A wolf was sadly run over today in Denmark, it has been eradicated since 1813, im not sure there is big enough places for it to stay without human contact tho, but it is exciting.
I understand, the sheep farmers are getting a lot of sheeps killed.
We've had wolves for a while up in Värmland and those northern parts. So maybe it's not completely necessary for them to spread down here to be preserved.
Once we're gone, they'll come back out and spread south.
Currently there’s talking about using paintball guns to keep them away from farms.
wolves are only really a threat to farmers. For which there's a million other solutions than driving them to extirpation
The desire to bring wildlife to where people live reminds me of anti-vax in that it's giving up safety benefits we've gained out of a misguided desire to be more natural.
and the reason was ignorance
Wolves bring us biodiversity, keep diseases down, and even help rivers flow (by keeping graminivore populations down). We have way more to gain from them than to lose
I feel like the anti-wolf side is much more akin to "anti-vax" than the pro-wolf side is. Either way its probably a bad comparison
If wildlife is only allowed where there's no people, it's going to be confined to the most inhospitable places on Earth.
You couldn't be more wrong
People forgot this all the time. Wolves and dogs are in --the same-- species. They can interbreed and have fertile pups, so is by definition, the same species.
This means that most extant alive wolves live inside --our-- homes. Think about it.
No other species achieved such closer connection with human societies. Not even apes. If an animal deserves a place close to human societies for mutual benefit is this.
Driving wolves to extinction wasn't a deliberate effort, it's just what happens when humans expand into a predator's territory, displace its normal prey, and then opportunistically kill it, while denying it access (via the aforementioned dogs) to those succulent sheep they replaced the deer with.
https://www.newsweek.com/wolf-kills-nine-year-critically-inj...
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/meet-the-worlds-deadliest-wolf-...
https://wolf.org/headlines/the-child-eating-wolves-of-turku-...
There are likely many more wolf attacks than ever known, because the wolves will take away their pray and devour almost all of it rather quickly. What's left will be scavenged within a day or so by vultures / what have you. Further, we used to regularly hunt wolves and keep dogs (Wolfhounds). As they make more human contact, they'll definitely be a lot more deaths.
That said, I think it's good / healthy to keep them around, but it's often not just the sheep that farmers are concerned about.
Often you say? The sources you pulled up, cite 150 year old horror stories (i.e. the height of wolf panic that led to their extinction in most of Europe) from sparsely populated areas. The event in Russia is tragic, but as one of your sources points out, the vast majority of attacks are from rabid animals. Rabies is largely extinct in Europe, maybe not so much in Dagestan?
The point is that outside of sparsely populated mountain regions, hardly anyone has to be fearful of the big bad wolf. <3000 deadly encounters in the past 300 years, most of them (>80%) due to rabies. Statistically the opposite of often.
...do you know how modern wildlife management works? If wolves are reduced to hunting humans, it's because of a massive imbalance between predator and prey numbers, for whatever reason. Any half-decent forest service / whoever has rangers in your country, will be monitoring that balance, and stepping in to prevent a) animal suffering and b) potential risks to humans
You can't insist that other countries protect wild animals, while trying to eradicate them at home, just because it might hurt the economy.