Jennifer Dubrulle’s scientific contributions

... 75 It may just be possible to argue that in certain circumstances Article 16(1) can provide a basis for actively maintaining large carnivores in particular areas at lower densities than would 'naturally' exist, whether in the species' own interest (Article 16(1)(a)), to prevent serious damage to livestock (Article 16(1)(b)), for 'imperative reasons of overriding public interest' (Article 16(1)(c)) or on the basis of Article 16(1)(e). 76 However, this is likely to require creative legal reasoning in combination with very strong evidence demonstrating the necessity of the approach in question, including a lack of satisfactory alternatives, and the absence of negative impacts on conservation statusand even then the odds of such an approach being approved by the CJEU appear uncertain. In this connection, it is important to recall the observations above regarding the relative ineffectiveness of (unfenced) small-scale LDAs, and the various potential adverse impacts of LDAs on large carnivores' population status. ...

Reference:

Wolves not welcome? Zoning for large carnivore conservation and management under the Bern Convention and EU Habitats Directive

... These structures are widely recognized for their substantial impact on wildlife and ecosystems (Hovick et al. 2014;Jakes et al. 2018). The installation of fences can impede the movement, dispersal, and immigration of individuals or populations, which is critical for the survival of wildlife populations (Benitez-Lopez et al. 2010;Huijser et al. 2015;Trouwborst et al. 2016). Such barriers can lead to habitat fragmentation, population decline, and ecological disturbances, with far-reaching consequences for ecosystems (Dennis et al. 2013;Soh et al. 2019;McInturff et al. 2020). ...

Reference:

Short Communication Camera Trap-Based Behavioral Analysis of Long-Tailed Goral (Naemorhedus caudatus), Wild Boar (Sus scrofa), Roe Deer (Capreolus pygargus), and Water Deer (Hydropotes inermis) in Response to Fences