New rules or old concepts? The golden jackal (Canis aureus) and its legal status in Central Europe

Abstract

Conflicts have emerged due to range expansions of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) across Europe, characterized by their international conservation status and perceived impacts on livestock and native prey species. Most countries in Central Europe do not yet include the golden jackal in their national list of occurring, native species. Nevertheless, legal obligations arise as soon as golden jackals colonize a particular country. Legal implications of this range expansion were described in past studies from an international perspective. However, they left out specifics on the legal status within any particular country. Therefore, we examine the actual legal status within Central European countries, exemplifying the diverse federal and provincial laws. In particular, we assess the current conservation and hunting laws in Austria’s provinces and discuss them in the context of neighbouring countries to analyse implications for relevant authorities. We found substantial contrasts not only among provinces but also between direct neighbouring countries, impeding efforts for transboundary species conservation and leading to complications regarding the management of this species. Improved procedures for collecting records and hunting-bag data appear necessary for future species assessment on a European level and management on a local level. We recommend a more unified legal system but adjusted to actual golden jackal presence on the regional and cross-border level, combined assessment, or similar management strategies to minimize conflicts, reduce persecution, and clarify legal obligations.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
New rules or old concepts? The golden jackal (Canis aureus)
and its legal status in Central Europe
Jennifer Hatlauf
1
&Kathrin Bayer
2
&Arie Trouwborst
3
&Klaus Hackländer
1
Received: 9 April 2020 /Revised: 11 October 2020 /Accepted: 26 December 2020
#The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
Conflicts have emerged due to range expansions of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) across Europe, characterized by their
international conservation status and perceived impacts on livestock and native prey species. Most countries in Central Europe
do not yet include the golden jackal in theirnational list of occurring, native species. Nevertheless, legal obligations arise as soon
as golden jackals colonize a particular country. Legal implications of this range expansion were described in past studies from an
international perspective. However, they left out specifics on the legal status within any particular country. Therefore, we
examine the actual legal status within Central European countries, exemplifying the diverse federal and provincial laws. In
particular, we assess the current conservation and hunting laws in Austria’s provinces and discuss them in the context of
neighbouring countries to analyse implications for relevant authorities. We found substantial contrasts not only among provinces
but also between direct neighbouring countries, impeding efforts for transboundary species conservation and leading to compli-
cations regarding the management of this species. Improved procedures for collecting records and hunting-bag data appear
necessary for future species assessment on a European level and management on a local level. We recommend a more unified
legal system but adjusted to actual golden jackal presence on the regional and cross-border level, combined assessment, or similar
management strategies to minimize conflicts, reduce persecution, and clarify legal obligations.
Keywords Golden jackal .Bern Convention .Habitats Directive .Inconsistent legislation .Conservation .Hunting law
Introduction
The golden jackal (CanisaureusmoreoticusGeoffroy
Saint-Hilaire 1835) has been expanding its natural range
across large parts of Europe for many years (Arnold et al.
2012;Trouwborstetal.2015;Krofeletal.2017). Whereas
palaeontological data regarding the first appearance of gold-
en jackals on this continent remain controversial (Spassov
and Acosta-Pankov 2019), the first verified golden jackal
records date from around the year 1384 in Southeastern
Europe, near Sofia (Bulgaria) (Georgiev 1983 in Spassov
1989). In the 1800s, there are references to the golden jackal
in Hungary, the species being referred to as ‘reed wolf’
(Tóth et al. 2009). Some individuals may have dispersed
from Hungary to Austria, but the evidence is not clear
(Hoi-Leitner and Kraus 1989). So far, golden jackals have
been reported in 33 European countries. In 10 of these,
golden jackals were recorded for the first time in the past
10 years: Switzerland (2011, KORA 2012), Estonia and
Latvia (2013, Männil et al. 2014; Veeroja and Männil
2018), Poland (2015, Kowalczyk et al. 2015), Denmark
(2015, Trolle 2015), Lithuania (2015, Paulauskas et al.
2018), The Netherlands (2016, van der Grift 2016), France
(2017; Bouchet 2017), Liechtenstein (2018;
Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein 2018), and
Finland (2019; Koistinen 2019).
Whether the expansion of golden jackals in Europe is seen
as natural or not, as positive or negative, the arrival of the
species in the aforementioned countries is a fact. This devel-
opment can generate various policy-relevant issues for wild-
life conservation and management authorities. There has been
*Jennifer Hatlauf
jennifer.hatlauf@boku.ac.at
1
Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research,
Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game Management, University of
Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria
2
Law Firm Eisenberger Rechtsanwälte GmbH, Vienna/Graz, Austria
3
Department of Public Law and Governance, Tilburg Law School,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-020-01454-2
/ Published online: 18 February 2021
European Journal of Wildlife Research (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

DNA-based evidence for golden jackal attacks on sheep in
Germany (Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft,
Umwelt, Natur und Digitalisierung 2017) and Denmark
(Anonymous 2017). Predation on sheep was also recorded
(without DNA analysis) in Italy (Fanin et al. 2018), although
attacks ceased immediately after protective fences were
installed (Fanin, personal communication). Evidence of live-
stock kills or expected ecological effects can generate negative
perceptions about the species (Heltai et al. 2013;Maran2015;
Levickaitė2015;Diosetal.2018). There has been no scien-
tific evidence of negative ecological impact. However, studies
across Europe show that golden jackals are generalist and
opportunistic omnivorous animals whose diet overlaps strong-
ly with that of red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in most areas
(Lanszki et al. 2016;Ćirovićet al. 2014), thus indicating pos-
sible competition between the two species (Farkas et al. 2017).
Whether decreases in hunting bags for deer species (e.g. fal-
low deer, Dama dama) in Hungary (especially in the southern
part) are related to increasing numbers of golden jackals re-
mains under discussion (Hatlauf et al. 2018a; Wallendums
2019). Declines in certain prey populations are better ex-
plained by diverse drivers including habitat destruction, deg-
radation, and fragmentation as well as diseases, invasive alien
species or interspecific competition, or by limiting factors,
such as severe winters (Graham et al. 2005; Sinclair et al.
2012). Policy-making regarding wildlife management is
sometimes driven by public perception more than scientific
evidence (Head 2016). In the case of golden jackals, their
evidence-based flexible and generalist diet strongly contrasts
with the perceived impact (e.g. shown in Hessenberger 2017)
on presumed prey species; however, it is sometimes these
perceptions combined with observed changes in golden jackal
populations that induce policy changes (Levickaitė2015;
European Commission 2016). Moreover, the aforementioned
reports of livestock depredations and complaints to authorities
have raised, a.o., the following policy-relevant questions in
countries recently colonized by golden jackals: Is the culling
of golden jackals possible within the applicable legislation,
and what are the most efficient methods? Should the golden
jackal be listed as a game species, a protected species, or as
neither of those? Should it be hunted year-round or only dur-
ing a specific hunting season? Will there be damage to live-
stock? How can potential damage be proven? Should there be
damage mitigation and/or compensation for losses in animal
husbandry? How can livestock be protected from golden
jackals? Is golden jackal monitoring necessary? Does a clear
legal framework, combined with damage mitigation and com-
pensation schemes, contribute to a better human-predator co-
existence? The answers to these questions might not be clear-
cut and are influenced by international wildlife conservation
legislation. The lack of legal clarity was evident, for example,
in Lithuania, where the golden jackal was first classified as an
invasive alien species; however, this status was later removed
(Levickaitė2015; Stratford 2015; European Commission
2016).
Implications of the aforementioned range expansion have
previously been discussed from a pan-European wildlife man-
agement and legal perspective. Applicability of international
instruments and implications for the status of the species (i.e.
game, protected, or no status) in Europe was analysed in pre-
vious studies (Trouwborst et al. 2015; Somsen and
Trouwborst 2019). However, the problems relating to the le-
gal status of the species within a federal state have never been
discussed. To help fill this gap, we examine the legal status of
golden jackals in Austria in depth and relate it to the broader
context of other Central European countries—Germany,
Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Italy,
Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. Austria has a strongly
decentralized governance structure. It has nine provinces
(Fig. 1), which are not only administrative units, but actually
hold legislative authority, distinct from the federal govern-
ment, for a number of issues including nature protection and
hunting. The situation of Austria is of particular interest for
various reasons. Firstly, it is situated between countries with
well-established golden jackal populations in Southeastern
Europe and countries with sporadic occurrence of the species
in the north and northwest (see map in Krofel et al. 2017), with
a cluster of reproductive golden jackal groups in Estonia
(Veeroja and Männil 2018), one reported reproduction in the
Czech Republic (Jirkůet al. 2018) and most recently a first
reproduction in Poland (Kowalczyk et al. 2020). Therefore,
we expect a great diversity of legal regulations among the
countries along this north-south gradient in terms of golden
jackal occurrence. Secondly, the first confirmed golden jackal
appeared in Austria relatively recently, in 1987 (Hoi-Leitner
and Kraus 1989), and the first reproductive group was found
only 20 years later, in 2007 (Herzig-Straschil 2008); further
groups were confirmed in 2016 (Hatlauf et al. 2017).
