{"id":159946,"date":"2025-11-26T03:12:10","date_gmt":"2025-11-26T03:12:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/159946\/"},"modified":"2025-11-26T03:12:10","modified_gmt":"2025-11-26T03:12:10","slug":"europeans-support-large-carnivore-recovery-while-opposing-both-further-population-growth-and-hunting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/159946\/","title":{"rendered":"Europeans support large carnivore recovery while opposing both further population growth and hunting"},"content":{"rendered":"

After the cessation of centuries-long eradication efforts throughout Europe, large carnivores have made a remarkable return over the past few decades1<\/a>. Wolves (Canis lupus) now number an estimated 19,000 individuals across the European Union (EU)2<\/a>. Other large carnivores are also recovering: the European continent hosts approximately 9,000 Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) and 20,500 brown bears (Ursus arctos)3<\/a>. These recoveries were made possible in large part by strong legal protections that limited human-caused mortality4<\/a>. Large carnivores are protected under the Bern Convention and the EU Habitats Directive, which implements the former in EU law. The Directive requires all EU Member States to ensure that species listed in its annexes achieve and maintain \u2018favourable conservation status\u2019\u2014meaning populations are viable over the long term, the species\u2019 ranges are stable or expanding and sufficient habitat continues to exist to support them5<\/a>. However the strict legal prohibition against killing wolves that facilitated their recovery in many parts of Europe has now been rolled back: in June 2025, the wolf was moved from Annex IV (strict protection) to Annex V (permitting regulated exploitation) across all Europe (the legal status did not change in the few countries where the wolf was already in Annex V). Our survey\u2014made prior to downlisting the wolf\u2014of 10,807 EU residents from both rural and urban areas across all Member States hosting large carnivore populations (Supplementary Table 1<\/a>) finds that there remains broad support for the recovery of large carnivores but that letting their populations grow and hunting them are both opposed.<\/p>\n

In every country surveyed, we find support for large carnivore recovery outweighs opposition\u2014often by a substantial margin. The strongest support is found in Southern and Eastern Europe (Fig. 1<\/a> and Extended Data Fig. 1<\/a>) and the presence of abundant large carnivore populations does not appear to diminish public support. For example, respondents in Italy, Spain and Bulgaria\u2014home to some of Europe\u2019s largest wolf populations and, in the case of Bulgaria, substantial numbers of brown bears\u2014still express majority support for large carnivore recovery. Even in countries where large carnivores cause tangible damages, such as the >10,000 sheep killed by wolves annually in France, public support for predators remains strong. However, and crucially, this support for recovery does not necessarily translate into support for population increases. On the contrary, Europeans are generally favourable to the presence of large carnivores but not to further growth in their numbers. This pattern is particularly clear for wolves: in all surveyed countries except Spain and Portugal, a relative majority of respondents prefer that wolf populations remain stable (Fig. 1<\/a> and Extended Data Fig. 2<\/a>). Although in no country does a relative majority support a decline in wolf populations, population decreases attract more support than increases in several countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands. More than ten countries are in favour of further increases in lynx populations (Extended Data Fig. 3<\/a>) (albeit in Spain and Portugal, lynx implicitly refers to Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus, a species that narrowly escaped extinction and with presently less conflict than the Eurasian lynx), while only five countries express support for increasing brown bear populations (Extended Data Fig. 4<\/a>). Slovakia stands out for showing a pronounced divergence in attitudes towards both species: it is the only country where a relative majority supports reducing bear numbers\u2014possibly linked to reported bear attacks on people in recent years, yet it simultaneously displays strong support for increasing lynx populations.<\/p>\n

Fig. 1: Public opinion across 23 EU countries regarding the conservation and management of wolves and large carnivores.\"figure<\/a><\/p>\n

