There are now Wolves in and Around our City

hiking trail

There are now more and more plausible reports that wolves arrived in our city. Over the last few months there have been several reports from walkers that have seen wolves in the small forest areas inside and outside of Lübeck. It’s been known and confirmed since quite some time that they have been spotted in other places, but it was still far away from our city. During a drive over a country road, we spotted a wolf ourself on a field near Ratzeburg. But now they are even closer to our city. The last report was from a hiker who spotted a lonely wolf in a small forest in the district Eichholz. The police said that the report sounded authentic, and the wolf managers got in contact with the eyewitness. According to the experts it’s nothing dramatic, they said people should keep a distance to the wolves and people shouldn’t watch them for too long.

Before the first reports, they ironically suggested that we never would see wolves even if they would stroll through the surrounding forests. It was said that they would be very shy, but that this was a blatant lie became apparent when a soldier got followed by a pack of wolves in Lower Saxony during a night march. While the media tries to push a certain agenda, voices of experts on the other side get louder too. Wolves will lose their shyness over time, and that’s where it could really get dangerous. Even wolf supporters do now start to admit where dangerous situations could occur. It’s suggested to never hike through forests alone, and joggers shouldn’t run since this could activate the hunting instinct of the wolves if they are close. Meanwhile, experts suggest that most citizens won’t be affected. There are experts that completely deny that wolves could possibly attack people, but the reality looks very different.

At the end, if something ever happens, it’ll be your fault. You been at the wrong place at the wrong time. Why do you go into the nature? Why don’t you stay at home like all those armchair wolf supporters? I think what these supporters don’t get is that Germany isn’t Canada. Not keeping wolves at check in Germany (which wouldn’t mean to kill them all), is like demanding to have wolves in your front lawn. There are very few and only small nature reserves between cities in Germany. Germany is a very small area with a very high population density. Having such a high wolf population in the surrounding areas will eventually lead to very dangerous situations for those who like to get out of the city. Telling citizens that it’s their choice where they go and how dangerous it will be is the same denial of reality as the blatant lie of many wolf experts that tout loud that wolves don’t maul humans, whereas the possibility is there.

Talking about myself. It feels strange to know that we have wolves in the surrounding areas. I am not a fan of gambling. While I believe that a meeting with a pack of wolves doesn’t have to end deadly, the facts are there that it can end deadly. Not keeping the wolf population in check, and not making wolves shy of humans with specific hunting quotas, will push me one step further away from voting one of the established parties ever again. It’s like with all those other political topics. You deny the reality as a politician we citizens have to endure or might have to endure in the future, we gonna vote right-wing to make you cry like a baby in front of all the cameras where you constantly tout how evil your citizens are. If you deny the fears people have, you gonna collect the negative rewards when the voting day comes.

If the reports increase, I am not sure if I still will be interested to go out into the nature. Because in contrast to these armchair environmentalists, I am actually going outside. And if you believe some of the more honest experts, I am a person of the risk group. Because I always hike alone, and I also like to run through forests or over hiking trails outside of the city. Suggestions like “Don’t hike alone and you’ll be fine since wolves avoid loud groups of humans” or “Don’t run through the nature, and you will be fine” simply don’t help me. Instead I’d like to know how a high wolf population will work together in the future with the very high population density and small natural areas between cities in Germany. All I heard so far was that even experts didn’t expect that the wolf population would increase that fast, which alone should disqualify them as experts. I think the media channels play a big role with the attempts of dulling citizens minds. It’s starry-eyed idealism. What is most upsetting are the blatant lies. And there are so many that don’t even question their bullshit agenda articles.

But maybe that’s my own fault as well. I always had the ability to critically challenge certain statements that seemed to be suspicious. When I do for example read statements like “Wolves are shy, and they always avoid humans because we make noise” I just can’t stop myself to browse through YouTube and find videos of sighted wolves in Germany. And guess what is happening in my head if I find videos like the one with the farmer and the pack of wolves that likes to inspect the sound of the tractor engine up close? I call your article bullshit, I get the confirmation that you have an agenda and that this is the reason why you spread lies. And there are tons of videos that show the opposite of what these authors and often also the so-called experts tout. Maybe I would be a bit more relaxed if these experts would explain to me why their statements can be disproved with a simple YouTube search. And then again, there are a ton of videos that disprove their wolf facts. Same with the Wikipedia list of attacks, and the reports that you can find with a bit of time and Google research. It’s pretty ironic that established media channels invented the term “fake news”, but the reality is they spread them, and need them the most.

This is exactly why both, established parties and media channels lost all their credibility. They want to take us for an idiot. They also always never get what critics want to say. In the case of those that are concerned about the increasing wolf population, they do for example believe or write about us as if we would be against the wolf reintroduction per se. But that is far from the reality. Of course there might be some people demanding this, but most critics I heard from just demand more control, better monitoring, intervention or planning of the reintroduction. Most critics actually want to preserve a wolf population, they’re just not as ignorant as those who think it works without monitoring and intervention. Also, no serious person is questioning that a “meeting” with wolves could end completely harmless as just that, a sight of wolves. We totally get it, we admit that, because there are many reports of harmless sightings where nothing really happened. But we also see the cases where it didn’t end harmless, or where the situation seemed to be very risky. You can’t deny it, because there are tons of reports online. This is what I don’t get about the pro-wolves faction. They don’t have the balls to admit things like we do. They don’t see both possibilities even if there are tons of authentic reports. They only admit what fits the most to their agenda. It’s horrible, it’s ignorant.