Our paper has three main objectives. Firstly, we provide
an in-depth analysis of the diverse federal and provincial
conservation and hunting laws in relation to the golden jack-
al in Austria. We examine the legal status that each province
currently assigns to the golden jackal. Secondly, we assess
the implications of the distribution of golden jackals against
the backdrop of records in each province and of the hetero-
geneous legislation of the neighbouring countries with a
view of possible future transnational management and/or
conservation efforts. Thirdly, we briefly examine the legis-
lation concerning golden jackals in central Europe in relation
to their colonization status. Furthermore, we identify the
most relevant obligations under current international and
European legal instruments which pertain to the manage-
ment and conservation of the golden jackal, in particular
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992), the
Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (the Bern Convention Council of Europe
25 Page 2 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1979), and Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of
Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora
(EU Habitats Directive 1992). We also assess to what extent
the concept of ‘Raubzeug’, which is comparable to an ex-
pression like ‘vermin’, is sometimes being applied to golden
jackals in one of Austrian’s province (e.g. see Thöne 2012).
Lastly, we contextualize the results regarding current golden
jackal distribution and analyse whether the provinces meet
their legal obligations under the CBD, the Bern Convention,
and the Habitats Directive. We use an integrated approach of
linking a literature review with the analysis of legislation
and golden jackal distribution in Austria, combined with a
review of secondary sources for neighbouring countries. We
aim at presenting an overview of existing laws, clarifying
applicable legal obligations, and exemplifying the diversity
of rules within a federal country with more than one admin-
istrative unit.
The colonization of Austria by the golden jackal and its
handling by the Austrian authorities at both federal and pro-
vincial levels can therefore serve as an example—positive or
negative—for other countries that will be in a similar situation
in the future, with a view of possible transboundary
cooperation.
Methods
Confirmed golden jackal presence
We summarized the confirmed golden jackal records in
Austria by reviewing the literature between 1987 and 2018.
We only included records based on publications of document-
ed hard facts (category ‘C1’based on the SCALP (Status and
Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population) criteria
(Molinari-Jobin et al. 2003), adapted for golden jackals by
Hatlauf et al. (2016b). Confirmed golden jackal records for
Austria had been reported by Hoi-Leitner and Kraus (1989),
Zedrosser (1995), Bauer and Suchentrunk (1995), Humer
(2006), Plass (2007), Herzig-Straschil (2008), Hatlauf and
Hackländer (2016a;b), and Hatlauf et al. (2017).
Legal analysis
For the legal analysis, we firstly examined which international
and national instruments apply specifically to the golden jack-
al. Secondly, we interpreted definitions and terms from these
instruments and assessed their implications for policy-
making.
When interpreting international legal instruments, we used
the standard rules of treaty interpretation as codified in the
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. As such,
we considered the binding text of their provisions, in their
context and in light of the instruments’overarching objec-
tives, and subsequently the accompanying documentation (in-
cluding guidance documents of the European Commission),
as well as case law and legal literature.
We interpreted national legislation on the grounds of § 6
of the Austrian Civil Code according to the following at-
tributes: wording, context, teleology, and genesis. We also
looked at corresponding case law and legal literature
dogmatically.
Fig. 1 Legal status of the golden jackal in Austria’s provinces. Handled
within the hunting law with an open season (dark grey); treated within the
hunting law but all year protected, therefore non huntable (mid-grey);
either automatically part of the nature conservation acts (light grey) or
specifically mentioned as strictly protected, like in Vienna (white with
grey point) (Status 2020)
Page 3 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Results
Golden jackal records
First occurrences of golden jackals in Austria’s provinces
showed 11 records between 1987 and 1995 (documented in
Hoi-Leitner and Kraus 1989; Bauer and Suchentrunk 1995;
Zedrosser 1995). This is reflecting the state of data at the time
of Austria joining the EU (on 1 January 1995) and therefore
from this point forward falling under the EU Habitats
Directive. Up until 2007, there were a total of 17 observations
of single and presumed vagrant golden jackals (Plass 2007;
Humer 2006). In 2007 first reproduction was then observed in
the Lake Neusiedl-Seewinkel National Park (Herzig-Straschil
2008). From 2007 to 2017, a minimum of 40 single records
(roadkills, camera trap pictures, or accidentally shot individ-
uals) indicated sporadic presence of vagrant individuals on the
search for mating partners and territories in the provinces
Burgenland, Lower Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Upper
Austria (Hatlauf et al. 2017; and unpublished data).
Additionally, actively collected data through bioacoustic sur-
veys officially confirmed the second reproduction in 2016
(Hatlauf and Hackländer 2016a), and both pictures and sur-
veys reconfirmed reproduction and a minimum of three to four
more groups in the following season (2016/2017)
1
(Hatlauf
and Hackländer 2016a,2016b; Hatlauf et al. 2017).
Legal instruments on the conservation of the golden
jackal: international law
There are several legal instruments that are at least potentially
relevant to the golden jackal (Table 1). On an international
level CITES (1973), the CMS (1979) and the CBD (1992)
cover certain large carnivores. The broad scope of the CBD,
which covers all biodiversity, also encompasses golden
jackals. CITES and the CMS currently do not apply to golden
jackals in Europe, however (CITES only lists the species for
India, and the species is not listed at all under the CMS). The
golden jackal is not covered by the IAS Regulation (2014)
either, as it is not included in the ‘list of invasive alien species
of Union concern’(European Union 2017) and, moreover, is
not considered an alien species in the first place (European
Commission 2016; Trouwborst et al. 2015; Somsen and
Trouwborst 2019). As discussed below in further detail, the
CBD, the Bern Convention, and the EU Habitats Directive are
indeed of relevance to golden jackals in Austria.
Convention on Biological Diversity
According to its Article 1, the CBD has three objectives: (1)
the conservation of biological diversity, including diversity
within species and between species, (2) the sustainable use
of its components, and (3) the fair and equitable sharing of
the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources.
Inter alia, the Convention commits its parties, including
Austria, to the taking of various in situ measures
(Harrop 2011). Based on Article 8 par. a and b of the CBD,
Austria shall, ‘as far as possible and as appropriate’, establish
a system of protected areas and regulate the use of biological
resources vital for the conservation of biological diversity
within and outside of protected areas. Under Article 8 par. f
and k of the CBD, Austria is also obliged to promote the
recovery of threatened species, for example, by implementing
plans or management strategies, and to either develop or main-
tain necessary legislation as well as regulatory provisions for
the protection of threatened species and populations. In situ
measures should conserve ecosystems and natural habitats
1
Summary of more collected data will be available: www.goldschakal.at
Table 1 International and
national legal instruments (italic:
instruments that were analysed in
view of the golden jackal for
Austria)
Legal instruments Level
CITES –The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora of 3 March 1973
International
CMS –The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 23
June 1979
International
CBD –Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 International
Bern Convention - on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats of 19
October 1979
International
EU Habitats Directive –the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
International
EU IAS Regulation –No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
October 2014 on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive
alien species
International
Animal Welfare Act National
Conservation Acts Provincial
Hunting Laws Provincial
25 Page 4 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

and maintain or recover viable populations in their natural
surroundings.
Bern Convention
The Bern Convention aims to conserve all (European) wild
flora and fauna and their natural habitats, especially those
species and habitats whose conservation requires the cooper-
ation of several countries, and to promote such cooperation
(Article 1). The focus lies on endangered and vulnerable (in-
cluding migratory) species that are listed in Appendices I to
III. Appendix IV lists prohibited means and methods of kill-
ing, capture, and other forms of exploitation.
The golden jackal is not listed in Appendix II or III.
Therefore, only general conservation obligations are applica-
ble. The principal of these obligations follows from Article 2,
which requires parties, including Austria, to ‘take requisite
measures to maintain the population of wild flora and fauna
at, or adapt it to, a level which corresponds in particular to
ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking
account of economic and recreational requirements and the
sub-species, varieties or forms at risk locally’. This obligation
applies to all wildlife, including the golden jackal. What the
‘level’referred to in Article 2 should amount to in concrete
instances would appear to depend in part on the circumstances
involved and on the opinion of the party concerned. However,
as discussed in more detail elsewhere, it does appear safe to
assume that species should at a minimum be conserved with a
view to avoiding their becoming threatened in terms of nation-
al or international Red Lists (Bowman et al. 2010; Trouwborst
et al. 2017a). Similarly, Article 2’s formulation apparently
suggests that conservation considerations should take prece-
dence over socio-economic considerations in cases of irrecon-
cilable conflict between the two (Bowman et al. 2010;
Trouwborst et al. 2017a).
