Content uploaded by Roman Gula
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roman Gula on Oct 20, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
REVIEW
Legal protection of wolves in Poland: implications
for the status of the wolf population
Roman Gula
Received: 18 August 2006 / Revised: 28 June 2007 / Accepted: 9 July 2007 / Published online: 15 August 2007
#
Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract Legal protection of wolves (Canis lupus)in
Poland was implemented in 1998 after 23 years of
management as a game species. Wolves occurring in Poland
were interconnected with larger populations in the Carpa-
thian Mountains and Belarus, Baltic States and Russia,
stable in numbers, and were not considered endangered
before the change in legal status affording protection from
hunting. Parties calling for wolf protection wanted to stop
killing of wolves because of their symbolic nature, but did
not have particular management goals to achieve. The
government did not accompany the change in legal status
by management plan, and therefore, the ban on wolf
hunting was weakly enforced. A wolf distribution monitor-
ing demonstrated that wolf range had not expanded 9 years
after the hunting ban was implem ented, and no increase in
wolf numbers was observed. This failure to recover may be
explained by: (1) a significant (up to 35%) reduction in the
wolves’ prey base 6 years before wolf hunting was stopped,
(2) weak enforcement of the protection law, resulting in
lack of poaching control of wolves, (3) probable increasing
fragmentation and isolation of wolf habitat caused by rapid
economic growth in Poland. Inconsistent application of
current management policy toward wolves resulted in weak
enforcement of regulations and promoted negative attitudes
toward the species. To improve the status of wolves in
Poland, I recommend a flexible wolf management planning
framework that involves and addresses attitudes of hu nters
and sheep herders, includes a framework to promote strong
law enforcement, and consistent, fair compensation for
livestock killed by wolves.
Keywords Depredation
.
Canis lupus
.
Management
.
Poaching
Introduction
Okarma (1993) described the post War World II history of
wolf management in Poland. Due to a noticeable increase in
the wolf population after the war, the Polish government
organized a wolf killing campaign that included using
poisons and payment of a bounty on every wolf killed. As a
result, the wolf population declined from 700– 1,000 to
<100 indiv iduals by the late 1960s. Many naturalists and
hunters expressed concern that the low population size
threatened the species’ survival in Poland, and the cam-
paign was terminated in 1973. By 1975, the wolf’s legal
status was upgraded from pest to game species. However,
wolf hunting continued year round, and hunting season
closures were only established in areas with lower wolf
densities. A limited hunting season w as established
throughout the coun try by 1981. Between 1975 and 1989,
10 to 211 wolves were killed annually, averagi ng 100 (SD=
57.6) individuals each year (Okarma 1993). During this
period, official wolf population estimates increased from
less than 100 and stabilized at 850–950 individuals
(Okarma 1993).
Wolf hunting was first abandoned in 1989 in the
Białowieża Forest due to pressure from local scientists
Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170
DOI 10.1007/s10344-007-0129-8
Communicated by P. Krausman
R. Gula
Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Wilcza 64,
00-679,
Warsaw, Poland
R. Gula (*)
Gombrowicza 5/12 38-700,
Ustrzyki Dolne, Poland
e-mail: rgula@miiz.waw.pl
(Okarma and Jędr zejewski 1996). In 1993, the lo cal
governor extended wolf protection by closing huntin g
seasons throughout the entire Bialystok Province. By
1995, the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural
Resources and Forestry (presently Ministry of Env iron-
ment; ME) designated the wolf as a protected species in
Poland. However, hunting continued in three provinces
(Krosno, Przemyśl, and Suwałki), which held the majority
of Polish wolves until 1998 when full protection from
hunting was extended throughout the country.
I analyze the rationale for legal protection of the wolf in
Poland, describe operation of Poland’s wolf manage ment
system under legal protections, evaluate the influence of
9 years of protection on the status of the country’s wolf
population, and present recommendations for future wolf
management strategies in Poland.
Materials and methods
I evaluated the effectiveness of Poland’swolfprotection
system by reviewing published legal regulations and
unpublished data and documents on file at State and
Provincial Conservation Offices and by interviewing the
Regional Directorate of State Forestry in Krosno and Forest
District game managers within the Bieszczady Mountains. I
collected information on the wolf depredation compensation
system and level of wolf–livestock conflicts by evaluating
wolf depredation cases for 1998 within the Bia łystok
Province and between 2000 and 2004 in Podkarpackie
Province (Gula 2008). I obtained additional information on
wolf depredation from published and unpublished reports on
file at Provincial Conservation Offices. I evaluated wolf
distribution and numbers using published results from the
Białowieża wolf research program (Okarma et al. 1998a;
Jędrzejewski et al. 2000; Theuerkauf et al. 2003), a tracking
survey by Śmietana and Wajda (1997) in the Bieszczady
Mountains, annual Forest Administration animal censuses
(unpublished data reports of Forest Administration), a
statewide wolf census (Gula et al. 2002;Jędrzejewski et al.
