Living With Wolves: What Shepherds Reveal About Coexistence

The return of wolves to Germany has become one of the most emotionally charged conservation issues of the past two decades. Nowhere is this more visible than in Lower Saxony, the state with the country’s largest wolf population and one of its highest livestock densities. A new study of twelve shepherds working in professional, part‑time, and hobby capacity offers an intimate look at how people on the front lines of the conflict experience the daily realities of coexistence.

Wolves were eradicated from much of Europe for more than a century. However strict protection measures introduced in the late twentieth century enabled their gradual return. In Germany, the first modern wolf territory was confirmed in 2000. Today, wolves occupy 276 territories nationwide, including sixty‑three in Lower Saxony. Their comeback is widely celebrated as a conservation success, yet it has also intensified human–carnivore conflict, particularly for shepherds whose livelihoods depend on vulnerable livestock that fall victim to predation. The legal protection this species enjoyed was amended in 2025, allowing for a designated hunting season and lethal wolf removal in specific areas.

The study reveals that shepherds’ attitudes toward wolves are shaped less by ideology and more by lived experience. Professional shepherds who had endured surplus killings; events they described as “massacres”, expressed the strongest negative attitudes. Shepherds who had only experienced minor attacks tended to be more neutral or cautiously positive, while hobby shepherds, despite having no personal losses, were uniformly negative. Emotional strain, fear of rising wolf numbers, and concerns about economic viability were recurring themes. Yet some shepherds articulated a moral responsibility to support biodiversity, noting that it would feel strange to declare that wolves should not live in the landscape they help maintain.

For us, life has changed completely. Even before [the return of the wolf], we actually had no free time and were working more than enough. And now, with the wolves, this massive number of wolves, we're running ourselves ragged, trying to catch up, without seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. It's become frightening. (Shepherd 6)

He kills more than he eats. […] When you see how many sheep he kills and doesn't eat, you start to think differently. (Shepherd 5)

Despite these differences, most shepherds believed coexistence could be possible if wolf pressure were reduced through targeted regulation. As one put it, coexistence might work if the wolf population were properly regulated and problematic individuals removed. This perspective reflects the broader tension between conservation goals and rural livelihoods, especially after wolves were added to Germany’s Federal Hunting Act in 2026, a move that conservation organizations argue may be counterproductive.

The study also provides a detailed assessment of how shepherds evaluate herd protection measures. Electric fences emerged as the most effective tool, used by all twelve shepherds. They were praised for stopping attacks when wolves attempted to climb or crawl under them, though their usefulness declined once wolves learned to jump or exploit weak points. Fences were considered moderately feasible: easy for permanent pastures but demanding for mobile herds due to weight, vegetation, and constant maintenance.

Livestock guarding dogs ranked second. Shepherds reported that dogs significantly reduced attacks and prevented surplus killings, although habituated wolves occasionally confronted them. The challenges were substantial. Guarding dogs require high financial investment, intensive care, and constant training. Their barking often leads to complaints from nearby residents, and dogs that fail to perform must be retrained or removed. Still, many shepherds viewed them as one of the few measures capable of making a meaningful difference.

Other measures were less promising. Mechanical fences were effective but too costly and impractical for mobile operations. Stables and night pens prevented attacks but were labour-intensive, expensive, and risky for sheep health. Visual deterrents such as fladry worked only briefly before wolves habituated. Donkeys and llamas were unanimously dismissed as ineffective, with shepherds noting that wolves can kill horses and cattle and would easily overpower these smaller animals.

Technological solutions generated mixed reactions. Camera monitoring and collar‑based tracking systems were ranked quite low and considered emotionally draining due to frequent false alarms. One reported GPS errors so extreme that sheep appeared to be in another country and Shepherds doubted they could reach their herds in time even when alerts were accurate. Devices that produce lights or sounds were seen as largely ineffective because wolves quickly habituate, and they often disturbed wildlife, livestock, and people.

Across all interviews, shepherds emphasized that coexistence requires more than just tools. They called for increased government support, particularly for covering the ongoing costs of livestock guarding dogs and replacing damaged electric fences. They also stressed the need for faster permits to remove wolves that repeatedly attack livestock despite intact protection measures. These requests highlight a central insight of the study: coexistence is not simply a matter of deploying the right technologies but of creating governance systems that share the burden of living with large carnivores.

In other federal states, the maintenance costs for the dogs are already covered. For these livestock guarding dogs, there needs to be a fixed annual amount paid. Otherwise, keeping them in the long run isn't feasible. (Shepherd 6)

The shepherds of Lower Saxony are navigating a landscape where ecological recovery intersects with economic pressure, emotional fatigue, and social expectations. Their experiences show that coexistence is not the absence of conflict but the ability to manage risks at socially tolerable levels.

Wolves have returned, and their presence is reshaping rural life. Whether coexistence succeeds will depend on how well policy, support systems, and protection measures align with the realities of those who care for livestock every day.

Kortmann, E., von Ruschkowski, E., Schoon, M., & Loos, J. (2026). Shepherds' perception of the effectiveness and feasibility of herd protection measures against wolf predation in Lower Saxony, Germany. Conservation Science and Practice, 8(9), e70374. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70374