EU Habitats Directive
The EU Habitats Directive aims to safeguard biodiversity by
conserving natural habitats and wild fauna and flora while
considering economic, social, cultural, and regional needs.
The main focus of this Directive is maintaining or restoring
natural habitats and animal species. Under Article 14 of the
Directive, Member States shall ensure that the exploitation
and taking of wild animals listed in Annex V is compatible
with maintaining them in a favourable conservation status
(FCS). Furthermore, under Article 15, Member States shall
prohibit certain means of capture and killing of animals be-
longing to Annex V species. Exceptions (derogations) are
possible to this prohibition of Article 15 if three conditions
are met, enumerated in Article 16. First, the exception must be
for one of the purposes mentioned in Article 16. These include
research, reintroduction, prevention of serious damage to
livestock, public health, and ‘imperative reasons of overriding
public interest’. Second, the exception can only be allowed if
it is proven that the purpose involved cannot be achieved in
another way. Third, the exception may not jeopardize the
achievement or maintenance of a FCS.
As a Member State of the EU (since 1995), Austria must
comply with the Habitats Directive, which is legally binding
and directly enforceable in national courts (Evans et al. 2013).
Under the Habitats Directive, the golden jackal is a ‘species of
Community interest’,listedinAnnexV.Aspeciesof
Community interest is defined as a species occurring within
the European territory of the Member States, which is either (i)
endangered, (ii) vulnerable, (iii) rare, or (iv) endemic, and
requiring particular attention for reasons of the specific nature
of their habitat, the potential impact of their exploitation on
their habitat, or their conservation status (Article 1(g)).
Species of Community interest can not only be listed in
Annex V but also in Annex II or IV, which require desig-
nation of protected areas and strict protection, respectively.
However, these stricter regimes were not chosen for the
golden jackal (Trouwborst et al. 2015). Exploiting or taking
golden jackals, therefore, is legally possible when (a) it is
ensured they are kept in a FCS, (b) the population is mon-
itored (which is an independent obligation under Article 11,
but also necessary to ensure FCS), and (c) the obligation
concerning prohibited means and modes of capture and
killing is observed. The Habitats Directive defines the con-
servation status of a species as ‘the sum of influences acting
on the species concerned that may affect the long-term dis-
tribution and abundance of its populations’within the
European territory (Article 1(i)).
A conservation status is considered ‘favourable’when
three cumulative components are met: (i) population dynam-
ics data of the golden jackal indicate that it is maintaining itself
on a long-term basis as a viable component of its natural
habitats, (ii) the natural range of the golden jackal is neither
being reduced nor is likely to be reduced for the foreseeable
future, and (iii) there is, and will probably continue to be, a
sufficiently large habitat to maintain the golden jackal’spop-
ulations on a long-term basis (Article 1(i)). The precise mean-
ing of the term FCS remains subject to some confusion and
controversy (Epstein et al. 2016; Trouwborst et al. 2017b).
Uncertainty remains, for instance, regarding the important
question at what level the FCS should be achieved and mea-
sured precisely—especially, whether population dynamics da-
ta must be obtained and applied for the territory of each
Member State, or for the entire EU, or at the level of concrete
(transboundary) populations, or otherwise (Epstein et al.
2016; Trouwborst et al. 2017b). In a recent ruling, however,
the Court of Justice of the EU provided some further clarity, in
a case concerning the hunting of wolves (Canis lupus)in
Finland (Case C-674/17, 10 October 2019). Importantly, the
Court clarified that there is scope, in principle, to focus on
Page 5 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

conservation status at the level of discrete transboundary pop-
ulations shared by various EU Member States. According to
the ruling, conservation status and the impact of derogations
thereon mustbe assessed both (1) at a local level and (2) on the
scale of the territory of the Member State involved, or, in
Member States straddling more than one biogeographical
region, the scale of the biogeographical region in question
within the Member State, or, ‘if the natural range of the
species so requires and, to the extent possible, at a cross-
border level’(Case C-674/17, par. 56). Unfortunately,
the Court did not explain under what conditions precisely a
transboundary approach is appropriate, including the question
whether it is necessary to have in place a transboundary
population-level management plan (see Linnell et al. 2008;
Trouwborst et al. 2017b). The ruling does clarify that no
account may be taken of those parts of a transboundary
populationwhich are located in non-EU Member States which
are ‘not bound by an obligation of strict protection of species
of interest for the European Union’(Case C-674/17, par. 60).
Regarding the local level, the Court observed that ‘the assess-
ment of the impact of a derogation at the level of the territory
of a local population is generally necessary in order to
determine its impact on the conservation status of the popula-
tion concerned on a larger scale’(par. 59). In addition, the
‘conservation status of a population at national or biogeo-
graphical level depends also on the cumulative impact of the
various derogations affecting local areas’(par. 59). Moreover,
Member State authorities must ensure that the granting of
derogations does not jeopardize the ‘long-term preservation
of the dynamics and social stability of the species in question’
(par. 57).
Applying this now to golden jackals and to Austria, it
would appear that in order to comply with their obligation to
ensure a FCS for the golden jackal, the relevant Austrian au-
thorities must consider both the impact of management mea-
sures at local levels and ensure that a FCS is achieved or
maintained at a larger scale, which may be (i) the levels of
each of the two biogeographical regions within Austria (alpine
and continental), and/or perhaps (ii) the national level, and/or
perhaps (iii) the level of the transboundary population(s) of
which the Austrian golden jackals are a part. Whether, and if
so under what conditions, options (ii) and (iii) are legally
viable remains unclear, although having a transboundary
population-level management plan in place would clearly in-
crease the chances of a transboundary approach standing up in
court. It is clear, in any case, that even when assuming that a
transboundary approach is appropriate, no account may be
taken of golden jackals in Switzerland, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Albania, North
Macedonia, Moldova, the Ukraine, Turkey, and other third
countries beyond the EU. The European Commission has en-
dorsed a transboundary approach with regard to the large car-
nivore species wolf, brown bear (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx
(Lynx lynx), and wolverine (Gulo gulo) (European
Commission 2007; Linnell et al. 2008), and the Court has
now apparently confirmed that such an approach can indeed,
in principle, be appropriate for wolves (Case C-674/17).
Although a similar approach might be appropriate for golden
jackals, this cannot blindly be assumed. On the one hand,
there could well be benefits to the exchange of information
and experiences, and the coordination of golden jackal man-
agement, across jurisdictional boundaries, whether internal or
international. On the other hand, the smaller home ranges and
higher densities of golden jackals imply that they are less
dependent on transboundary cooperation to achieve popula-
tion viability, and golden jackals are also less prone to the
conflicts that are typically associated with the larger carni-
vores (Trouwborst et al. 2015).
Legal instruments on the conservation of the golden
jackal: national law
According to Article 11 (1) no. 8 of the Austrian Constitution,
animal welfare is regulated by the Federation (to the extent
that the Federation is not entitled to legislate a matter accord-
ing to other provisions). Matters regarding practicing hunting
or fishing (‘Ausübung der Jagd oder der Fischerei’) and mat-
ters for nature conservation are explicitly not covered by
Article 11 (1) no 8. of the Austrian Constitution, but of
Article 15 of the Austrian Constitution (so-called ‘general
clause towards provinces’), therefore leaving the regulation
of hunting and fishing, and nature conservation in the hands
of the provinces.
Concerning animal welfare, a nationwide Austrian
Animal Welfare Act exists. We therefore summarize the
golden jackal’s national status in this matter first.
Concerning hunting and nature conservation, there is no
nationwide hunting act or nature conservation act. We
therefore summarize the results for each province (Table 2
and Fig. 1). The provinces (in compliance with superordi-
nate legal instruments) can autonomously regulate which
wild animals are defined as huntable game or protected
game in the hunting acts and which wild animals are
defined as protected in nature conservation acts.
Austrian Animal Welfare Act (national status)
The Austrian Animal Welfare Act applies to all animals. Specific
paragraphs, however, are only applicable to vertebrates, cepha-
lopods and decapods. These paragraphs cover, for example, the
prohibition to perform tests on animals or requirements for ani-
mal keeping. Killing animals without due reason is prohibited.
