Rockfall kills more cattle than wolves
Sometimes a single statistic changes the perspective on an entire debate.
According to Agrarmarkt Austria, 29 cattle died from rockfall alone in Vorarlberg in 2023.
In the same year, 23 livestock animals were classified as victims of wolf attacks.
And even that comparison is phrased unfavourably for the wolf: the 23 animals were predominantly sheep. The figures also did not record only animals that had been killed, but also injured animals and animals probably missing after wolf attacks. Among cattle, there was not a single confirmed wolf victim in Vorarlberg in 2023 [1].
The scale becomes even more striking if we do not look only at rockfall.
According to the AMA, an average of around 300 cattle die every year on Vorarlberg’s alpine pastures. Causes include falls, other accidents, lightning strikes, rockfall and illness [1].
And in 2026?
By the time of the ORF investigation, eight wolf attacks had been recorded in Vorarlberg.
By contrast, 124 animals had to be killed as part of efforts to combat bovine tuberculosis.
That is roughly fifteen times as many animals.
Yet according to ORF, wolves and TBC appeared in the state’s press releases roughly equally often [1].
That is remarkable.
But before this turns into the next simple story, one important point must be made immediately:
These figures do not prove that wolves are insignificant.
They show something else.
They show that the social and political attention given to a risk is not necessarily proportional to the number of animals killed by it.
And that is where the truly interesting story begins.
The ORF comparison is powerful — but not entirely clean
Even an article whose basic argument I personally find quite compelling must be read critically.
Comparing 29 cattle killed by rockfall with 23 livestock animals of different species that were killed, injured or missing after wolf attacks is not a methodologically perfect like-for-like comparison.
In Austria, wolves particularly affect sheep and goats. For 2025, the Austrian Centre for Bear, Wolf and Lynx records 454 sheep and goats killed nationwide, a further 20 injured and 654 animals missing in connection with wolf incidents. In addition, 26 cattle were recorded as killed and one as injured [2].
In Vorarlberg in 2025, the figures were four cattle killed, five sheep killed and one injured, as well as five goats killed, five injured and eight missing [3].
Anyone who uses the ORF article to construct the claim that wolves cause virtually no damage is making the same mistake as those who infer from every attack an existential threat to Austria’s entire alpine farming sector.
Both are too simplistic.
The damage is real.
But its scale must be viewed in relation to other risks.
How many wolves actually live in Vorarlberg?
Here too, it is worth looking at the actual figures.
State wildlife biologist Hubert Schatz currently estimates that there are around five to ten wolves in Vorarlberg.
To his knowledge, there is no pack. The animals are predominantly wolves passing through [1].
That is an important distinction.
When people speak publicly about “the wolf”, it is easy to create the image of a population spreading across the entire region, present on every alpine pasture.
The reality in Vorarlberg is currently different.
At the same time, a wolf passing through can of course still kill livestock.
That is precisely what happened in the Montafon at the beginning of August 2026. After a young bovine was killed, a wolf was authorised for culling and killed shortly afterwards. Subsequent DNA tests confirmed that the animal shot had indeed been involved in attacks; at the same time, the analyses showed that a second wolf had been involved in another attack [4][5].
This is a good example of why the other side cannot get any further with simple slogans either.
There are real problem cases.
The question is not whether they exist.
The question is:
Which measure most reliably prevents the next attack?
Why wolves loom so much larger emotionally than they do in the statistics
An animal that contracts TBC and therefore has to be killed triggers a different emotional response from a wolf that kills a sheep or calf at night.
A fall is an accident.
Rockfall is a force of nature.
The wolf, by contrast, is perceived as an acting counterpart.
It comes.
It hunts.
It kills.
And it disappears again.
That makes it psychologically entirely different.
There are also centuries-old cultural images: the evil wolf, the predator, the intruder, the threat to herd and human alike.
That is why attack statistics alone are not enough to understand farmers’ reactions.
Christian Gantner, the regional councillor, also points out that wolf presence can cause unrest among grazing animals and can be a considerable emotional burden for alpine farmers [1].
That should be taken seriously.
Anyone who arrives at a pasture in the morning and finds a severely injured animal is not experiencing a statistic.
They are experiencing suffering.
But emotional strain and an appropriate political measure are two different levels.
And then the debate quickly turns to the rifle
Vorarlberg significantly changed its legal position in 2026.
Since April, Section 41a of the Vorarlberg Hunting Act has allowed a wolf to be shot even where the life or health of people or livestock on alpine pastures and grazing land is immediately endangered. A kill does not necessarily have to have occurred already [6].
Politically, the change was justified by the need for faster and more practical wolf management [7].
The protection status was also changed at EU level. Directive (EU) 2025/1237 moved the wolf from Annex IV to Annex V of the Habitats Directive. Member States must implement the change by 15 January 2027 at the latest. The wolf therefore remains a protected species; however, the change opens up greater scope for management measures. Member States may at the same time retain stricter protection rules [8].
This means that the political debate about culls has long ceased to be merely theoretical.
Which makes the next question all the more important:
Does culling actually work as livestock protection?
Kurt Kotrschal: “There is no way around livestock protection.”