2002;Gula2008), data of Mammal Research Institute,
Polish Academy of Sciences available on (http://www.zbs.
bialowieza.pl/), and data from ongoing wolf research
conducted in the Bieszczady Mountains (Pirga and Gula
2005;Gula2008; Theuerkauf et al. 2007).
Results and discus sion
Rationale for legal protection
After designation as a game species in 1975, wolf numbers
grew considerably, reaching a level of 850–950 individuals
by 1985 (Okarma 1993; Bobek et al. 2001). Although
accuracy of population estimates obtained during annual
censuses conducted by hunters and foresters was disputed,
the increasing population trend was widely accepted by
scientists and managers.
One indication of the increase in Poland’s wolf popula-
tion was its range expansion (Wolsan et al.
1992). In the
early 1970s, when wolves were nearly extinct, their range
had been reduced to the eastern part of the Polish
Carpathians, a few forest districts in Roztocze, and several
forest complexes of Podlasie (Fig. 1). After 1975, wolf
range slowly expanded, reaching its maxi mum in the mid
1980s when wolves appeared in western Poland. Okarma
(1993) estimated Poland’s wolf range encompassed
160,000 km
2
in the early 1990s, but he calculated the
range as the sum of all land area within those provinces in
which wolves were recorded. In reality, wolf habitat was
limited to discrete, fragmented forest complexes, and actual
area used by wolves was much smaller. For example, in
western Poland, wolf habitat was and still is limited to a
few forest compl exes which constitute only a small amount
of the area within the province. Thus, the area used by
wolves before legal protection was much smaller than
claimed by Okarma (1993) and was limited to: (1) the
Polish Carpathian Mountains and Roztocze which was part
of the continuous Carpathian population (Perzanowski and
Gula 2002); (2) several forest complexes in northeastern
and eastern Poland where wolf habitats were interconnected
with occupied wolf habitat in Belarus, the Baltic States, and
Russia (Jędrzejewska et al. 1996); and (3) two forest
complexes in western Poland (Notecka Forest and Zielona
Góra Woods)—which was quite isolated from the majority
Fig. 1 Distribution of wolves in Poland
164 Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170
of occupied wolf habitat in the country (Fig. 1). Addition-
ally, lone nomadic wolves were observed in other forests in
central and northern Poland.
Wolf density estimates based on snow tracking surveys
or radiotelemetry monitoring were available only from the
Białowieża Forest and the Bieszczady Mountains (Jędrzejewska
et al. 1996; Śmietan a and Wajda 1997;Okarmaetal.1998a).
Wolf densities obtained by snow tracking in the Białowieża
Forest from 1980–1993 ranged from two to three individuals
per 100 km
2
. Similar results were obtained between 1994
and 1998 when up to four packs were monitored by radio-
telemetry within the same region (Okarma et al. 1998a).
Snow tracking surveys by Śmietana and Wajda (1997)inthe
Bieszczady Mountains, part of the Polish Carpathians,
produced higher density estimates ranging between 3.5 and
5.1 individuals per 100 km
2
.
After the wolf was listed as a game species in 1975, wolf
harvests declined to a few individuals, but rebounded to 90
per year within a few years. In 1982, a period of rapid
harvest increase began that peaked with over 200 individ-
uals taken during the 1987–1988 hunting season (Okarma
1993) before dropping to about 100 annually in the early
1990s. This latest trend of declining harvests paralleled a
decrease in governmental estimates of wolf numbers, which
was recognized as a true decrease caused by overhunting
(Okarma 1993; Śmietana 1994). By the mid 1990s, before
implementation of wolf protection, wolf numbers were
estimated at 700–900, and annual harvests remained less
than 100 individuals (Okarma et al. 1998b).