Furthermore, with only a few exceptions (p.e. for scientific pur-
poses), killing vertebrates may only be carried out by veterinar-
ians. In this context, one exception to the scope of application of
the Austrian Animal Welfare Actexists:Duetoits§3(4)the
25 Page 6 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Austrian Animal Welfare Act does not apply to hunting. Thus,
practicing hunting within the given limits provided by hunting
acts of the provinces does not fall under the Austrian Animal
Welfare Act. Practicing hunting outside these limits (for example
killing wild animals that are not declared to be game by hunting
acts of the provinces), however, is not exempted.
Hunting and conservation law: provincial status
Burgenland
The Hunting Act of Burgenland mentions the golden jackal
since an amendment that entered into force in May 2017 (§ 3
Table 2 Legal status of the golden jackal in Austria’sprovinces(Status 2020)
National status Provincial status
international and
regional national
Hunting
Acts/Hunting
Regulations
Nature Conservation
Acts
CBD
Bern
Convention
EU
Habitats
Directive
Austrian
Animal
Welfare
Act
protected
timely
protected
all year
strictly
protected in NCA
Burgenland
basic regime
no species named especially
basic regime
golden jackal not listed in Appendix II or III
Annex V
‘species of Community interest’
protection if non-huntable due to provincial status
§3 (4)
since
2019
§ 1 (1)
par. j
since
12/2020
§ 1 no.39
up from
2017
§ 3 (1)
no. 1
Carinthia since 2018
§ 4 par. a
Lower
Austria § 17 (3)
Upper
Austria
since
2012
Annex
I par. a
Salzburg since 1993
§4 no.1
Styria
since 2014
§2 (1)
par. d
Tyrol §5 (2)
Vienna Annex I
Vorarlberg §6 (1)
Page 7 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

(1) no. 1). The golden jackal was not explicitly named in the
hunting act before that. And even after May 2017, there was
no defined open hunting season for the golden jackal in the
Burgenland Regulation on hunting periods. However, § 1 (1)
par. j of the Burgenland Regulation, which entered into force
on the 6th November 2019 (Provincial Law Gazette of
Burgenland 2019/79) now defines a hunting period for the
golden jackal from the 1st of October to the 15th of May,
without given minimum or maximum numbers yet. Defining
a hunting period in the Burgenland Regulation on hunting
periods did not require a separate resolution by the provincial
parliament. The provincial government could therefore on its
own determine a hunting period for the golden jackal.
Carinthia
The Carinthian government defined the golden jackal as game
in § 4 par. a of the Hunting Act of Carinthia. Initiated by the
official Carinthian hunting organization the new amendment
entered into force in March 2018. This initiative is based on
the opinion that (1) the golden jackal should be considered an
invasive alien species—contrary to widely accepted defini-
tions adopted under international legal instruments, according
to which the golden jackal is not an invasive alien species
(Trouwborst et al. 2015; European Commission 2016)—and
(2) at the same time tends to get confused with the fox, and (3)
in view of European law obligations is an unwanted and non-
native game species (see preparatory materials relating to the
amendment: provincial government bill, October 2017, p. 2,
to § 4 par. a). Thus, the golden jackal has been listed as game.
Up to now, however, the Carinthian Regulation on hunting
does not set an open hunting season for the golden jackal. As
the Carinthian hunting organization is a public body and in
charge of this Regulation, the executive board of the
Carinthian hunting organization could itself determine hunt-
ing periods for the golden jackal.
Lower Austria
The Hunting Act of Lower Austria does not explicitly mention
the golden jackal as game. Neither do other hunting-related
laws in this province. As the golden jackal is listed in Annex V
of the EU’s Habitats Directive, § 17 (3) of the nature conser-
vation Act of Lower Austria is applicable. The golden jackal
therefore must not be deliberately disturbed, captured, injured,
killed, kept or removed. § 64 (1) of the Hunting Act of Lower
Austria is a provision on so-called Raubzeug, which most
closely translates as ‘vermin’and refers to mammals and bird
species that are not included in the nature conservation nor
hunting law and that might cause damage to game species.
According to this provision, hunters need to take care of game
and prevent damage by vermin, such as straying domestic
dogs and cats. According to a Lower Austrian hunting
association official, the golden jackal is a protected species
(Lebersorger 2009). By contrast, according to other docu-
ments, the golden jackal is to be handled as vermin in
Lower Austria. In particular, these include statements by hunt-
ing association representatives (Alois Gansterer in Thöne
2012) and recommendations in hunting warden manuals
(Anonymous s.a). The classification as vermin has multiple
explanations. For example, one line of reasoning is that the
species is neither listed as huntable game nor is it specifically
mentioned in the nature conservation. The classification is
therefore left open for additional options. Nevertheless, there
is no official provision by a regional administration stating
that the golden jackal should be classified as vermin,
‘Raubzeug’. An official legal classification for golden jackals
in Lower Austria that aligns with international policies would
clarify their protected or hunting status - but is missing at the
moment.
Upper Austria
The Hunting Act of Upper Austria initially did not list the
golden jackal as huntable game. With an amendment in
2012, it was then defined as game in Annex I par. a. The
species was previously considered to only occur in other
countries; as it now was spotted in Austria, the legislators
included the golden jackal in the list of huntable game, en-
abling the taking of regulatory measures. Simultaneous to the
amendment of the hunting act, the Upper Austrian Regulation
on hunting periods was adapted. Due to § 1 (1) of the Hunting
Regulation of Upper Austria, the golden jackal can be hunted
but is protected from 16th March to 30th September. Similar
to Burgenland, changing this Regulation would again not re-
quire a separate resolution in the provincial parliament; the
provincial government could itself change these hunting pe-
riods in the future.
Salzburg
In Salzburg, the golden jackal was already defined as game in
the original version of § 4 no. 1 of the hunting act of Salzburg
in 1993. Still, similar as in Carinthia, there are no defined
hunting periods for the golden jackal. As such, this species
is protected all year. In 2002 the golden jackal was then in-
cluded as well in § 72 (1) no. 2 of the Hunting Act of Salzburg
(still, all year protected).
Styria
Up to the 17th amendment to the Styrian Hunting Act, the
golden jackal was not defined as game. Only since 2014, the
golden jackal was inserted in § 2 (1) par. d of the Styrian
Hunting Act. The reason for this adaption was considered
‘useful’, as the golden jackal already occurred sporadically
25 Page 8 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

in Styria (see preparatory materials relating to the amendment:
provincial government bill, October 2014, p. 1, to § 2 (1) and
(3)). Only recently, entering into force on 19 December 2020,
hunting periods were set (1st October until 15th March),
added in § 1 no. 39 of the Styrian Regulation on hunting
periods.
Tyrol
In Tyrol, the golden jackal is neither mentioned in the Hunting
Act of Tyrol nor in other hunting-related laws. § 5 (2) of the
Nature Conservation Regulation of Tyrol protects species
named in Appendix 6 of the Regulation, namely ‘all types of
non-huntable mammals’. Particularly, (same as in Lower
Austria) it is prohibited to deliberately disturb, capture, injure,
kill,keeporremovesuchspecies,except,forexample,for
scientific purposes. As the golden jackal is not defined as
game in the hunting related laws in Tyrol, the nature conser-
vation provisions are applicable.
Vienna
The golden jackal is neither mentioned in the Hunting Act of
Vienna nor in other hunting-related laws. However, the
Regulation on Nature Conservation in Vienna explicitly de-
fines the golden jackal as a strictly protected species in Annex
I. For such strictly protected animals, all forms of capturing or
killing, regardless of the method used, are prohibited due to
the nature conservation of Vienna.
Vorarlberg
As with Tyrol, the golden jackal is not mentioned in hunting-
related laws in Vorarlberg. Under § 6 (1) of the Nature
Conservation Regulation of Vorarlberg, all wild mammals
that are not declared huntable game in hunting laws are
protected by the Regulation. Due to § 5 (1) of the Nature
Conservation Regulation of Vorarlberg, it is prohibited to de-
liberately disturb, capture, injure, kill, keep or remove such
species.
Discussion and Conclusions
For Austria, the status of the golden jackal must be considered
at both national and provincial level. Three international legal
instruments set out obligations for the country at a national
level: the CBD, the Bern Convention, and the Habitats
Directive. The latter clearly indicates that monitoring is oblig-
atory, and sound monitoring is all the more important if a
measure like lethal management is declared desirable. As the
golden jackal does not have a strict protection status on the
basis of the international legislation, the species can in
principle be included in hunting laws of the provinces and
thus be hunted under the condition that it has a favourable
conservation status (FCS) under the Habitats Directive.