For every country (identified by a two-letter code) the distribution of answers to four questions is represented as four stacked bar plots. The top outer half circular bar plot shows the stacked posterior probabilities to answer \u2018strongly oppose\u2019 (\u2212\u2212), \u2018oppose\u2019 (\u2212), \u2018neutral or not sure\u2019 (?), \u2018support\u2019 (+) or \u2018strongly support\u2019 (++) to the question: \u201cLarge carnivores such as wolves, brown bears and lynx have been recolonizing parts of Europe in recent decades. Generally speaking, would you say that you support or oppose the recovery of large carnivores?\u201d The top inner half circular bar plot shows the stacked posterior probabilities to answer \u2018decreased greatly\u2019 (\u2212\u2212), \u2018decreased\u2019 (\u2212), \u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019 (?), \u2018stay about the same\u2019 (=), \u2018increased\u2019 (+) or \u2018increased greatly\u2019 (++) to the statement: \u201cIn my opinion, wolf populations in Europe should be\u2026\u201d. The bottom outer half circular bar plot shows the stacked posterior probabilities to answer \u2018strongly oppose\u2019 (\u2212\u2212), \u2018oppose\u2019 (\u2212), \u2018neutral or not sure\u2019 (?), \u2018support\u2019 (+) or \u2018strongly support\u2019 (++) to the question: \u201cGenerally speaking, would you say that you support or oppose hunting large carnivores?\u201d. The bottom inner half circular bar plot shows the stacked posterior probabilities to answer \u2018strongly disagree\u2019 (\u2212\u2212), \u2018somewhat disagree\u2019 (\u2212), \u2018neither agree nor disagree\u2019 (?), \u2018somewhat agree\u2019 (+) or \u2018strongly agree\u2019 (++) to the statement: \u201cWolves that kill livestock should be killed.\u201d. Country codes: AT, Austria; BE, Belgium; BG, Bulgaria; CZ, Czechia; DE, Germany; DK, Denmark; EE, Estonia; ES, Spain; FI, Finland; FR, France; GR, Greece; HR, Croatia; HU, Hungary; IT, Italy; LT, Lithuania; LV, Latvia; NL, Netherlands; PL, Poland; PT, Portugal; RO, Romania; SE, Sweden; SI, Slovenia; SK, Slovakia. Map created with Natural Earth (https:\/\/www.naturalearthdata.com<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Although our data indicate that Europeans generally prefer stable large carnivore populations, they also indicate Europeans tend to oppose hunting these species (Fig. 1<\/a> and Extended Data Fig. 5<\/a>). Attitudes towards hunting vary by region and species, following a marked latitudinal gradient. Support for hunting is most pronounced in Scandinavia and the Baltic states, although nowhere does it constitute a majority view. By contrast, opposition to hunting is the strongest in Southern Europe, where it often commands an absolute (that is, >50%) majority and is consistent with long-standing national policies: Portugal and Italy, for example\u2014two countries with the highest levels of opposition to hunting\u2014have banned the practice for large carnivores for decades, in alignment with public sentiment.<\/p>\n

When examining specific justifications for killing large carnivores outside of hunting (for example, such as killing individuals that have damaged property), a similar North\u2013South divide emerges. Respondents in Fennoscandia and the Baltic States tend to support culling in such cases, while opposition is strongest in Mediterranean countries (Fig. 1<\/a> and Extended Data Figs. 6<\/a>\u20138<\/a>). In Italy, for example, survey participants strongly opposed culling even in response to brown bear attacks on humans. This widespread opposition may explain the protracted legal and administrative process Italian authorities undertook before authorizing the killing of a bear that fatally attacked a hiker in April 20236<\/a>. In contrast, Germany swiftly killed the first brown bear to return after 200\u2009years\u2014owing to bold behaviour rather than direct harm\u2014possibly reflecting more permissive public attitudes towards lethal control in that country. Although attitudes towards lethal control measures vary widely across Member States\u2014reflecting the influence of cultural and contextual factors\u2014the results suggest greater public acceptance for targeted interventions, such as the killing of specific problem individuals, compared with broad population-level control (for example, hunting).<\/p>\n