The major arguments used during the wolf protection
campaign in the 1990s were emotional and focused on
stopping hunting of a “symbolic” animal. There were many
animal rights groups from Western Europe involved in the
campaign (Głowaciński 1994; Bobek et al. 1994). Some
biological- and management-based arguments were
expressed by wolf experts. Okarma (1993, p 156) called
for a “need to consider the wolf as an endangered species”
and stressed the necessity of its countrywide protection. In
1994–1995, leaders of three major wolf research teams
discussed the need for legal wolf protection in a popular
hunter magazine (Bobek et al. 1994, 1995a; Okarma 1994;
Śmietana 1994). Bobek et al. (1994, 1995a) presented high
wolf population esti mates and called for continued wolf
control. They argued that legal protection for wolves was
not needed to improve population status, and doubted that
protection would be enforced. Śmietana ( 1994) stressed the
need for: (1) limiting the hunting season to 3 months, (2)
stopping hunting of wolves with fladry (flagging strung
along ropes to direct the movements of wolves toward
hunters; also used for live trapping wolves as described in
Okarma and Jędrzejewski 1997), (3) ending wolf hunting in
forests west of the Vistula River until that population
expanded in space and numbers, and (4) providing wolf
protection within buffer zones inside National Parks. Only
Okarma ( 1994) called for wolf protection based on the role
of wolves in shaping ungulate population structure and the
positive nature of wolf prey selection. He argued that wolf
hunting causes disturbances in the spatial and social structure
of a wolf population. However, he recommended that the
wolf should still be listed as a game species, but with a year-
round protection period. When describing the wolf’sstatus
in the Białowieża Forest, Okarma and Ję
drzejewski (1996)
argued that although the wolf’s existence is not endangered,
it should be legally protected (especially in large forest
complexes) because of its important role in ecosystems.
The State Committee for Nature Protection recognized
the wolf as a rare species and recommended limiting the
hunting season to 4 months (Nov–Feb) with full protection
from hunting in a minimum area encompassing the region
west of the Vi stula river (Głowaciński 1994). These
recommendations were partially implemented in 1995 when
Ministry of Environment restricted wolf hunting to three
eastern provinces (Krosno, Nowy Sącz, and Suwałki). The
recommendation of the State Committee for Nature
Protection did not change between 1994 and 1998. The
decision to protect wolves was made by the Minister of
Environment (ME) in April of 1998. The State Committee for
Nature Protection has subsequently accepted this regulation
(Z. Głowaciński, former president of State Science Committee
for Nature Protection, personal communication).
Although the wolf became protected legally countrywide
in 1998, the new regulation was not followed by an action
plan. Thus, implementation of wolf protection regulations
depended on the existing management structure for pro-
tected species and game management, as all major wolf
prey animals are listed as game species.
Legal protection at work
The system of wildlife management Although the ME
supervises the two administrative units that manage game
and protected species, the units function independently
(Fig. 2). First, the National Conservation Office (NCO) and
its divisions, Provincial Conservation Offices (PCO) are
responsible for general regulations concerning protected
species. PCOs located in the capitals of each Province are
responsible for protected species management within every
Polish province. PCO employees are only stationed in
provincial capital cities, and there is no network of field
stations and wardens at their disposal.
Wolf management activity by N COs and PCOs is
primarily limited to the compensation program. Addition-
ally, when wolf depredation in an area is considered high,
the NCO might decide to remove some wolves by shooting
as a control measure. From 1998–2004, shooting was
assigned to local hunters and was restricted in terms of time
Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170 165
and place. Hunters were not paid and had no right to keep
wolves they killed as trophies. Although the NCO has
decided to eliminate nuisance wolves on several occasions
in Podkarpackie Province, only one wolf has been shot
under this program, as hunters had little interest in pursuing
wolves in this manner. In 2005, regulations regarding wolf
removal become more flexible and allowed hunters to keep
the trophy and hunt for wolves in the entire area of
specified game management.
Game species, including all ungulates that are major
prey of wolves, are managed in two ways in Poland. The
whole country is divided into small hunting units (up to
50 km
2
). The State Forest Administration or a private
hunting club manages each unit. Management occurs
according to rules set by the Hunting Association under
general guidan ce of the ME. When the Forest Administra-
tion manages the hunting unit, each forest district (which is
<300 km
2
, containing several hunting units) has at least one
game warden responsible for game management. The forest
district staff is obliged to monitor population and prescribe
and control harvest. Most of Poland’s wolf habitat is
administered by forest districts in this fashion.
Hence, the wolf and its prey are managed by two
administrative structures that are ultimately dependent on
the ME. However, work programs are not coordinated.
Moreover the national government (NCO) does not have
good communication with the provincial governmental
agencies (PCOs) responsible for managing protected species.
Therefore, a strong national network of game wardens does
not exist.
Compensation for wolf depredation Legal regulations
concerning wolf protection mandate that all wolf-caused
damage to livestock be compensated by the state. Com-
pensation should b e equal to the fair market value of killed
livestock. Unfortunately, the legislation was not accompa-
nied by statewide regulations containing guidelines for how
the system should be organized. Thus, operation of the
compensation system varies among provinces depending on
how individual PCOs interpret the general regulations.
