Due to legal protection, killing wolves has become the exception rather than the rule.

Photo credit: Arie Trouwborst

“How are you going to prevent packs of wolves from entering the country?” This question was put to the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality in 2009 by two Members of Parliament. But the Minister did nothing to hinder the wolf’s arrival, and neither did her successors. Canis lupus has been allowed to (re)settle, despite an unceasing barrage of calls to cull, and pleas for a wolf-free Netherlands.

The European comeback of wolves, culminating in their return to the busy and densely populated low countries, has a thing or two to do with the rule of law. It illustrates the fundamental role of law as a setter of standards, protector of interests, and controller of power. In addition, the wolf’s return shows how new knowledge often has moral consequences, which then become visible in the law, with all manner of practical consequences. Lastly, the wolf strongly symbolizes the added value of the European legal order.

The Wolf, the Law, and Europe 

The first reliable sighting of a wolf in the Netherlands since the 19th century took place in 2011, followed by the first wolf settling down in 2018, and the first couple producing pups in 2019. Ten packs is the current count. In the country’s central woodlands (Veluwe, Utrechtse Heuvelrug) and in the northern provinces, a top predator has returned, which is a good thing for biodiversity. Local roe deer, red deer, and wild boar are being kept healthy and sharp again, or taken down to the delight of ravens and an army of other scavengers. Yet, as in centuries past, unprotected livestock is still on the wolf menu as well, and despite reassuring statistics, the human fear of wolves appears to have deeper roots than some had thought. Common sense is still required on both counts.

When a politician, journalist, farmer, or neighbour asks whether it might not be for the best to banish the wolf from the Netherlands again, or at least keep its numbers down, then (part of) the standard answer is that this is not allowed. Under Dutch law, the wolf is a strictly protected species. This status comes with a legal ban on killing and disturbing wolves, from which the authorities may deviate in exceptional cases only, under strict conditions – for example, when there is a serious safety risk that cannot be eliminated in any other way.

This often triggers the follow-up question whether these prohibitions cannot simply be scrapped from the law, or at least weakened? The answer is no, because that would conflict with the Habitats Directive. Under this EU legislation, the proclamation and enforcement of the aforementioned ban on killing (and the like) of wolves is a strict requirement for the Netherlands and other member states. This European minimum protection not only applies deep in the woods, or in certain protected areas, but everywhere the wolf roams, including in farmyards and downtown. And a ‘German’ wolf simply carries this protected status along when crossing the Dutch border. In other words, the answer to the question whether wolves are welcome was already recorded at the European level decades ago.

As a thought experiment, imagine that the Habitats Directive and related international agreements did not exist. The return – and subsequent persistence – of wolves in the Netherlands (and in Germany, France, Sweden, etc.) would then depend on the societal consensus of the moment, and would be in the hands of provincial and national parliaments and administrators. In that imaginary world, how many wolf families would have called the Netherlands home in 2024? My own estimate is closer to zero than anything else.

In almost all EU member states, the number of wolves is on the rise, but in the vast, sparsely populated expanses of Norway, only six wolf packs are tolerated, in a small area near the Swedish border. Norway can get away with this because it is not an EU member state. In Great Britain, too, a decision to reintroduce the wolf seems a long way off. The wolf is thus a striking example of the difference that international and especially European law – with its rules that are relatively hard to change and that take precedence over national law – can make when it comes to safeguarding higher interests in the long term. (Another example that tends to go down well in class and at birthday parties concerns the six (!) extra years of life that the average Dutch person owes to European agreements on the reduction of air pollution.)

But why did the wolf receive legal protection, European or otherwise, in the first place? Here too, the wolf illustrates a fundamental point, namely that most rules recorded in law – wildlife law in this case – did not randomly drop from the sky (or float down from Brussels), but have deep roots. Indeed, for a meaningful conversation with that politician or neighbour it is crucial not just to talk about the what but especially also the why of the law. After all, the letter of the law tells half the story at most.