Nevertheless, to set open hunting seasons, reliable monitoring
data have to prove that the FCS has been reached or that the
goal of reaching it is not affected by hunting. As mentioned, in
Austria practicing hunting and matters of nature conservation
are left in the hands of the provinces and therefore no nation-
wide regulation is applicable. This federal system is, of
course, compatible with European law (Article 4 (2) Treaty
on the European Union; Article 23d Austrian Constitution,
von Bogdandy and Schill 2010). This delegation of authority
to the provinces entails specific challenges to ensure a nation-
wide compliance with European standards; as it is, Austria as
an EU member state that remains ultimately responsible for
meeting its obligations under the Habitats Directive. If the
golden jackal is not declared a game species, the correspond-
ing protective provisions of the provincial nature conservation
acts apply automatically. Furthermore, where the species is
not declared as game (with or without an open hunting season)
under the provincial hunting laws of the provinces, the killing
of golden jackals is only possible under the rules of the
Austrian Animal Welfare Act.
Hunting and conservation
Existing legal obligations at international and regional levels
restrict Austria and its provinces from completely preventing
the colonization by golden jackals. This species is not to be
regarded as alien invasive species, and the eradication of
pioneering individuals would be at odds with current interna-
tional law (Trouwborst et al. 2015; European Commission
2016; Somsen and Trouwborst 2019). Nevertheless, the gold-
en jackal can be legally declared as game with an open hunt-
ing season as long as the FCS is maintained, or its achieve-
ment not hindered. However, to ascertain the conservation
status of the population, systematic monitoring measures must
be in place. In its absence, according to international regula-
tions, there are three options regarding their status under
Austrian provincial legislation: 1) an open hunting period can-
not be set, 2) the species must remain protected under the
provincial nature conservation laws, or 3) the species must
be protected year-round in the respective hunting law. This
‘year-round-protection’can enable researchers to gather more
data on jackal presence in given areas. Possible hunting quotas
can be assessed only with this basic knowledge. A main com-
ponent for the collection of golden jackal records by the prov-
inces that have an open hunting season (e.g. Upper Austria,
Burgenland) is a compulsory declaration of animals shot. In
provinces without an open hunting season, irrespective of the
status within the nature conservation legislation, the collection
of records is of utmost importance for future management
Page 9 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

decisions. Provinces should therefore disclose accidentally
shot animals.
Theuseoftheterm‘Raubzeug’has varied historically and is
found in former hunting laws and regulations of Burgenland,
Upper Austria, Styria, Tyrol and Vienna. Furthermore, the
German Federal Hunting Law used the term until 1976.
‘Raubzeug’refers to predator species that might kill or injure
game. The term was used not only for stray domestic dogs and
cats, but also for native (e.g. rats and crows) and non-native
wild species (e.g. raccoon dogs, Nyctereutes procyonoides).
The term, however, was never consistently understood among
stakeholders (Stinglwagner et al. 2009; Seilmeier and Walz
1983). In Lower Austria, in the case of some corvids, the status
changed throughout the years: At first, they were listed as
‘Raubzeug’, then as protected species and lastly became game
within hunting law. To avoid a similar back-and-forth process
regarding the legal status of the golden jackal, its inclusion as a
game species in provincial law or its inclusion within provincial
conservation law would help to clear any uncertainty or
discrepancies.
Following the legal interpretation that non-invasive
species that are not listed in the hunting law are automatically
covered by the Conservation Act of Lower Austria, the golden
jackal is protected under nature conservation law in four
provinces (i.e. Vorarlberg, Tyrol, Lower Austria, and
Vienna). The other five provinces list the golden jackal in their
hunting laws. However, only Upper Austria, Burgenland and -
most recently –Styria have set an open hunting season,
meaning, that from 1st October to 15th March it is allowed
to hunt the golden jackal, without any minimum or maximum
quotas. While in general hunting of golden jackals is permis-
sible under EU law, proof regarding the maintenance of the
FCS is required, and pioneering individuals must neither be
eradicated nor handled as an invasive species.Two of the
provinces that included the golden jackal in their hunting laws
are protecting it all yearwhich is currently corresponding to
the international and regional obligations.In general, it has to
be convincingly shown thatproposed hunting will not prevent
the development of the population towards the FCS and the
ultimate achievement of such a status (European Commission
2007).
Transboundary efforts and neighbouring countries
Similar to other species, transboundary management of gold-
en jackals that aligns with respective biogeographical areas
and defined populations would presumably be more effective
than management that strictly corresponds to political bound-
aries (Thornton et al. 2018; Trouwborst and Hackländer
2018). Direct neighbours to Austria with persistent presence
of golden jackals include Slovenia (Krofel 2009;Krofeletal.
2017), Italy (Fanin et al. 2018;Lapinietal.2018), and
Hungary (Szabó et al. 2009). In the Czech Republic first
sightings were documented in Koubek and Cerveny (2007),
and first reproduction was confirmed in 2017 (Jirkůet al.
2018). In Poland, reproduction was only confirmed in 2019
(Kowalczyk et al. 2020), and in the same year, territorial gold-
en jackal groups were confirmed in Slovakia by means of
bioacoustic monitoring (Guimarães et al. 2019a,b). In the
remaining neighbouring countries—Switzerland (first record
2012), Liechtenstein (first record 2018), and Germany (first
record 1998)—no reproducing golden jackals have been con-
firmed to date.
As the golden jackal distribution is obviously in a very
dynamic process (Lapini et al. 2018) - what is the legal status
in Central European countries with relatively new occurrence
or longer known presence and what are the latest adaptations?
In Austria, in 2007, the golden jackal had a nationwide
protected status and was only listed as a game species (all year
protected) in the province of Salzburg. Plass (2007)therefore
considered Austria as acting responsibly compared to other
countries. Likewise, Rutkowski et al. (2015)arguedthatthe
golden jackal should be treated as a protected species in newly
colonized countries and, given the difficulties to collect hard
data on the species presence, a careful assessment of this new
situation is needed. In Germany, the golden jackal is not listed
in the federal hunting law and therefore automatically
protected (Hatlauf and Hackländer 2018). In Poland, the gold-
en jackal was listed as a game species only in 2019 and given
an open season from 1st August to end of February (Minister
Środowiska 2017), with a maximum quota of 1270 individ-
uals set for the hunting period of 2019/20 (Jurszo 2019). In the
Czech Republic, the species has no legal status, and it is not
listed in the hunting act (Trouwborst et al. 2015), indicating
that killing is not forbidden but can be permitted by the nature
conservation authority (M.Šálek, personal comment). In
Slovakia, the golden jackal has been listed as game since
2013, with an open hunting season from 1st of August to
end of February (Ministerstva pôdohospodárstva a rozvoja
vidieka Slovenskej republiky 2013). In Hungary, jackals can
be hunted as game year-round (FVM rendelet a vad
védelméről, a vadgazdálkodásról, valamint a vadászatról
szóló 1996). In Slovenia, the legal status changed back and
forth, from protected to game species,again to protected (with
active monitoring efforts) and finally to game with an open
season and a set quota, starting in 2020 (Mladenovičet al.
2015; Potočnyk et al. 2019). In contrast, Italy lists the golden
jackal as a specially protected species (Gazetta Ufficiale della
republica Italiana 1992); and Lapini et al. (2011)urgedforthe
adoption of a conservation plan. In Switzerland, the species is
protected implicitly because it is not listed in the federal hunt-
ing law (Bundesgesetz über die Jagd und den Schutz
wildlebender Säugetiere und Vögel 2017; Hatlauf et al.
2018b) and is therefore a protected species as well. In the
principality of Liechtenstein, the golden jackal has been a
protected species since 2017, even before the first individual
25 Page 10 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

was confirmed (Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt 2017)
(summarized visualization in Fig. 2).
This overview of the legal regulations shows that not only
in our country of focus, Austria, but also in other countries on
a transnational level, the differences can be diametrical. As
Pyšková et al. (2016) pointed out, opinions (and also thereaf-
ter legal implications) about this species’status in Europe will
likely also differ between regions or countries in the future,
and with good reasons. This leads us to the following
reflections:
An important consideration regarding the golden jackal is
the level of systematic assessment and the scale, or scales, at
which the FCS should be looked at, as discussed above. FCS
is most likely not yet reached within any single province of
Austria. By contrast, when setting the scale on the broadest
transboundary level, the estimated European-scale population
of 97-117 K individuals (LCIE 2018) might indicate the FCS
has been reached, but only at this broad continental scale.