Strikingly, we found little difference between rural and urban residents in their opinions towards large carnivores. Support for large carnivore recovery remains strong even in rural areas. For instance, in Spain urban and rural responses diverge by only 2% regarding support for large carnivore recovery (Extended Data Fig. 1<\/a>). Even in countries with lower levels of support, the rural\u2013urban gap remains relatively narrow. Noteworthy differences are observed in only a few countries\u2014for example, Austria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Romania\u2014where urban respondents show greater support than rural respondents (Extended Data Fig. 1<\/a> and Supplementary Table 3<\/a>). These results challenge the common assumption7<\/a> that conflict over large carnivore policies is primarily driven by an urban\u2013rural divide (although our survey focused on rural residents and not on economic interests associated with \u2018rurality\u2019 such as hunting and agriculture). By contrast, demographic factors such as sex and age show stronger and more variable effects. Male respondents consistently express greater support for hunting (Supplementary Table 7<\/a>). Age effects vary across countries. Older individuals consistently show greater support for a reduction of wolf populations (Supplementary Table 4<\/a>). While older individuals tend to be less supportive of large carnivore recovery in most Member States, the opposite pattern emerges in Greece and Sweden (Supplementary Table 3<\/a>). These exceptions suggest that, at least in some countries, younger generations may hold less favourable views\u2014potentially complicating long-term conservation prospects.<\/p>\n

Despite such variability, our assessment of public opinion indicates that Europe displays far less polarization\u2014that is, division of society into two opposed and irreconcilable groups\u2014than commonly portrayed. While a relative majority of Europeans support carnivore recovery, at least one third of the population remains neutral (Extended Data Fig. 1<\/a>). In Spain, for example, 36% of respondents have no opinion, and in Slovakia, this figure rises to 59%. This pattern holds across both urban and rural areas. Notably, countries with the lowest levels of neutrality tend to express the highest overall support for large carnivores. This suggests that country-level variation in support is probably driven more by variation in the proportion of neutral respondents than variation in opposition, which appears comparatively fixed. Even on the issue of large carnivore hunting\u2014often perceived as highly divisive\u2014we find at least one third of respondents neither agree nor disagree (Extended Data Fig. 5<\/a>). Also in contrast with some recent work in the USA8<\/a>, political identity shows only a weak relationship with attitudes towards large carnivores. Respondents who identify as politically left leaning tend to be slightly more supportive of carnivore recovery, but this effect is significant in only a few countries (Supplementary Table 3<\/a>). Conversely, identifying as politically conservative is not significantly associated with opposition to large carnivores, except in Austria (Supplementary Table 3<\/a>). These findings reinforce the broader pattern: support for large carnivores is not strongly driven by ideology, challenging the notion that the issue is deeply politicized at the societal level.<\/p>\n

Across the EU, public attitudes reveal an apparent contradiction: while many respondents support maintaining stable wolf populations, they simultaneously oppose legally killing them\u2014an action that, in most ecological contexts, may be necessary to cap population size in the absence of natural predators or strong density-dependent constraints. This reveals a potential disconnect between public preferences (no population growth) and the practical measures (hunting) that would probably be implemented to fulfil such preferences. That disconnect may, in turn, reveal a lack of public understanding of ecological systems that may be a challenge to enact policies that are both supported by the public and evidence based. The Nordic countries are a notable exception, where support for stable wolf populations occurs with a higher acceptance of hunting and culling. These findings suggest that political controversies over large carnivore management, such as wolves, are unlikely to dissipate even when the legal protection of wolves is downgraded. The core tension lies not much between opposing social groups\u2014such as rural versus urban populations\u2014but within the whole population itself, where many citizens express incompatible preferences: a desire to maintain stable populations while rejecting lethal interventions that may be needed to achieve that stability. Should strict legal protections be removed, political tensions will be nationalized, as decision-making authority shifts from the EU to individual Member States. While such devolution is sometimes framed as a path towards greater democratic legitimacy, national processes may not necessarily be more responsive to public opinion. The Spanish case is illustrative: in March 2025, the national parliament authorized the removal of the wolf from the domestic list of protected species, reintroducing the hunting of wolves. Crucially, this change was enacted not as a wildlife policy but as a last-minute rider amendment to a law on reducing food waste, with the justification that wolf predation contributes to livestock losses9<\/a>. Yet public opinion in Spain shows both strong support for wolf recovery and strong opposition to hunting, indicating that this reintroduction of hunting may be a political play (for example, ref. 10<\/a>) or reflect particular interest group preferences rather than democratic alignment, an issue at the core of contemporary conservation politics11<\/a><\/p>\n