Shifting Values, Changing Law 

Europe, including what we now call the Netherlands, has been inhabited by wolves since the Middle Pleistocene, and by wolf-like ancestors for much longer. Humans, however, especially from the Middle Ages onwards, took up the persecution of the ‘big bad wolf’ with characteristic enthusiasm and ingenuity, ultimately resulting in its successful extermination in large parts of the continent. A farmer coming upon torn and wounded sheep in the pasture today will still be able to sense quite exactly why.

Nevertheless, in the course of the last century, a shift has occurred in European societies’ view of nature, including predators such as wolves. The need to protect livestock from predation is still part of that view, but no longer the dominant component. As I had the opportunity to highlight in my inaugural address earlier this year, this shift took place under influence of increased ecological understanding, awareness of the disastrous consequences of biodiversity loss for humans, and recognition of the intrinsic value of wildlife. Legal obligations to facilitate the return of large mammals such as wolves are thus linked to increased insight into their roles in the functioning of ecosystems, and at the same time to a new light in which the animals themselves have come to be seen – that is, the notion that they have value, regardless of any utility or harmfulness to humans. Half a century ago, American President Nixon spoke of wild things’ “higher right to exist – not granted them by man and not his to take away.”

This intrinsic value has been expressly recognized in various international treaties and in the national legislation of many countries, including the Netherlands (Environment Act, Art. 1.3). The weight of this intrinsic value has increased considerably in recent decades due to growing insight into the consciousness, intelligence, and emotions of non-human animals. Research into cognition and social behaviour in wolves is a striking example. It turns out that the ‘beasts of the earth’ and the ‘fowl of the air’ are not insensitive robots, but have quite a few things in common with Homo sapiens, as documented in popular books by the late Frans de Waal and others. Other creatures too have feelings and memories, can plan and choose, play and argue, love and grieve. Like humans, bats and wolves have individual characters, and buffaloes and bees engage in democratic decision-making.

And from an ethical perspective, knowledge tends to have consequences. In the past, advancing insights concerning fellow human beings led to the realization that Eurocentrism, sexism, and racism are morally unacceptable. What we now know about non-human earthlings puts anthropocentrism on the same moral slope as a dubious, collective form of egocentrism. We are not alone – not as a person, people, or country, but also not as a species. This awareness is slowly but surely seeping into legal frameworks, and the rule of law no longer only protects humans against arbitrary treatment from above.

If Not Brotherhood, Then at Least Civilization

Current law and policy around wolves reflect the societal core value of solidarity in several ways. Solidarity, first of all, with wolves themselves. Although not everyone may be comfortable with the words ‘brother wolf’, as Saint Francis of Assisi was, from a historical perspective it is difficult to deny that man has something to make up for to Canis lupus. Solidarity, furthermore, with livestock farmers, who tend to pay the highest price for renewed coexistence, and therefore deserve help in ‘wolf-proofing’ their business operations once more.

But also solidarity with other countries, in accordance with the fundamental principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, as laid down inter alia in the Rio Declaration (Principle 7). Simply put, anyone who expects the poor and rapidly growing human populations of countries such as Tanzania and India to continue making room for lions, tigers, elephants, hippos, etc., can hardly maintain at the same time that in a very prosperous country such as the Netherlands it is not possible or appropriate to coexist with wolves, which are much less dangerous and harmful in comparison.

That is not to say that coexisting with wolves is a piece of cake. But coexisting with other people is not always easy either. Yet, when human neighbours fail to see eye to eye, it is not (supposed to be) the law of the jungle that settles their dispute, but the civil code. Likewise, a wolf can sometimes be an easy neighbour, and sometimes a rather tricky one. Here too, however, a grudge against the canine nextdoor is no longer (supposed to be) settled by brute force, but in accordance with the notion that wolves, just like the human neighbours, have a basic claim to existence and interests to be taken seriously, and that we are expected to coexist as best we can. When this does not happen automatically, wildlife legislation draws a line. Over time, the law’s response to the killing of a wolf has changed from awarding a bounty to imposing a fine or prison sentence. A matter of civilization, so it seems.

This blog is an adapted, English version of a piece in Dutch titled ‘De rechtsstaat dient ook de wolf’, published on the constitutional law platform ‘Nederland Rechtsstaat’ on 9 September 2024.