Conservation and Science

Sometimes I think I could have an entire show dedicated solely to the topic of coexistence with wolves. It is by far the most featured topic on my podcast and you seem to never have enough of it. Although I cover a wide variety of subjects, episodes on coexistence are always top performers in terms of views and downloads, and definitely in terms of the feedback I receive after they are published.

It was no different after episode 216: 'EU Wolves and the Conservation Success Conundrum' with Hanna Pettersson. I received a number of comments and emails, both from enthusiasts and scientists. Of course, one person can be an enthusiast and a scientist at the same time (one would argue that this must always be the case, especially given the realities of working as a scientist), but I'm sure you know what I mean. As a side note, it's always gratifying that top-tier scientists listen to my podcast and take the time to write in with their comments. You know who you are and I'm really grateful for that. I'd definitely place myself in the enthusiast category and I'm constantly learning from those email exchanges as much as from the conversations on the podcast itself.

The episode I'm bringing you this time is the result of one such exchange. It represents a point of view on the lowering of the protection status of wolves in the EU that, although mentioned in previous episodes, has never been the main focus of the conversation. As you know, my show's tagline is that 'I bring you diverse perspectives', and I believe this episode adds an important voice to the discussion.

Another observation I've made recently is that, even though I've been having conversations with ecologists, scientists and conservationists for over a decade, shifting baseline syndrome was always linked to the loss of species and biodiversity. Only recently have I noticed it being used more and more in the context of nature recovery. You might notice this in the recent episodes too. Today's guest is not the first to mention it, as this aspect of shifting baselines was also brought up by Lisa Chilton, the CEO of Scotland: The Big Picture, in our conversation on the Poscasthon 2026 episode.

In this issue of the newsletter, I'm also starting a new section where I link the most interesting articles or papers that have captured my attention since the last newsletter. I want this to become a regular feature, to make the newsletter more valuable and interesting to you, and to push it beyond discussions around the latest podcast episodes. So, take a look at the 'Noteworthy Reads from the Fortnight' section at the bottom of this email.

As always, reply to this email with your comments. I read all of them and reply to most. And if you know someone who would be interested in the topics we're discussing, please forward them this newsletter. After all, Conservation and Science is 'the best quality podcast on coexistence, hunting and conservation'.

PS
The last sentence is feedback I got from one of the scientists who is also a regular listener, so I'm unashamedly putting it here.

How Many Wolves Is Enough?

How many wolves is enough? Is that even the right question to ask? And will the recent lowering of wolf protection status in the EU actually reduce the conflict between wolves and people? These are some of the questions we tackle in this episode. After the previous wolf episode generated a lot of feedback, including detailed emails from scientists, one of those scientists is our guest today. Joachim Mergeay is a senior researcher at the Research Institute for Nature and Forest in Belgium, an associate professor of conservation genetics at Leuven University, Flanders, and a member of the IUCN Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe. He reached out after listening to the podcast and I was immediately interested in his deeper perspective on wolf coexistence in Europe.

During our conversation, Joachim makes a compelling case that if we solve the conflict, the number of wolves becomes far less important. He shares practical examples from Belgium where electric fencing, supported by volunteer teams and full subsidies for farmers, has virtually eliminated livestock predation in some wolf territories. We also discuss why shooting wolves, even under the new lowered protection status, is unlikely to meaningfully reduce conflict because the requirement to maintain favourable conservation status leaves very little room for lethal management. Joachim is clear that he is not against hunting in principle but stresses that we need to be honest about the goals behind it.

We also get into the broader picture of rural abandonment, shifting baselines and the urban-rural divide. Joachim challenges the assumption that rural and urban people are worlds apart in their attitudes towards wolves, pointing to research showing the differences are smaller than most of us think. He also offers an optimistic observation about shifting baselines working in the opposite direction for once, with children growing up in countries where wolves are simply part of the landscape. We finish with a look at how European-level policy can work alongside local solutions and what the future might hold for wolf populations across the continent.

225: How Many Wolves Is Enough with Joachim Mergeay

Noteworthy Reads from the Fortnight

I occasionally come across a gem blog post like this. I think about them as a mini scientific papers. It tackles another hotly debated topic that is the use of fire in land management. Of course, it discusses the issue from the perspective of Dartmoor in the UK but the larger takeaways are more general. It's a longer read, especially by the modern distracted standards, but I trust that if you a subscriber to this newsletter and listener or viewer on this podcast, that you can hack it!

We need to talk about swaling

The second read is a paper published online by Cambridge University Press about the removal of five bird species from the game bird list in Poland. I consider this to be sad news on multiple levels. First, the species in question have declined to the point that even the government decided to take action. Losing the ability to hunt those species is also sad to me and I'm not shying away from it. However, this is directly related to the first point. There are also secondary socio-political issues, discussing of which would make this newsletter far too long. My final comment is that the misidentification of birds is not a small aspect of this topic and I blame alcohol and hubris for this sad state of affairs.

I'm afraid that the consumption of alcohol during hunting remains a significant issue in a number of European countries. To me, it is mind-boggling that consumption of alcohol while using firearms is acceptable in any way. But hey, when France adopted a 0.5g/L blood alcohol limit during hunting, the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs (the French hunting organisation) criticised it as 'brutale et stigmatisante'. And of course, they framed it as an urban attack on rural traditions and French cultural heritage.

France has a poor safety record. You might have heard about a teenage girl who was shot by a stray bullet while playing in her back garden. Poland has a similarly poor safety record and I think I can see a pattern emerging here.

In any case, the paper is an interesting read.

Grassroots action removes five bird species from Poland’s game list | Oryx | Cambridge Core

Creating quality content about nature takes time and resources.
Support my work, buy me a coffee!

☕

P.S., if someone forwarded this email to you, you can sign up to get your weekly newsletter here.

600 1st Ave, Ste 330 PMB 92768, Seattle, WA 98104-2246
​Unsubscribe · Preferences​