In that context, the increasingly charged political discourse surrounding large carnivores\u2014particularly the wolves and bears\u2014stands in stark contrast to public opinion. While parties such as the European People\u2019s Party, the largest political group in the European Parliament, have framed the wolf as a threat to rural life\u2014invoking imagery reminiscent of Little Red Riding Hood12<\/a>\u2014such narratives do not reflect the broader attitudes of EU citizens. Right-wing rhetoric that symbolically links the wolf to the erosion of rural livelihoods13<\/a> appears politically constructed rather than grounded in concerns from the broader or even conservative public. In reality, support for large carnivore recovery remains solid and not polarized across European countries\u2014albeit contestation may still occur in local communities directly affected by these species and most of our survey respondents may never have had a direct experience of large carnivores.<\/p>\n

Instead, the strongest point of consensus among Europeans lies in their widespread apathy to engage politically on the issue of large carnivores. In every country surveyed except Portugal, an absolute majority of respondents indicate they would not contact a politician to support predator recovery efforts\u2014although levels of potential engagement vary across countries (Extended Data Fig. 9<\/a>). In all countries, an absolute majority state they would not contact a politician to oppose such efforts (Extended Data Fig. 10<\/a>). This suggests that, despite clear preferences in public opinion, large carnivore conservation remains a low-salience issue for most Europeans in terms of political mobilization. This renders policy outcomes vulnerable to regulatory capture: the technical complexity of large carnivore governance combined with low levels of public engagement creates conditions in which organized interests may disproportionately influence decision-making14<\/a> as legal protection is weakened.<\/p>\n

While the amendment to downgrade the legal protection status of the wolf in the Habitats Directive may not be grounded in new scientific evidence regarding species recovery15<\/a>, it appears broadly aligned with public opinion across Europe if it prevents further population increases and\u2014importantly\u2014does not lead to decreases. Nevertheless, this does not guarantee that subsequent policy implementation will reflect those same preferences. Without appropriate oversight, there is a risk that the consequences of downlisting\u2014such as potential substantial population reductions\u2014may diverge sharply from the public\u2019s support for recovery and coexistence, as the Spanish case illustrates. Although Annex V of the Habitats Directive continues to require that populations achieve and maintain favourable conservation status, there has been very little enforcement of this obligation at the EU level. The Commission\u2019s past inaction\u2014for instance, regarding Finland, where Annex V has been interpreted as a license to exterminate the species\u2014is cause for concern. Sweden\u2019s announced intention to halve its wolf population further underscores the potential for misuse16<\/a>. However, wolves in Poland have always been listed in Annex V and still experienced a strong population recovery2<\/a>. In this context, effective monitoring of wolves across Europe and science-based management will be essential to ensure that Member States do not exploit the shift in legal status to reverse decades of conservation gains. The challenge ahead lies in ensuring that legal rollback does not become a de facto license for conservation rollback\u2014particularly when the species recovery remain well supported by the European public at large. As the first-ever removal of strict protection of a species in Europe following a declared recovery, the downlisting of the wolf represents a policy experiment whose outcome remains uncertain. If it contributes to reduced conflicts and demonstrates that a more flexible legal framework can support coexistence, it may set a precedent for managing other recovering species than the wolf. However, if it results in conservation backsliding or renewed controversy, reinstating strict protection may become necessary\u2014although such a reversal would not be automatic and would require political momentum contrary to that which enabled the downlisting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"After the cessation of centuries-long eradication efforts throughout Europe, large carnivores have made a remarkable return over the…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":159947,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[44696,2134,2138,6835,1437,61,60,2137,4726,82,6727,263,265],"class_list":{"0":"post-159946","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-wildlife","8":"tag-biological-and-physical-anthropology","9":"tag-conservation-biology","10":"tag-ecology","11":"tag-evolutionary-biology","12":"tag-general","13":"tag-ie","14":"tag-ireland","15":"tag-life-sciences","16":"tag-paleontology","17":"tag-science","18":"tag-social-policy","19":"tag-wildlife","20":"tag-zoology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159946","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=159946"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159946\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/159947"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159946"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159946"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159946"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}