In 1998, the PCO of Podkarpackie Province assigned
one officer to be responsible for evaluating all potential
wolf kills. The officer was usually assisted by a local
veterinarian and/or forester as he evaluated each case. If
they confirmed that wolves caused the kill, the officer
proposed compensation calculated according to the market
value of the killed animal. The owner was not required to
accept the offered amount, and could sue PCOs for higher
compensation. When the three-man commission deter mined
wolves did not cause the kill, the owner could complain as
well. In 2003, responsibility for evaluating depredation
cases has been transferred to the State Game Guard. The
State Game Guard employs eight wardens working in two
stations located within two largest cities of the Province.
They are equipped with two 4WD vehicles and are
responsible for evaluating damages by wolves, brown
bears, and beavers, and enforcing game regulations. The
wardens were trained in evaluation procedure and gained
necessary experience by proceeding with more than
hundred cases annually. Other provinces with substantial
wolf populations have organized their livestock compensa-
tion systems differently. In Malopolskie Province, an ad
hoc commission consisting of a local veterinarian, forester,
and policeman evaluated wolf kills. Through 2002, the
compensation was paid by the POC according to the
commission’s report. Evaluation of potential wolf kills
was not organized in Podlaskie Province between 1998 and
2000, and farmers were not informed about the procedure
for obtaining compensati on. Many farme rs complained
directly to the PCO office and sent photos of kills and
witnesses testimonies as proof of livestock losses to wolves.
Although some farmers obtained compensation because no
consistent process was available, many farmers resorted to
suing the PCO out of frustration.
Prey management policy vs wolf protection Wolves in
Poland prey mostly on wild ungulates, and red deer (Cerus
elaphus) constitute the majority of the wolf diet (Śmietana
and Klimek 1993;Jędrzejewski et al. 2000;Gula2004,
2008). Thus, the red deer management policy directly
Fig. 2 The administrative struc-
ture of wildlife management in
Poland
166 Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170
influences reproduction, mortality, and, consequently, the
numbers and distribution of wolves in the state. During the
communist era (before 1989), red deer were managed to
maximize the quantity of animals harvested and the quality
of trophies. These objectives were achieved through exten-
sive supplemental feeding and selective harvest of stags. As
a result, the number of red deer throughout Poland’swolf
range was high, estimated at 0.3 to 0.7 individuals/km
2
(Bobek et al. 1986;Jędrzejewska et al. 1997; Perzanowski
and Krzakiewicz 2000). Red deer management policies
changed in the early 1990s when the Forestry Administration
considered forest damage by red deer to be too high. As a
result, red deer harvest was increased dramatically and the
number of red deer killed doubled in 1991 and 1992. As a
consequence, the red deer population declined by about
35%. Although red deer harvest quotas were again lowered
to their former levels, red deer numbers are still slowly
decreasing (Perzanowski and Krzakiewicz 2000).
Game managers register ungula tes killed by wolves, but
this procedure is limit ed to occasional recovered carcasses
and is not the subject of systematic surveys. Therefore,
managers underestimate the number of ungulates killed by
wolves as they calculate allowab le red deer harvest levels,
resulting in harvest quotas that are higher than intended to
achieve particular management goals (i.e., certain popula-
tion numbers). In spite of underestimation of ungulate
losses to wolves, wol f predation is considered excessive by
game managers, and wolves are considered overabundant
(Krzakiewicz 2002).
The management plan In 1998, a group of biologists and
wolf conservationists prepared “The strategy of wolf
population conservation and management in Poland” for
the ME (Okarma et al. 1998b). With minor changes, this
document was later distributed among interest groups as a
wolf action plan proposal of the ME (Anonymus 2002).
Unfortunately, the planning process excluded all authori-
ties, organizations, and parties that might be potentially
affected by the wolf presence or arrival. The document had
been criticized, and it was never implemented.
The influence of legal protection on wolf popula tion status
The wolf distribution and numbers Annual wolf population
estimates done by State Forestry Administration and
hunting clubs increased since implementation of legal
protection. However, rapid projected population growth
suggests estimates may be artifacts used to garner support
by the anti-wolf campaign because they are not based upon
reliable population estimates. For example, the number of
wolves estimated by State Forestry Administration of the
Krosno District increased from about 300 in 1997 to almost
500 by 2000. The census done before wolf protection may
have been an overestimate (Śmietana and Wajda 1997;
Gula et al. 2002), but if it was accurate, this would
represent a 60% population increase within 3 years. Such
rapid population growth is unlikely, given the densities of
prey available to wolves in Poland.
The telemetry-b ased wolf surve y conducted in the
Białowieżaforestfrom1994–1999 indicated a slow
increase in wolf numbers, from 12 wolves in 1994 to 17
wolves living in three to four packs in 1999 (Okarma et al.