However, as shown above, neither the provincial nor the
continental level would appear to provide adequate bench-
marks in the context of Austria’s obligations under the
Habitats Directive. The previously mentioned recent EU court
ruling (Case C-674/17, 10 October 2019) on the possible
levels of populations might provide a starting point, but more
comprehensive guidelines are needed. The aforementioned
continental population estimate is possibly an underestimate,
as it might exclude freshly settled groups (even though these
numbers might not be remarkably high). The basis for an
assessment of the FCS in ‘newly colonized’areas might in-
clude estimates of population size and trend within but also
beyond country borders that are based on chance records in
addition to systematic monitoring. The quality of data must be
carefully considered when generating these estimates and
quality criteria are needed. Solely relying on chance observa-
tions like roadkill would lead to an overestimation of the set-
tled distribution area by most likely recording only vagrant
individuals. On the other hand, relying solely on bioacoustic
stimulation in areas of recently settled golden jackals, of low
Fig. 2 Simplified visualization of the legal status of the golden jackal in
Central European countries (for Austrian provinces, see details in Fig. 1):
‘strictly protected’= light blue-grey in IT, Vienna, LI; ‘non huntable’=
light grey, meaning, that it is not listed within hunting law (no game) and
therefore automatically protected (Lower Austria, DE, CH); ‘non
huntable’= mid grey, listed within the hunting law (game) but all year
protected (Carinthia, Salzburg); ‘not regulated’= mid green-grey, indi-
cating that killing is not forbidden but needs permission by the nature
conservation authority (CZ); ‘huntable (game, open, and closed season)’
= darker/mid grey (SI, SK, Burgenland, Upper Austria, Styria); ‘huntable
(game)’= dark grey, indicating that there is an open season all year (HU)
(Status 2020)
Page 11 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

density with most likely low detection rate (unpublished data)
could lead to an underestimation of the true distribution due to
false absences: non-detection does not necessarily imply ab-
sence; even more so in the case of the very secretive golden
jackal.
Consensus, cooperation, and future topics
Regarding our initial questions from the introduction, lethal
control of golden jackals can be in accordance with interna-
tional legislation as long as it does not interfere with the
achievement or maintenance of a FCS, and applicable
methods are in conformity with those rules. If hunting periods
are desired, open seasons should be applied in consideration
of the reproductive biology of the species, at a time period,
when the young are already independent. As damage to live-
stock by golden jackals was previously recorded (Fanin et al.
2018), possible compensations should be discussed (Linnell
et al. 2008). Although there are indications that compensation
does not necessarily improve tolerance with some stake-
holders, it might still result in better acceptance among affect-
ed farmers (Rigg et al. 2011). Furthermore, monitoring of
golden jackals is necessary to regularly assess the conserva-
tion status and, moreover, to help promote human–predator
coexistence in combination with clear management and legal
regulations. Opinions, attitudes, interpretations and misinfor-
mation can influence policy-making related to wildlife. For
example, in Lithuania, the golden jackal was initially listed
as an alien species, although the animals were expanding nat-
urally and did not appear because of introductions by humans
(Trouwborst et al. 2015; Rutkowski et al. 2015; European
Commission 2016). Besides the assessment of the spread
and occurrence of golden jackals in Europe, examining behav-
ioural ecology, feeding behaviour, diet, empirical levels of
predation, and ecosystem services need to be investigated
thoroughly and included in the discussions about the species.
To find consensus and cooperation for an integrated man-
agement between hunting, conservation and science, new rules
(e.g. integration of agreed legal tools, support in the decision
process, common methodology in monitoring and assessment,
and open discussions) need to replace old concepts or
entrenched practices. Different cultural models might also be
relevant for further consideration of communicating species
management (Maran 2015). In 2016, a hunter shot a golden
jackal in Switzerland (where it is protected countrywide) by
accident, expecting it to be a red fox, and he immediately re-
ported this mistake to the authorities (Amt für Jagd und
Fischerei Graubünden 2016). This kind of voluntary declara-
tion of accidentally shot golden jackals would greatly benefit
Austria’s provinces in the determination of a FCS. It would
furthermore not only contribute to long-term monitoring, but
also inform ongoing decision-making about the legal status for
golden jackals in the provinces. No matter the consequence, we
urge for truthful cooperation and transparency rather than se-
crecy in hunting practices or species conservation. Furthermore,
we recommend that the provincial status of the golden jackal
should be revisited with regard to international law and in align-
ment to the species’ecology, conservation status and experi-
ences in other European countries (e.g. a countrywide monitor-
ing to assess the population was carried out in Slovenia).
Because of assumed preferred habitats and previous models
(Hatlauf et al. 2016a), monitoring areas for Austria might have
to be adapted to the already existing European reporting re-
quirements under Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive, in
this case, specifying an assessment divided into alpine and con-
tinental region. Based on our findings we suggest an evaluation
of the status of golden jackals in each of Austria’s provinces
with continuous monitoring of the development of the popula-
tioninEurope.
Acknowledgements Open Access funding provided by University of
Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU). J.H. is a recipient
of the DOC Fellowship of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the
Institute of Wildlife Biology and Game management. A.T. was funded
by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, under the Ius
Carnivoris project (grant no. 452-13-014). We would like to express our
gratitude to colleagues who provided information from certain
countries—Hubert Potočnik, Yannik Fanin, Nuno Guimarães, and
Martin Šálek. We furthermore thank our colleagues Brady Mattsson,
Robin Sandfort, Marcela Suarez-Rubio, Miklós Heltai, and Laurent
Schley for valuable comments regarding the topic or the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adap-
tation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, pro-
vide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were
made. The images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article's CreativeCommons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a
credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's
Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Amt für Jagd und Fischerei Graubünden (2016) Goldschakal in
Graubünden. Kanton Graubünden. https://www.gr.ch/DE/Medien/
Mitteilungen/MMStaka/2016/Seiten/2016011302.aspx. Accessed
30 Sept 2020
Anonymous (2017) Goldschakal tötete Lämmer in Nordschleswig. Der
Nordschleswiger. https://www.nordschleswiger.dk/de/
nordschleswig/goldschakal-toetete-laemmer-nordschleswig.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
25 Page 12 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Anonymous (s.a) Jagdschutz. In: NÖ Jagdrecht http://docplayer.org/
73466848-Noe-jagdrecht-1-fusszeile.html. p 229. Accessed 30
Sept 2020
Arnold J, Humer A, Heltai M, Murariu D, Spassov N, Hackländer K
(2012) Current status and distribution of golden jackals Canis
aureus in Europe. Mammal Rev 42:1–11
Bauer K, Suchentrunk F (1995) Further distribution of the golden jackal-
Canis aureus L., 1758 in Austria. Z Säugetierkd 60:307–309
Bouchet ST (2017) Le chacal doré observé pour la première fois en
France. Le dauphiné. https://www.ledauphine.com/insolite/2017/
12/14/le-chacal-dore-observe-pour-la-premiere-fois-en-france.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Bowman M, Redgwell C, Davies P (2010) Lyster’s international wildlife
law, 2nd. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bundesgesetz über die Jagd und den Schutz wildlebender Säugetiere und
Vögel (Jagdgesetz, JSG) (2017) https://www.admin.ch/opc/de/
classified-compilation/19860156/201705010000/922.0.pdf.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992 https://
www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf.Accessed30Sept2020
ĆirovićD, PenezićA, MilenkovićM, PaunovićM (2014) Winter diet
composition of the golden jackal (Canis aureus L., 1758) in Serbia.
Mamm Biol 79(2):132–137
CITES (1973) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora of 3 March 1973 https://www.
cites.org/eng/disc/text.php. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
CMS (1979) The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals of 23 June 1979, https://www.cms.int/
sites/default/files/instrument/CMS-text.en_.PDF. Accessed 30
Sept 2020
Dios C, Ulicsni V, Molnar Z (2018) The background of human-wildlife
conflicts in connection with the golden jackal. In: Giannatos G,
Banea OC, Hatlauf J, Sillero-Zubiri C, Georgiadis C, Legakis A
(eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Jackal Symposium,
Marathon Bay, Attiki Greece. Hell. Zool. Arch. No. 9, p 98
Epstein Y, Lopez-Bao JV, Chapron G (2016) A legal-ecological under-
standing of favorable conservation status for species in Europe.