This is what I hate about politics. There is always someone who completely ignores facts. There is always someone who only wants to believe things that fit their agenda and denies all apparent facts. It’s the finest example of denial. Without these ignorants you would come to a compromise much faster. And then again, the compromise doesn’t have to be “Let’s kill all wolves”, because most critics don’t demand this anyway. It’s more about “These are the problems that could occur” and “How can we do it on a way that it doesn’t get out of the hands?”. There would be tons of ways to make everyone happy, even the wolves. All it would take is ignorants being less ignorant about potential problems.

So, here is my conclusion and demand. Wolves, yes please, but with monitoring and risk control. And without inconsistencies in the suggestions how citizens should behave if they get to see wolves on their way. I am also not against a shooting quota, because convictions aside, I think it’s possible to preserve a species while doing risk management especially in or around urban centres. I am totally for species conservation, but I also don’t want to see kids getting mauled in a forest because they decided to experience what we all wanted experience when we were young, a walk through the nature.

9 thoughts on “There are now Wolves in and Around our City

  1. Coinsidence; just today, I read that here too, people are jumping through hoops to cater to the wolves.
    There was a run taking place, and they changed the route, so the wolves that are currently breeding could be left alone.
    Not only do they cater to them, they actively make it so that the population will expand!

    It is bizarre. What does it take to turn things around? Does a child has to be killed on what started out as a lovely stroll through the local forest? Sigh, I agree with your point of view. It requires action now, before things get out of hand.

    1. Yes, sadly it will take a child to get mauled to make them all scream “Oh sorry, we didn’t expect that”. Just a couple of months ago, I saw a documentary about concerned citizens of the state Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where they have the wolves since quite a few years… Kindergarden don’t let the kids go outside anymore, and they created large fences because it happened again and again that wolves came pretty close to the kids. In that same village, some wolves got killed ilegally (I expected something like that, because hunters or farmers will take it in their own hands, it’s just that citizens are concerned). They never found out who killed some wolves, because the whole village sticks together. Farmers lost large amounts of sheeps due to wolve attacks and so on. Government just subsidies worthless fences, that are no real barrier for wolves.

      I get the whole point with species conservation, but I question that it will work well together with us humans without a hunting quota. It’s really ironic when you saw how all experts toutet it would just work, and when they now start to admit that the population of wolves increases way too fast. Even some politicians start to think about allowing shooting now. It’s where I touch my forehead and think “Damn, it took a long time until you got that conclusion”. My thought was always that the wolves won’t have a predator above them, which won’t keep the population in check. It’s just logic. Of course you will first see them outside of the cities, later roaming around inside the cities if it gets out of hand. Next they will lose shyness and attacks on humans might happen. With our politicians, it’s really like they want something to happen. Like you said, it’s bizarre.

    1. Right. But the politicians here are stubborn. Only a few start to admit that the reproduction is happening too fast for our densely populated areas. If trouble doesn’t come from alone (and problems do already start to occur), it will be at least caused by humans. Happens here with wild boars… people feed them, next person doesn’t, and wild boar gets aggressive and attacks, which almost always end very badly for the person. I think it won’t work without wolve zones, and shooting quotas around urban places. There is a reason why hunters are called if a wild boar enters the city.

      As much as I like animal welfare, I think you also find extreme people in the animal welfare niche. Demanding to let the wolf population regulate itself without no real predator above them, is a nonsense that just can come from the type of politician who is a dreamer.

      1. We have a similar problem here with alligators. Some people feed them which is very bad. When I was a teenager my grandparents lived near a pond that had an alligator. The residence name did Joey and would feed it. It got very big and was not afraid of humans. Eventually someone came and took it away because it became too dangerous.

        There is also an interesting problem with wolves in Yellowstone Park. The wolf population became very low they’re so they started a program to save the wolves. Eventually their numbers grew and all of a sudden another endangered species, I forget which one, started disappearing because the wolves were eating them.

        1. Yes, I heard often that these are housemade problems… because someone decides to feed wild animals. That’s where they lose the shyness and where they might become demanding, and thus a risk for anyone who doesn’t feed. That’s the irony in your example too… someone wanted to make the alligator happy with food, but in reality he just achieved to get the alligator removed.

          The Yellowstone Park story is ironic too. They wanted to save a species, but eventually got another one disappearing. I must read up on that. Since we humans got everything out of balance in the nature and with animals, I fear there is no other way to protect species than monitoring it closely, and eventually intervene if needed. What is ironic too is that this statement would label me already “anti-wolf”, in the case of wolves. It’s like certain politicians think there is only an “all or nothing”.

        2. Often, when one tries to fix a problem, a new problem is created. I don’t think you are anti-wolf. You just want a good compromise that will keep people safe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.