1998a). Wolf protection began in Białowieża in 1989, much
earlier than the rest of the countr y. This likely contributed
to growth in wolf numbers. Three of four wolf pack
territories in the Białowieża Forest extend into Belorus
where wolves were heavily hunted. Harvest rate in the
Belorussian portion of the Białoweża Forest was very high,
estimated at 80% (Jędrzejewska et al. 1996). Thus, it is
likely that the hunting ban on the Polish side lowered total
mortality to a level that allowed packs in the Polish part of
BP forest to maintai n population size or even expand in
numbers. Nevertheless, poaching on the Polish side of the
forest was substantial, with 6 of 12 radio-monitored wolves
during the Bia łowieża wolf survey (1994–1999) either
snared or shot (Theuerkauf et al. 2003). Recent estimate of
wolf numbers in BF, based on snow tracking, showed that
wolf n umbers remained stable at 17 animals in four packs
(Jędrzejewski et al. 2002).
In 2001, the snow tracking survey in the Podkarpackie
Province, which i ncluded the Bieszczady Mountains,
revealed a wolf density of 4.5 individuals per 100 km
2
(Gula et al. 2002), similar to that obtained by Śmietana and
Wajda (1997) by snow tracking before wolf protection.
Snow tracking might produce exaggerated figures (Mech
1974). However, both surveys suggest that a dense wolf
population inhabits the area, and there is little potential for
further growth in numbers. This view was supported by
data collected during ongoing wolf surveys since 2000
(Pirga and Gula 2005; Gula 2008; Theuerkauf et al. 2007).
The four packs monitored were each composed of two to
seven individuals in winter and occupied relatively small
territories (88–229 km
2
; Gula 2008). The wolf range of the
Podkarpackie Province also did no t change a fter the
implementation of wolf protection and was limited by
habitat availability. Wolves occupied all potentially suitable
habitat (5,500 km
2
of 18,000 km
2
), and potential for
expansion was low as the rest of the province area is in
either agriculture or is heavily urbanized.
An interesting insight into the wolf population status
throughout the entire country is given by the statewide
survey conducted by the Forestry Administration and
Mammal Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
(Jędrzejewski et al. 2002; data of Mammal Research
Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences available on (http://
Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170 167
www.zbs.bialowieza.pl/). The survey confirmed the pres-
ence of wolves in the majority of their former range in
eastern Poland, but in 2001 wolves were absent from 16
forests districts where the species was recorded in the 1980s
or 1990s. Wolf distribution has been reduced west of the
Vistula River. In the 1990s, wolves were recorded in 21
forest districts in this region, but the last survey could
confirm wolf presence in only seven forest districts. Wolf
presence west of Vistula River is restricted to a few (three
to four) isolated, small family groups (Fig. 1). This shrinkage
of wolf range is counter to the predicted population growth
in the a bsence of hunting. There are three potential
explanations of this phenomenon: (1) a decrease of the wolf
prey base (discussed above), (2) extensive poaching, and (3)
increased fragmen tation and isolation of wolf habitat,
preventing wolf migration and consequent range expansion.
Poaching Verified cases of wolves being poached are rare
and limited to areas with active research studies. Most (four
of six) radio-collared wolves poached between 1994–1999
in Bialowieza were killed in snares that were apparently set
to catch wild boars. One animal was killed with fire arms
using military-type ammunition, most likely by a border
guard. Five wolves were verified as being killed illegally in
the Bieszczady Mountains, including one of three radio-
collared animals (R. Gula B. Pirga, unpublished data). As
there is no organized enforcement service, it is difficult to
estimate the total number of poached animals. However,
there are rumors that hunters commonly kill wolves
whenever they have a chance. Okarma (2002) reported that
poaching was common among hu nters and believed illegal
killing was responsible for the apparent decrease in wolf
populations in the Polish Carpathians during winter 2001–
2002. Although these assertions cannot be substantiated,
indirect evidence of illegal wolf killing includes the practice
of baiting for extended periods near many permanent high
seats maintained by game managers. The only predators
legally hunted in the Polish Carpathians are foxes and
badgers, but large quantities of bait (i.e., tons of offal) laid
out near high seats suggest these are not the only target
species (R. Gula, B. Pirga, unpublished data) .
Hunters, foresters, and even Forestry Administration
officials in charge of wildlife management often openly
express negative opinions about wolves and their protection.
They believe the wolf population is overabundant and
consider wolves to be pests that kill ungulates and contribute
to their poor physical condition (Krzakiewicz 2002).