Conserv Lett 9:81–88
EU Habitats Directive (1992) the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21
May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:31992L0043&from=EN.Accessed30Sept2020
European Commission (2007) Guidance document on the strict protec-
tion of animal species of Community interest under the Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC. European Commission, Brussels
European Commission (2016) Golden jackal should not be treated as an
alien species in Europe. Sci Environ Policy 443:1–2
European Union (2017) Invasive Alien Species of Union concern, https://
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/pdf/IAS_brochure_species.pdf.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Evans D, Demeter A, Gajdo P, Halada L (2013) Adapting environmental
conservation legislation for an enlarged European Union:
Experience from the Habitats Directive. Environ Conserv 40(2):
97–107
Fanin Y, Pesaro St, Filacorda St, Pieri M (2018) Golden jackal (Canis
aureus moreoticus Geoffroy, 1835) predatorybehaviour and carcass
consumption of livestock in North East Italy. In: Giannatos G,
Banea OC, Hatlauf J, Sillero-Zubiri C, Georgiadis C, Legakis A
(eds) Proceedings of the 2nd International Jackal Symposium,
Marathon Bay, Attiki Greece. Hell. Zool. Arch. No. 9, p 93
Farkas A, Jánoska F, Fodor J-T, Náhlik A (2017) The high level of
nutritional niche overlap between red fox (Vulpes vulpes)andsym-
patric golden jackal (Canis aureus) affects the body weight of juve-
nile foxes. Eur J Wildl Res 63(3):46
FVM rendelet a vad védelméről, a vadgazdálkodásról, valamint a
vadászatról szóló (1996) 79/2004. (V. 4.). Nemzeti Jogszabálytár.
http://njt.hu/cgi_bin/njt_doc.cgi?docid=85128.365826#foot3.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Gazetta Ufficiale della republica Italiana (1992) Art 2 Legge 11 febbraio
1992, n. 157, GU Serie Generale n. 46 del 25-02-1992 –
Supplemento Ordinario n. 41 https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/
gu/1992/02/25/46/so/41/sg/pdf. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Graham KJ, Beckerman AP, Thirgood SJ (2005) Human–predator–prey
conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of manage-
ment. Biol Conserv 122:159–171
GuimarãesN, Wirk L, Urban P, HatlaufJ (2019a) Searching for shy canid
species - Wolf (Canis lupus) and golden jackal (Canis aureus)re-
cords in potential co-existence areas of Austria and Slovakia. In:
Bryja J, Horsák M, Horsáková V, Zukal J (eds) Book of abstracts,
Zoologické dny, konference, 7.-8.02.2019. Brno, Czech Republic
2019, pp. 63–64
Guimarães N, Bučko J, Urban P (2019b) The rise of a carnivore, the
evolution of the presence of the golden jackal in Slovakia. Folia
Zool 68(2):66–71
Harrop, (2011) Climate change, conservation and the place for wild an-
imal welfare in international law. J Environ Law 23(3):441–462
Hatlauf J, Hackländer K (2016a) Preliminary results for golden jackal
(Canis aureus) survey inAustria. Beitr Jagd Wildforsch 41:295–306
Hatlauf J, Hackländer K (2016b) Current status of a spreading meso-
carnivore in Austria, the golden jackal (Canis aureus). Mamm
Biol 81(Suppl):8
Hatlauf J, Hackländer K (2018) Besuch aus dem Balkan –der
Goldschakal in Deutschland. Wild und Hund 6(2018):16–22
Hatlauf J, Suppan F, Hackländer K (2016a) Der Goldschakal (Canis
aureus, L.1758) –Status, Habitatfaktoren und
Modellierungsansatz. Säugetierkd Inform 50:133–153
Hatlauf J, Banea O C, Lapini L (2016b) Assessment of golden jackal
species (Canis aureus, L.1758) records in natural areas out of their
known historic range. Technical Report: GOJAGE Criteria and
Guidelines, eBulletin 12.02.2016
Hatlauf J, Heltai M, Szabó L, Hackländer K (2017) Golden jackal (Canis
aureus) occurrence in Austria: from first records to recent findings.
In: Bro E, Guillemain M (eds) 33
rd
International Union of Game
Biologists Congress, IUGB, Montpellier 2017, p 178
Hatlauf J, Heltai M, Duscher T (2018a) Der Goldschakal - Daten und
Fakten. Info-Blatt des Burgenländischen Jagdverbandes 1/2018:8–14
Hatlauf J, Zimmermann F, Kunz F, Hackländer K (2018b) Goldschakale
in Europa und in der Schweiz. Schweizer Jäger 9/2018:56–62
Head BW (2016) Toward more ‘evidence-informed’policy making?
Public Adm Rev 76:472–484
Heltai M, Ćirovi D, Szabó L, Penezi A, Nagyapáti N, KurysA, Lanszki J.
(2013) Golden jackal: opinions versus facts - Experiences from
Serbia and Hungary. In: BeukovićM, PopovićZ, ĐorđevićN,
Đan M, BeukovićD, LavadinovićV (eds) Proceedings of the 2nd
International Symposium on Hunting: Modern Aspects of
Sustainable Management of Game Populations. Novi Sad, Serbia
2013, pp. 13–20
Herzig-Straschil B (2008) Short note: First breeding record of the golden
jackal (Canis aureus L., 1758, Canidae) in Austria. Ann Nat Hist
Mus Wien. Ser B Bot Zool 109:73–76
Hessenberger M (2017) Schakale bedrohen Wild in der Steiermark.
Salzburger Nachrichten. https://www.sn.at/panorama/oesterreich/
schakale-bedrohen-wild-in-der-steiermark-21596467.Accessed30
Sept 2020
Hoi-Leitner M, Kraus E (1989) Golden jackal, Canis aureus (Linnaeus,
1758), in Austria (Mammalia Austriaca 17). Bonn Zool Beitr
40(3/4):97–204
Humer A (2006) Goldschakale in Österreich. Aktueller Status und
Managementstrategien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Einstellung und des Wissens zum Thema Goldschakal bei
österreichischen Bezirksjägern. Master Thesis, University of
Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
Page 13 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

IAS Regulation (EU) (2014) No 1143/2014 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 October 2014 on the prevention and man-
agement of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
32014R1143&from=EN. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
JirkůM, Dostál D, Robovský J, Šálek M (2018) Reproduction of the
golden jackal (Canis aureus) outside current resident breeding pop-
ulations in Europe: evidence from the Czech Republic. Mammalia
82(6):592–595
Jurszo R (2019) 1270 szakali do odstrzału w Polsce. Naukowcy: „Będą
mylone z wilkami”.Alemożewłaśnie o to chodzi. https://oko.press/
1270-szakali-do-odstrzalu-w-polsce-naukowcy-beda-mylone-z-
wilkami-ale-moze-wlasnie-o-to-chodzi. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Koistinen A (2019) Tutkija vahvistaa: Suomen ensimmäinen
sakaalihavainto Rautavaaralla –yksilö on todennäköisesti sama,
joka oli Enossa –kuvat. Karjalainen. https://www.karjalainen.fi/
uutiset/uutis-alueet/kotimaa/item/224551. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
KORA (2012) Erster Goldschakal-Nachweis in der Schweiz. KORA News.
http://www.kora.ch/index.php?id=214andL=1andtx_ttnews%5Btt_
news%5D=408andcHash=be9f32a37b98a1803257ca8cba134 657.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Koubek P, Cerveny J (2007) The golden jackal (Canis aureus)–anew
mammal species in the Czech Republic. Lynx (Praha) 38:103–106
Kowalczyk R, Kołodziej-Sobocińska M, Ruczyńska I, Wójcik JM (2015)
Range expansion of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) into Poland:
first records. Mammal Res 60(4):411–414
Kowalczyk R, Wudarczyk M, Wójcik JM, Okarma H (2020)
Northernmost record of reproduction of the expanding golden jackal
population. Mamm Biol 100(1):107–111
Krofel M (2009) Confirmed presence of territorial groups of golden
jackals (Canis aureus) in Slovenia. Nat Slov 11:65–68
Krofel M, Giannatos G, ĆirovićD, Stoyanov S, Newsome TM (2017)
Golden jackal expansion in Europe: a case of mesopredator release
triggered by continent-wide wolf persecution? Hystrix 28(1):9–15
Landesverwaltung Fürstentum Liechtenstein (2018) Erstnachweis in
Liechtenstein: Goldschakal tappt in Fotofalle. https://www.llv.li/
medienmitteilungen/detail/2430.Accessed30Sept2020
Lanszki J, Kurys A, Szabó L, Nagyapáti N, Porter LB, Heltai M (2016)
Diet composition of the golden jackal and the sympatric red fox in
an agricultural area (Hungary). Folia Zool 65(4):310–322
Lapini L, Conte D, Zupan M, Kozlan L (2011) Italian golden jackals
1984-2011: an updated review. Boll Museo Civico Storia Nat
Venezia 62:1–20
Lapini L, Dreon AL, Caldana M, Luca M, Villa M (2018)Distribuzione,
espansione e problemi di conservazione di Canis aureus in Italia
(Carnivora: Canidae). Quaderni Museo Civico Storia Nat Ferrara
6/2018:89–96
LCIE (2018) Golden jackal –Canis aureus. Large Carnivore Initiative for
Europe. https://www.lcie.org/Large-carnivores/Golden-jackal.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Lebersorger P (2009) Rechtliche Situation von Beutegreifern in
Österreich, Vortrag. WWF. https://www.wwf.at/de/view/files/
download/showDownload/?tool=12&feld=download&sprach_
connect=1211. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
LevickaitėR (2015) Lietuvoje sumedžiotas pirmasis šakalas –didžiulės
bėdos pranašas (engl: First Golden jackal Hunted in Lithuania,
Prophecy of Big Trouble Ahead). Grynas-Delfi. http://grynas.delfi.
lt/gamta/lietuvoje-sumedziotas-pirmasis-sakalas-didziules-bedos-
pranasas.d?id=67703144#ixzz3aPZt6g49. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt 144 (2017) Verordnung vom 19.