Few people have followed the Austrian debate on wolves, dogs and humans as consistently as behavioural biologist Kurt Kotrschal.
In 2008, Kotrschal was one of the founders of the Wolf Science Center, together with Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi. Wolves and dogs are kept there under comparable conditions and studied in terms of social behaviour, cognition, domestication and their relationship with humans. Since 2017, the Wolf Science Center has been a Core Facility of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna [9].
His scientific work goes far beyond the public wolf debate. The University of Vienna lists an extensive publication record; in 2023, for example, Kotrschal published the peer-reviewed review “Wolf–Dog–Human: Companionship Based on Common Social Tools”, examining the social and cooperative similarities between wolves, dogs and humans [10].
His position on livestock protection has been exceptionally clear for years.
“There is no way around livestock protection.” [11]
Kotrschal also explicitly says that livestock protection cannot provide one-hundred-per-cent security. His argument is rather that culls do not replace prevention [11].
In April 2026, he put his criticism even more sharply:
“By pretending that the problem can be solved through culling, farmers are being left out in the rain.” [12]
In his view, low-conflict coexistence requires high-quality protective measures and stable pack structures [12].
But Kotrschal, too, must be judged against the research
Kotrschal’s professional experience is considerable.
Nevertheless, a statement does not automatically become scientific fact simply because a renowned researcher makes it.
So I examined this claim too.
A study from Slovakia examined the years from 2014 to 2019 and asked whether regular public wolf hunting was associated with fewer livestock attacks.
The result: the researchers found no relationship between the number of wolves shot and livestock losses. Instead, they found a stronger relationship with the amount of available natural prey [13].
A study published in 2025 from the Golan Heights analysed nine years of verified wolf attacks and culls. There too, lethal control did not reliably reduce recurring attacks at the scales examined. A farm with intensive culling showed no discernibly lower predation than a farm relying mainly on non-lethal measures [14].
A review by Bruns, Waltert and Khorozyan likewise concluded that, in the cases assessed, lethal control and translocation were generally less effective than various preventive measures such as fences, deterrence methods and herd management [15].
This strongly argues against the idea:
Shoot the wolf — problem solved.
But science is not black and white here either.
There are studies in which targeted removals had an effect
A North American study by Bradley and colleagues examined 967 attack events involving 156 wolf packs.
There, the complete removal of a pack significantly extended the time until another attack in the area concerned. Rapid partial removal could also reduce the risk of recurrence, though the effect was considerably smaller [16].
This needs to be included in a serious article.
Because it would be just as scientifically unsound to claim:
“Culls can never work.”
What the research shows instead is this:
Broad, non-targeted or preventive hunting is not a reliably demonstrated substitute for livestock protection.
However, the highly targeted removal of an individual animal or pack that has demonstrably and repeatedly killed livestock can have local effects under certain conditions.
Those are two entirely different claims.
And it is precisely this distinction that is missing from many debates.
Livestock protection works — but it is not a magic trick
Livestock protection is also often exaggerated.
One side claims:
“Just put up a fence.”
The other:
“Livestock protection is fundamentally impossible on our alpine pastures.”
Neither claim stands up to closer scrutiny.
In their review, Bruns and colleagues found substantial reductions in wolf attacks across various prevention methods. Electric fencing and certain deterrence methods performed particularly well. Livestock guardian dogs also showed an effect, although more variably and strongly dependent on the respective conditions [15].
A particularly interesting Austrian study was published in April 2026.
Isabella Faffelberger and Felix Knauer of the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna developed a model for livestock protection on Austrian alpine pastures and additionally assessed it through 22 pasture inspections.
Their result is remarkable:
For all sheep and goats currently kept on Austrian alpine pastures, a technically protectable location or protection concept can be found — for example through electric fences or through managed herds with shepherds, herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs and night enclosures [17].
However, this does not mean:
“Everything is easy.”
The authors explicitly state that their study evaluates technical feasibility. Labour, costs, ownership structures, acceptance, contracts and organisational reality were not fully represented.
In some cases, animals would even have to be moved to other alpine grazing areas.
Science therefore does not say:
“Every farmer can simply put up a fence tomorrow.”
But neither does it say:
“Livestock protection in the Austrian Alps is fundamentally impossible.”
And that difference is crucial.
A livestock guardian dog is not simply a large watchdog you put with the herd
A great deal is underestimated in public debate, especially when it comes to livestock guardian dogs.
A livestock guardian dog is not an ordinary farm dog.
It lives largely within the livestock’s social group, must reliably distinguish between an actual threat and ordinary stimuli, and at the same time cope with hikers, cyclists and unfamiliar dogs.
The Austrian Centre for Bear, Wolf and Lynx therefore tests encounters with walkers, cyclists and unfamiliar dogs as part of certification. Aggressive behaviour must not be shown [18].
Their use is also demanding in legal terms.
In Austria, at least two livestock guardian dogs must be used together. On an unfenced alpine pasture, they may only be used under human guidance and supervision for at least the greater part of the day. On fenced grazing land, checks must be carried out at least twice daily [19].
That is a crucial point.
Anyone who says:
“Farmers should just get a livestock guardian dog”
is making it too easy.