Migration barriers The present condition of Poland’s
natural environment is primarily a result of the inefficiency
of the communist-based economy which prevented exten-
sive urbanization and associated development of infrastruc-
ture, including roads and intensive traffic. At the same time,
traditional agriculture and land use patterns were preserved
(Webster et al. 2001). As a result, functional corridors for
wildlife were maintained, interconnecting major forest
complexes in spite of a high human populatio n density
(120 peop le/km
2
on aver age). Consequently, the wolf
population expanded into northwestern Poland in the late
1970s and early 1980s (Wolsan et al. 1992). Poland’s
transition to a market economy in 1989 resulted in a
dramatic growth in number of cars (76% growth from 1990
to 1999, Polish Statistical Data Book). Subsequently, a
rapid increase in traffic volume may have already increased
isolation of wolf habitat patches and reduced the amount of
wolf range in western Poland. It is likely that the nation’s
wolf habitat will continue to deteriorate in the future,
paralleling further economic growth.
Wolf depredation on livestock The potential for increased
wolf depredation on livestock was a major concern of
parties that opposed legal wolf protection in Poland. Just
after legal protection was implemented, a dramatic increase
in depredation was reported that was attributed to growth in
wolf numbers and wolves’ lack of fear toward humans
resulting from the hunting ban.
Before wolf protection, local hunting clubs, or forestry
units responsible for game management paid compensation
for wolf damages to livestock, but there was no standard-
ized procedure of compensation or centralized data base.
Thus, the true level of depredation before 1998 is unknown.
Okarma (1993) described the depredation level in1993 as
negligible, wi th no economic importance, but did not
provide supporting documentation. Bobek et al. (1995b)
reported that wolves killed substantial numbers of sheep
during 1988–1992 in the Polish Carpathians, with 391–517
animals lost each year. The level of depredation described
by Bobe k et al. (1995b) is much higher than levels
observed since the ban on wolf hunting, but might be an
overesti mate due to biases in data collectio n methods
(direct interviews with sheep breeders).
Conversely, the number of livestock killed by wolves is
also a ffected by the number of livestock exposed to
depredation. The number of sheep turned out in the
Carpathians decreased substantially after the economical
transition in 1989. The number of sheep in the entire
country declined by tenfold from 4.2 million in 1990 to 0.7
million in 1991 and 0.38 million in 1997 (Polish Petit
Statistical Data Book 1999). Game managers in the
Bieszczady Mountains claimed wolves also attacked sheep
before legal wolf protection, and that time, the number of
sheep being grazed was much higher then it is now.
In 1998, just after the hunting ban was implemented,
there were 78 wolf attacks on livestock, with 208 sheep
killed in Podkarpackie Province, which includes the
Bieszczady Mountains (Gula 2008). Depredation dropped
168 Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170
to 38 attacks with 75 sheep killed in 1999. Depredation has
subsequently steadily increased since 1999, reaching 127
attacks in 2004 with 202 sheep killed (Gula 2008).
The increase in depredation was also observed in
northern Poland, but the situation was slightly different.
According to Okarma and Jędrzejewski (1996), there were
no wolf attacks on livestock in the Białowieża Forest
between 1984 and 1994. However, in 1998, there were
about 80 cases registered in the Podlaskie Provin ce and 19
attacks in the direct vicinity of the Bialowieza Forest (data
on files of Podlaskie Conservantion Office in Białystok).
There were very few sheep in this region, and most
livestock killed by wolves were cattle. Interviews with
farmers confirmed that wolf depredation was a new
phenomenon in this area since World War II. The sudden
appearance of wolf depredation in this area might be related
to the increased wolf density in the Białowieża Forest and
in the entire region.
Future management recommendations
The nee d for the management plan
I believe development of a wolf management plan is
essential for future well-being of wolves in Poland. Such
a plan must be pragmatic and should address the concerns
of key interest groups, especially hunters and sheepherders.
The plan will need government support to be implemented,
and an infrastructure of legal regulations is needed to
ensure adequate enforcement of protection and compensa-
tion programs. Because wolf populations in northeastern
and southeastern Poland are isolated (separated by 200–
500 km of inhospitable terrain) local management plans
should be crafted for each region. Regional plans can be
flexible, allowing for management across transboundary
eco-regions (i.e., Carpath ian Mountains and Baltic States)
instead of adhering to management by national political
boundaries. Areas designated as potential wolf expansion
zones (either by natural migrations or by reint roduction)
should be defined based on habitat potential and areas of
minimal conflict, and local action plans should be devel-
oped to address local circumstances in these areas.
Strict protection vs game species
I feel wolf population regulation should not be restricted to
either complete protection or control under exist ing game
law. Regulations should allow wolf control, but harvest
level and distribution should not be assessed arbitrarily by
the ME (as it is at present). Instead, wolf management
regulations should be based on existing knowledge of: (1)
wolf population status (2) status of wolves’ natural prey
species, and (3) the incidence and distribution of wolf
depredation on livestock. I recommend groups of experts in
regions, and the state should have authority for coordina-
tion of monitoring programs and determining potential wolf
harvest regulations with approval by the ME. The ME
should not have sole authority for wolf management.