Dezember 2017 über spezifisch geschützte Pflanzen- und Tierarten.
https://www.gesetze.li/konso/pdf/2017444000?version=1.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Linnell J, Salvatori V, Boitani L (2008) Guidelines for population level
management plans for large carnivores. A Large Carnivore Initiative
for Europe report prepared for the European Commission, Rome
Männil P, Jogisalu I, Ozolins J, Maran T (2014) Golden jackal –new
carnivore species in Northern Europe? 9th Baltic Theriological
Conference, Book of Abstracts. Daugavpils, Latvia 2014, p 47
Maran T (2015) Emergence of the ‘Howling Foxes’: A Semiotic Analysis of
Initial Interpretations of the Golden jackal (Canis aureus)inEstonia.
Department of Semiotics. Univ Tartu Biosemiotics 8(3):463–482
Minister Środowiska (2017) Klub Przyrodników, 31 July 2017. https://
www.kp.org.pl/pdf/stanowiska/inne/2017-07-31_KP%
20stanowisko%20ws%204%20rozporzadzen%20lowieckich.pdf.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Ministerium für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt, Natur und
Digitalisierung (2017) Erster Goldschakal in Schleswig-Holstein
nachgewiesen. SHZ. https://www.shz.de/16890251. Accessed 30
Sept 2020
Ministerstva pôdohospodárstva a rozvoja vidieka Slovenskej republiky
(2013) hunting act No. 274/2009 with Amendment No. 489/2013
https://www.noveaspi.sk/products/lawText/1/92880/1/2?vtextu=
sakal&timeslice=null#lema0. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
MladenovičJ, Krofel M, Berce T, DeržičM, TarmanJ (2015) Zlati šakal -
nova lovna vrsta v Sloveniji. Svet ptic, letnik 21, številka 1, p 14-15
Molinari-Jobin A, Molinari P, Breitenmoser-Wuersten C, Woelfl M,
Stanisa C, Fasel M, Stahl P, Vandel JM, Rotelli L, Kaczensky P,
Huber T, Adamic M, Koren I, Breitenmoser U (2003) The pan-
Alpine conservation strategy for the lynx. Nat Environ 130:1–19
Paulauskas A, RažanskėI, Radzijevskaja J, NugaraitėD, Gedminas V
(2018) The golden jackal Canis aureus –a new species in the Baltic
countries. Biologija 64(3):203–207
Plass J (2007) Dokumentation einer zweiten Einwanderungswelle des
Goldschakals Canis aureus Linnaeus, 1758 in Österreich aus den
Jahren 2003–2006. Beiträge Naturkunde Oberösterreichs 17:55–68
Potočnyk H, Pokorny B, Flajsman K, Kos I (2019) Evrazijski Šakal.
Lovska zveza Slovenije, Ljubljana
Pyšková K, Storch D, Horáček I, Kauzál O, Pyšek P, (2016) Golden
jackal (Canis aureus) in the Czech Republic: the first record of a live
animal and its long-term persistence in the colonized habitat.
ZooKeys 641(December):151–163. https://doi.org/10.3897/
zookeys.641.10946
Rigg R, Findo S, Wechselberger M, Gorman M, Sillero-Zubiri C,
Macdonald D (2011) Mitigating carnivore–livestock conflict in
Europe: Lessons from Slovakia. Oryx 45(2):272–280
Rutkowski R, Krofel M, Giannatos G, ĆirovićD, Mannil P, Volokh AM,
Bogdanowicz W (2015) A European concern? Genetic structure and
expansion of golden jackals (Canis aureus) in Europe and the
Caucasus. PLoSOne 10(11):e0141236
Seilmeier G, Walz K L (1983) Jagdlexikon. BLV, München
Sinclair ARE, Fryxell JM, Caughley G (2012) Wildlife ecology, conser-
vation, and management. 2nd. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford
Somsen H, Trouwborst A (2019) Are pioneering coyotes, foxes and
jackals alien species? Canid colonists in the changing conservation
landscape of the Anthropocene. Oryx 54(3):392–394
Spassov N (1989) The position of jackals in the Canis genus and life-
history of the golden jackal (Canis aureus L.) in Bulgaria and on the
Balkans. Hist Nat Bulg 1:44–56
Spassov N, Acosta-Pankov I (2019)Dispersal history of the golden jackal
(Canis aureus moreoticus Geoffroy, 1835) in Europe and possible
causes of its recent population explosion. Biodiv Data J 7:e34825
Stinglwagner R, Haseder G, Erlbeck I (2009) Das Kosmos Wald- und
Forstlexikon, 4th edition, Erlbeck R (Ed.): Das Kosmos-Wald- und
Forstlexikon. Kosmos, Stuttgart
Stratford J (2015) Golden jackal in Lithuania, a consideration of its arriv-
al, impact and status. Zool Ecol 25(4):277–287
Szabó L, Heltai M, Szűcs E, Lanszki J, Lehoczki R (2009) Expansion
range of the golden jackal in Hungary between 1997 and 2006.
Mammalia 73(4):307–311
The Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and
Natural Habitats (1979) 19 October 1979, https://www.coe.int/en/
25 Page 14 of 15 Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680078aff.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Thöne S (2012) Jäger erlegt einen Goldschakal, https://www.meinbezirk.
at/enns/c-lokales/jaeger-erlegt-einen-goldschakal_a358579.
Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Thornton DH, Wirsing AJ, Lopez-Gonzalez C, Squires JR, Fisher S,
Larsen KW, Peatt A, Scrafford MA, Moen RA, Scully AE, King
TW, Murray DL (2018) Asymmetric cross-border protection of pe-
ripheral transboundary species. Conserv Lett 11(3):e12430
Tóth T, Krecsák L, Szűcs E, Heltai M, Huszár G (2009) Records of the
golden jackal (Canis aureus Linnaeus, 1758) in Hungary from
1800th until 2007, based on a literature survey. North-West J Zool
5(2):386–405
Trolle M (2015) Guldsjakaler i Danmark. Ulve i Denmark. https://
ulveidanmark.ku.dk/guldsjakal/guldsjakaler-i-danmark. Accessed
30 Sept 2020
Trouwborst A, Hackländer K (2018) Wildlife Policy and Law in Europe.
In: Leopold B, Kessler WB, Cummins JL (eds) North American
Wildlife Policy and Law, Boone and Crockett Club, pp. 425–443
Trouwborst A, Krofel M, Linnell JDC (2015) Legal implications of range
expansions in a terrestrial carnivore: the case of the golden jackal
(Canis aureus) in Europe. Biodivers Conserv 24(10):2593–2610
Trouwborst A, Fleurke FM, Linnell JDC (2017a) Norway's Wolf Policy
and the Bern Convention on European Wildlife: Avoiding the
‘Manifestly Absurd’. J Internat Wildl Law Policy 20(2):155–167
Trouwborst A, Boitani L, Linnell JDC (2017b) Interpreting favourable
conservation status for large carnivores in Europe: how many are
needed and how many are wanted? Biodivers Conserv 26(1):37–61
van der Grift E.A (2016) First golden jackal spotted in the Netherlands.
Alterra News, Wageningen University& Research. https://www.
wur.nl/en/newsarticle/First-golden-jackal-spotted-in-the-
Netherlands.htm. Accessed 30 Sept 2020
Veeroja R, Männil P (2018) Ulukiasurkondade seisund ja
Küttimissoovitus 2018 - Status of Game populations in Estonia
and proposal for hunting in 2018, Estonian Environment Agency,
Tartu, pp. 84–87
von Bogdandy A, Schill S (2010) Die Achtung der nationalen Identität
unter dem reformierten Unionsvertrag. Zur unionsrechtlichen Rolle
nationalen Verfassungsrechts und zur Überwindung des absoluten
Vorrangs. ZaöRV - HJIL 70:701–734
Wallendums P (2019) Angyali ördögök? Magyar Vadászlap 02(2019):
18–19
Zedrosser A (1995) Eine neue Tierart für Österreich: Der Goldschakal
(Canis aureus). Stapfia 37:237–242
Publisher’snoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Page 15 of 15 25Eur J Wildl Res (2021) 67: 25
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com