their diet can vary both geographically and seasonally. However, they have a clear preference for wild ungulates. They mainly feed on large prey, particularly red deer, roe deer, fallow deer, wild boar, chamois and mouflon. Beavers form a large Wolves are usually most active at night and during twilight, in correspondence with the foraging activity of their prey and proportion of wolf diet in some areas where they coexist (Nowak et al. 2011; Mysłajek et al., 2021).

when human disturbance is lower. However, wolves can also be active during the day, especially in areas with low human activity.

Wolves may supplement their diet by feeding on carcasses, small vertebrates, invertebrates and even plants. If not properly protected, domestic animals, both livestock and dogs, are also attacked. Wolves are thought to provide important ecosystem services, for example by eating medium-sized carnivores such as feral dogs (Martins et al., 2020) or golden jackals (Krofel

• WHY DO WOLVES HOWL?

et al., 2017).

Howling is a form of direct, long-distance communication and plays different roles in the social life of the pack and between packs. Wolves howl to keep contact between pack members, especially the parental pair and pups, to strengthen social An adult wolf needs about 3–5 kg of meat per day. Wolves travel daily distances of 20–30 km, sometimes even up to relationships within the pack or to defend the territory against intruders. Howling also has a gregarious meaning for 40-70 km, patrolling their territory and searching for food, aided by their extraordinary hearing and well-developed sense members of a pack and helps coordination of departures, meetings and movements of individuals within the territory (e.g.

of smell. Although wolves live in packs (family groups) even a single wolf is able to kill a full-sized red deer. When hunting, hunting events). Howling is also a mechanism with which wolves affirm their presence and possession of territory in real they usually wear down prey by persistent pursuit, achieving speeds of up to 50–60 km/h. As a result, wolves mainly kill time, thereby reducing antagonistic encounters with dispersing wolves or wolves from a nearby pack.

animals in poorer physical condition and so they have an important ecological role in maintaining the health and fitness of prey populations.

33

34

• WOLF-HUMAN INTERACTIONS

Due to legal protection together with improved habitat conditions and prey base, wolves are returning to areas in Europe from which they have long been absent. This process brings many conflicts due to attacks on domestic animals, mostly sheep but also goats, cattle, horses, donkeys and reindeer.

The conflict between large carnivores and humans dates back to the origins of domestication. In an attempt to minimize wolf predation on livestock, rural communities developed several tools and techniques, including livestock guarding dogs (Rigg, 2001). Shepherds sometimes fit these dogs with special collars to protect their throats from wolf bites. Various types of enclosures have been used to keep livestock safe during the night. Pastoral communities have also developed several devices and structures to catch and kill wolves, usually on paths frequently used by wolves near villages or grazing areas (Álvares et al., 2011). Wolf parts were used as a source of medicine, to cure diseases in humans or domestic animals (González et al., 2019) and symbolic image of the wolf is expressed in a number of different tales, beliefs and practices.

This shows that wolves have generated substantial culture, ethnography and traditions. These cultural traits can be a valuable resource for wolf-based tourism and an opportunity to maximize benefits for local communities, which can potentially increase tolerance towards wolves.

• WOLF ATTACKS ON HUMANS

The danger that wolves represent for human safety is often discussed in the public and media. Wolf attacks are rare and mainly associated with one or more risk factors (Linnell et al., 2002):

• most cases of wolf attacks worldwide are attributable to rabies. As such, this represents a very low risk for Europe due to regular vaccination actions conducted in forests areas,

• habituation, when wolves lose their fear of humans, increases the risk of attack,

• highly modified environments, with little or no natural prey, high densities of humans living in poor socio-economic conditions and unprotected anthropogenic food sources that wolves can feed upon, can also increase the risk of attack.

A recent review (Linnell et al., 2021) found evidence of a total of 12 wolf attacks (with 14 victims) in Europe and North America during the period 2002–2020, two of which (both in North America) were fatal. Considering that there are close to 60,000 wolves in North America and 17,000 in Europe outside Russia and Belarus, all sharing space with hundreds of millions of people, the risk of a wolf attack is clearly extremely low.

Most wolves are not dangerous, but there are risks from habituated (by keeping by humans in captivity from early age) and especially food-conditioned (by unintentional or intentional feeding) individuals, and on some rare occasions unpredictable and unprovoked incidents will occur. It is crucial to prevent the development of dangerous situations and to properly react to such situations when they appear. It is very important to remove food sources that are near human settlements or permit association with humans (LCIE, 2019; Linnell et al., 2021). This includes garbage dumps as well as deliberate feeding of wolves, for example for the purpose of wolf watching or photography (Nowak et al., 2021a).

Where literature sources are not listed, the summary in this annex was based on information available on the LIFE WOLFALPS EU and CARNIVORA DINARICA project websites. For further reading about wolves, please visit: https://www.lifewolfalps.eu/en/wolf-faq/

https://www.dinapivka.si/en/large-carnivores/wolf/biology-ecology-and-behaviour/

35

36





Title:

Project partners

Non-consumptive use of wolves in tourism: guidelines for responsible practices Authors:

Irena Kavčič, Francisco Álvares, Elisa Avanzinelli, Luigi Boitani, Irene Borgna, Yorgos Iliopoulos, Miha Krofel, John Linnell, Sabina Nowak, Ilka Reinhardt, Robin Rigg, Ricardo N. Simon, Laura Scillitani, Astrid Vik Stronen, Igor Trbojević, Theresa Walter and Aleksandra Majić Skrbinšek Editors:

Irena Kavčič, Robin Rigg

Proofreading:

Robin Rigg

Publisher:

University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Biology Department Graphic design:

Agena studio d.o.o.



Cover photo:

OFB

Ce fichier est un document

OFB_19_13429_LogoHoriz_CMJN

d’exécution créé sur Illustrator

JFB

version CS6.

30-34 Rue du Chemin Vert 75011 Paris

Date : 03/10/2019

+33 (0)1 85 56 97 00 www.carrenoir.com

TONS RECOMMANDÉS (4)

ÉCHELLE 1/1

Francesco Panuello

CYAN

MAGENTA

JAUNE

NOIR

0

1

2

1st electronic edition

Funded by LIFE WOLFSALPS EU - with the financial contribution of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Union.

Ljubljana, March 2022

Cofinancers

About the project

Acronym: LIFE WOLFALPS EU

Project title: Coordinated actions to improve wolf-human coexistence at the alpine population level Reference: LIFE18 NAT/IT/000972

Project time frame: 01/09/2019 – 30/09/2024

Webpage: www.lifewolfalps.eu

www.lifewolfalps.eu • info@lifewolfalps.eu