Wolf depredation on livestock and compensation
procedures
A certain level of wolf depredation on livestock is unavoid-
able. Actions to reduce the likelihood of wolf depredation
should be recommended in the wolf action plan. Essentials of
a preventive program are described in Gula (2008). State
compensation for wolf depredation should be continued.
However, operation of the program must be improved in
some provinces. I consider the compensation procedure in
the Podkarpackie Province to be well organized and
recommend this model for use nationwide.
Conclusions
Legal wolf protection was implemented in Poland in 1998
to stop hunting because the wolf was considered a symbolic
animal without specific management goals. Regulations
were not accompanied by a management plan, and the
hunting ban was not strongly e nforced. Lack of law
enforcement, increased depredation of live stock, and a
widely held generally negative attitude towards wolves by
hunters and wildlife managers contributed to frequent
poaching of wolves. Therefore, the e stablished legal
protection h as not been effective at increasing wolf
numbers or expanding their range. The lasting effect of
this regulation is intense polarization of wolf advocates and
the anti-wolf lobby. Both groups have strong opinions
about the wolf and how it should be managed. This
radicalism has intimidated the decision makers’ competence
in wolf management and prevents passage of relevant
legislation to improve the situation. I believe elaboration of
a pragmatic wolf management plan addressing both wolf
population needs and concerns of key interest groups is the
first step to assure the future well-being of wolves in
Poland.
Acknowledgment This study is performed within the scope of the
Bieszczady Wolf Project and was funded by the Polish National
Committee for Scientific Research (KBN 6P04F 006) and Budget of
the Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences. I
thank the Regional Directorate of State Forest Administration in
Krosno and the Provincial Conservation Office in Rzeszow for their
cooperation during the study. C. McLaughlin, K. Perzanowski, P.
Krausman, and three anonymous reviewers provided suggestions for
improving earlier versions of the manuscript.
Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170 169
References
Anonymus (2002) Strategy of wolf protection and management in
Poland. Warszawa, Poland (in Polish)
Bobek B, Gugała-Miska A, Harna G, Kasperczyk B, Merta D,
Wierzbowska I (2001) Overprotection of wolves in Poland: costs
and potential consequences for the species. In: Field R, Warren
RJ, Okarma H, Sievert PR (eds) Proceedings of 2nd International
Wildlife Management Congress. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda,
Maryland, USA, pp 177–180
Bobek B Merta D, Płodzień K, Morow K (1994) The future of wolf
management in Poland. Łowiec Polski 4:16–17 (in Polish)
Bobek, B, Merta, D Płodzień K, Morow K (1995a) Politics, scientists
and wolves. Łowiec Polski 6:8–9 (in Polish)
Bobek B, Perzanowski K, Kwiatkowski Z, Leśniak A, Seremet B
(1995b) Economic aspects of brown bear and wolf predation in
southeastern Poland. In: Bisonete JA, Krausman PR (eds)
Proceedings of 1st International Wildlife Management Congress.
The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, pp 373–375
Bobek B, Perzanowski K, Zieli ński J (1986) Red deer population
census in mountains: testing of an alternative method. Acta
Theriologica 31:423–431
Głowaciński Z (1994) Wolf—do not initiate false apprehension.
Łowiec Polski 12:18–19 (in Polish)
Gula R (2004) Influence of snow cover on wolf predation patterns in
Bieszczady Mountains, Poland. Wildlife Biol 10:17–23
Gula R (2008) Wolf depredation on domestic animals in the Polish
Carpathian Mountains. J Wildl Manage 72(1)
Gula R, Krzakiewicz H, Niemczyk J, Łukaciejewski G, Paszkiewicz R,
Szkutnik M, Kalinowski W, Waœkiewicz A (2002) Wolf and lynx
census in Regional Directorate of State Forest of Krosno,
Bieszczadzki National Park, and Magurski National Park. Roczniki
Bieszczadzkie 10:373–389 (in Polish with English summary)
Jędrzejewska B, Jędrzejewski W, Bunevich AN, Milkowski L,
Okarma H (1996) Population dynamics of wolves Canis lupus
in Białowieża primeval forest (Poland and Belarus) in relation to
hunting by humans, 1847–1993. Mamm Rev 26:103–126
Jędrzejewska B, Jędrzejewski W, Bunevich AN, Miłkowski L, Krasinski
ZA (1997) Factors shaping population densities and increase rates
of ungulates in Bialowieza primeval forest (Poland and Belarus) in
the 19th and 20th centuries. Acta Theriologica 42:399–451
Jędrzejewski W, J
ędrzejewska B, Okarma H, Schmidt K, Zub K,
Musiani M (2000) Prey selection and predation by wolves in
Bialowieza primeval forest, Poland. J Mammal 81:197–212
Jędrzejewski W, Nowak S, Schmidt K, Jędrzejewska B (2002) The
wolf and the lynx in Poland—results of a census conducted in
2001. Kosmos 257:491–499 (in Polish with English summary)
Krzakiewicz H (2002) Game management in Forest Superintendence of
Krosno, Poland. In: Perzanowski K, Gula R (eds) Proceedings of
an workshop: initiation of the transboundary network for monitor-
ing the population status of ungulates along Polish–Slovak–
Ukrainian Carpathians. The Carpathian Branch of International
Centre of Ecology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ustrzyki Dolne,
Poland, pp 21–48 (in Polish with English summary)
Mech LD (1974) Current techniques in the study of elusive wilderness
carnivores. In: Kjerner I, Bjurholm P (eds) Proceedings of XIth
International Congress of Game Biologists. Swedish National
Environment Protection Board, Stockholm, pp 315–322
Okarma H (1993) Status and management of the wolf in Poland. Biol
Conserv 66:153–158
Okarma H (1994) The need for protection of wolves in Poland.
