By Per Inge Oestmoen, the ALPHA association

As usual, the ALPHA association was present at this year's wolf
symposium in the Swedish county of Jaemtland, and we have had some definite impressions from these three days in the Swedish winter landscape.

There were quite a few valuable and important lecures given by competent researchers and workers within the different biological disciplines and also fields like anthropology, who contributed to the dissemination of knowledge around wolves and the numerous issues surrounding them. There were a respectable number of lecturers, among them representatives from the Norwegian Directorate of nature management, who tried to defend their restrictive policies towards wolves against an audience with many strongly critical persons. To our delight, the Swedish Naturvaardsverket, which is the counterpart of the Norwegian Government's Ministry of the Environment which is again the highest wildlife management body was also present with one of their leaders Susanne Loefgren. Loefgren made it absolutely clear that it is the Swedish Government's intention to let the wolf population grow no matter what the Norwegians do - and that their goal of 200 wolves within the borders of Sweden alone is merely a preliminary one. In 2000, the Swedish Government decided to embark upon a policy whose fundamental principle is to allow wolves to spread to and multiply by themselves in the vast forest areas where they naturally belong.

The contrast could hardly have been stronger to the Norwegian restrictive policy which has settled with a number of three flocks or 20-25 animals as appropriate for Norway. Where, let it be mentioned, there doubtlessly used to live several thousand wolves in former times. In Norway there are between two and three million sheep roaming around in the forests and on the grasslands of this country, whereas the number of sheep in Sweden is far lower. This is a major reason why there has been a powerful political pressure to minimize the number and geographical distribution of wolves in Norway, and the result is very different plans of management.

These are the basic political lines dividing the Norwegian and Swedish wolf management policies.

Of particular interest was Haakan Sand's conclusive proof that the presence of large predators in the forest ecosystems is a prerequisite to optimum development of prey animals' natural qualities. After only 40 years with wolves absent, moose tend to become demonstrably less capable of defending themselves and their calves from predators like wolves. Mr. Sand explained how Scandinavian wolves have a considerably higher success rate when hunting moose than those of Northern America, and he was able to show that the reason is the long exposure of the latter moose population to wolves. This in contrast to Sweden and Norway, where wolves have been largely absent for more than
100 years before they reappeared during the late 1990's. Sand's research indicated that when Scandinavian wolves attack a moose, they have a success rate of between 40 and 70%. The latter number applies when the alpha male is five years or older, which testifies to the high level of skill and experience required for hunting - also among wolves. In the US, average success rate is 13% or less per actual hunt. This reflects different abilities in the prey to fight back and behave functionally when attacked by wolves, abilities which are necessarily related to experience as well as genetic qualities. Absence of selection pressure leads to diminishing of a broad range of qualities, and absence of pressure from natural predators is no exception. In this context it is imperative to realize that human hunting cannot substitute predation pressure from predators who are present in the environment all the time. Human hunting doos not lead to the selection of the best genetic varieties; and on top of everything humans tend to pick the best animals for shooting. Even if there is "selective" shooting humans do not challenge their prey over
a wide range of abilities the way wolves do. On top of that, when hunting with hounds the more aggressive moose who tries to defend itself and stands up to the dog is more likely to be shot than the weaker moose who runs when the hunting dog approaches. Luckily, Sand's findings confirm the animals' ability to subsequent adaptation to wolf predation, and Sand suggested that the first signs of improved ability to respond to predation from wolves can be detected after 4-5 years following the re-colonisation by wolves. Of course, this involves both psychological and genetic changes contributing to the development of more able animals better equipped for living and surviving in a natural environment where the presence of wolves most definitely is a key factor. The animals simply become more capable.

The point is that the assumption, even today held by many of those who dislike wolves, that wolf predation is detrimental to its prey is extremely far from the truth. It is the other way around. To mention but one factor, the regular presence of carcasses is an important element of biodiversity. Also, the wolves create a better balance in nature by holding in check the numbers of many middle-sized predators which often decimate other animals when they exist in a much larger number that what is typically the case in a balanced ecosystem. Thus, the net result of wolf presence in a forest is a tremendous increase in the well-being of the whole ecosystem. We knew these mechanisms from before, but it is nevertheless refreshing to be able to say that they were obvious from the biological knowledge we were fortunate to witness at this wolf symposium.

Biodiversity is at the core of environmentalism and wolf conservation. However, as wildlife management and the different policy lines inevitably leads to heated discussion and even conflict among people many politicians and wildlife administrators have reacted to the heated debate by taking the positition that "wildlife wolf management is not primarily about wolves, it is about the management of people." This assertion is not without its merits, and there is no doubt either that the simultaneous working on several different areas is a necessity in order to change human policies towards wildlife. Still we feel that in the last few years the biological fundament for general environmentalism and nature conservation efforts has been somewhat downplayed. In other words, biology needs to be brought to the fore to a greater degree if the majority of humans is to arrive at a deeper understanding of the very important issues involved. This was a general impression we got from listening to most of the contributors at the symposium, and this was especially evident when Norwegian wolf management policies were discussed. As many readers surely know, the Norwegian management authorities have regrettably yielded to political pressure from sheep farmers and other forces who want to keep the number of large predators down to the absolute minimum. This has resulted in a zone-based management where wolves are basically only allowed to exist within a small area in central Norway - and as if that were not enough there has as already mentioned been set a de facto limit of three family groups within that already exceedingly limited area. This is the state of affairs in March 2005, when this is being written. Not exactly what one would call a natural condition bearing in mind that the wolf is historically a very important top predator in all of the Scandinavian forests.

This situation has come about as a result of intense lobbying and pressure from those who want no wolves in Norway, but we believe that the restrictive policy has been facilitated by a failure to focus on biological factors. Many people tend to - albeit subconsciously - consider wildlife management as something that mainly affects people, and living Nature has come to be regarded as almost a secondary factor in contrast to the human conflicts and dilemmas involved. At the wolf symposium this was strikingly demonstrated, when only few of the contributing lecturers made any explicit mention of the concept "biodiversity" and connected this central theme directly to the political debate. We find that this tendency fails to provide the correct focus. Biology has its place in politics, since all politics has to be practiced in a world of biological life. Without excepteion, all the strongest arguments in favor of healthy ecosystems boil down to biodiversity and natural conditions in optimally self-managed relations between the different participants in the system as the one and only clue to viable long-term solutions.

To conclude, this wolf symposium has made it clear that in order to create the requisite environmental awareness to bring about the political changes needed to restore healthy ecosystems the principles of biology need to remain at the fore as the justification why these changes have to be made. No matter how important human reactions are in these questions, the restoration and future maintenance of wildlife and wildernesses ultimately has to be founded on proven biological principles and mechanisms and what criteria have to be fulfilled to ensure the optimum condition and functioning of the biological realm. This is of crucial importance because an over-emphasis on sociological and psychological factors, though by no means unimportant, can often lead to unfortunate compromises where a more biocentric approach would make it clearer that it is indeed living things we have to do with. Since human activity has had major impact on most of the planet's ecological systems, deplorably often with detrimental or even catastrophic results for wildlife and natural habitats, we ought to avoid overemphasis on the strictly human sides of the matter. Simply put, we must face the factual biological consequences and focus on what is best for living beings. Which, needless to say, also includes humans to the highest degree. Humans' future on this planet is no less at stake than that of other life forms. It is the stark biological realities that show it to be so which deliver our forever strongest arguments leading to the inevitable conclusion that in a healthy Northern forest there should live many wolves. Therefore we ought to concentrate on the needs of biological life and the ultimate indispensability of biodiversity, whenever we communicate with others about these important animals and their situation.