Łowiec Polski 12:12–13 (in Polish)
Okarma H (2002) Current status of knowledge on wolf in Poland.
Proceeding of the workshop on protection of wolf in Poland, 26
April 2002, Kraków, Poland, pp 1–2 (in Polish)
Okarma H, Jędrzejewski W (1996) Ecology of the wolf in Białowieża
Primeval Forest—problems in conservation. Chrońmy Przyrodę
Ojczystą 52:16–30 (in Polish with English summary)
Okarma H, Jędrzejewski W (1997) Livetrapping wolves with nets.
Wildl Soc Bull 25:78–82
Okarma H, Jędrzejewski W, Schmidt K, Śnieżko S, Bunevich AN,
Jędrzejewska B (1998a) Home ranges of wolves in Białowieża
Primeval Forest, Poland, compared with other Eurasian popula-
tions. J Mammal 79:842–852
Okarma H, Jędrzejewski W, Jędrzejewska B, Nowak S, Śmietana W
(1998b) Strategy of wolf protection and management in Poland.
Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN, Kraków (in Polish)
Perzanowski K, Gula R (2002) Proceedings of the workshop:
initiation of the transboundary network for monitoring the
population status of ungulates along Polish–
Slovak–Ukrainian
Carpathians. The Carpathian Branch of International Centre of
Ecology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Ustrzyki Dolne, Poland
(in Polish with English summary)
Perzanowski K, Krzakiewicz H (2000) Red deer population in the
Bieszczady Mountains. In: Głowaciński Z (e d) Monografia
Fauny Bieszczadzkiej, vol. 7. Ośrodek Naukowo-Dydaktyczny
Bieszczadzkiego Parku Narodowego, Ustrzyki Dolne, pp 157–
178 (in Polish with English summary)
Pirga B, Gula R (2005) Cohesion of wolf habitat in anthropogenic
areas of Bieszczady Mountains. In: Brzuski P, Okarma H (eds)
Proceedings of 9th Polish Theriological Conference, Akademia
Rolnicza, Kraków, Poland, pp 72–77 (in Polish with English
summary)
Polish Petit Statistical Data Book (1999) Główny Urząd Statystyczny,
Warszawa, (in Polish)
Śmietana W, Klimek A (1993) Diet of wolves in the Bieszczady
Mountains, Poland. Acta Theriologica 38:245–251
Śmietana W, Wajda J (1997) Wolves number changes in Bieszczady
National Park, Poland. Acta Theriologica 42:241–252
Śmietana W (1994) Protect or not protect wolves? Łowiec Polski
12:14–16 (in Polish)
Theuerkauf J, Jędrzejewski W, Schmidt K, Okarma H, Ruczyński I,
Śnieżko S, Gula R (2003) Daily patterns and duration of wolf
activity in the Białowieża Forest, Poland. J Mammal 84:243–253
Theuerkauf J, Gula R, Pirga B, Tsunoda H, Eggermann J, Brzezowska
B, Rouys S, Radler S (2007) Human impact on wolf activity in
the Bieszczady Mountains, SE Poland. Annales Zoologici
Fennici 44:225–231
Webster R, Holt S, Avis Ch (2001) The status of the Carpathians. Report
of The Carpathian. Ecoregion Initiative, WWF, Viena, Austria
Wolsan M, Bieniek M, Buchalczyk T (1992) The history of
distributional and numerical changes of the wolf Canis lupus in
Poland. In: Bobek B, Perzanowski K, Regelin W (eds) Trans-
actions of 18th IUGB Congress, Global Trends in Wildlife
Management, vol. 2, Świat Press, Kraków-Warszawa, Poland, pp
375–380
170 Eur J Wildl Res (2008) 54:163–170