A functioning livestock protection system can mean:
Different herd management,
more staff,
more monitoring,
more responsibility,
additional dogs,
training,
veterinary costs,
insurance,
conflict management with hikers,
and in some cases a fundamental change to traditional free-range alpine grazing.
That does not just cost money.
It costs work.
This is precisely why funding now becomes interesting
Because, in principle, funding is available.
The European Commission explicitly identifies livestock guardian dogs, fences, shepherds’ accommodation and shepherding as measures that can be supported through the Common Agricultural Policy [20].
Investments such as protective fencing or the acquisition of livestock guardian dogs can even be funded at up to 100 per cent under the relevant CAP instruments. Additional labour costs, fence maintenance, and feed and veterinary costs for livestock guardian dogs can also in principle be supported through suitable agri-environmental or eco-scheme instruments [21].
However, this is a funding possibility under EU law.
It does not mean that every Austrian farm automatically receives reimbursement for 100 per cent of its costs.
For that to happen, the federal government or the provinces must include the respective instruments in their funding programmes.
And that is where things get interesting.
Austria now pays 1,200 euros per livestock guardian dog
Austria’s ÖPUL programme includes the measure “Animal Welfare — Shepherding”.
Shepherding and the use of livestock guardian dogs are subsidised [22].
The supplement for a livestock guardian dog was 756 euros in 2024.
From the 2025 application year, it was increased to 1,200 euros per dog, for a maximum of five dogs per alpine pasture.
And the reason for the increase is highly revealing.
In the first application year, only eight livestock guardian dogs had been applied for under this scheme.
The Ministry of Agriculture explicitly justified the increase by pointing to low uptake and the aim of making the measure more attractive [23].
Eight dogs.
For the whole of Austria.
At the very least, this figure should raise questions in a debate about allegedly unavoidable wolf culls.
Vorarlberg also funds livestock protection
Vorarlberg additionally has its own livestock protection guideline.
The province currently covers 50 per cent of the eligible net costs of technical livestock protection measures.
Depending on herd size, costs of up to 3,000 euros are recognised for sheep and goats. These maximum amounts may be used twice during the term of the current guideline [24].
The funding logic becomes even more interesting when prevention and damage are compared:
For livestock protection, 50 per cent of recognised costs are covered.
By contrast, the province covers 100 per cent of treatment costs for injured livestock and compensation for livestock killed by wolves or bears [24].
However, there is an important restriction:
After a first attack, compensation can in principle be made conditional on appropriate preventive measures having been taken — provided these are possible at all within reasonable judgement [24].
It is therefore not possible to seriously claim:
“The farmer gets full compensation for the attack anyway and does not need to protect anything at all.”
The system is not that simple.
But it is fair to ask whether a funding structure is optimally designed when prevention has to be co-financed in part while damage that has already occurred can be fully reimbursed.
Vorarlberg’s agriculture receives substantial public support
At this point, the question arises that is often put far more emotionally:
Why are public subsidies for agriculture taken for granted, while livestock protection is so often said to be economically or practically unreasonable?
Here too, figures help.
In the 2025 alpine summer, 513 alpine pastures in Vorarlberg were managed by 1,062 alpine farmers. A total of 39,516 animals were kept there.
According to the province, around 14 million euros were provided to compensate for these services, including around 4.5 million euros from provincial funds [25].
For agriculture as a whole, around 40.8 million euros was invested in Vorarlberg in 2025 — for a wide range of purposes, from cultural landscapes and animal welfare to food security and infrastructure [25].
I mention this not to scandalise agricultural subsidies.
Mountain farming does not merely produce food. It maintains cultural landscapes, preserves grazing land, creates regional value and delivers services that are explicitly intended to be supported politically.
Funding is not automatically “cashing in”.
But public funding also creates a legitimate counter-question:
If society supports the management of alpine landscapes with substantial public funds, is it not also entitled to expect that scientifically sound adaptations to the return of large predators will at least be seriously tested?
I consider that question entirely legitimate.
“Farmers only want money” — can that be substantiated?
No.
Not in such sweeping terms.
I found no robust scientific basis from which one could infer that Austrian farmers generally and deliberately collect subsidies while refusing livestock protection out of convenience.
Such a claim would be unfair.
What can be substantiated, however, is more nuanced — and ultimately more interesting:
There is a substantial implementation gap.
Funding opportunities exist.
The livestock guardian dog supplement was even increased because hardly anyone applied for it.
At the same time, there are strong reservations about livestock protection in parts of agriculture.
And that resistance does not have technical causes alone.
Research from South Tyrol shows: it is about more than money
South Tyrol is particularly well suited for comparison because its alpine pasture structure, tourism and livestock farming have many similarities with Austrian alpine regions.
Researcher Julia Stauder surveyed 45 sheep farmers on four South Tyrolean alpine pastures.
The result:
Attitudes towards livestock protection measures were predominantly negative. The reasons cited were technical difficulties, additional work and emotional strain.
But the study found something else too:
Social pressure played a substantial role.
Family, other farmers and the social environment could either encourage or hinder willingness to use livestock protection. In addition, a lack of advice and insufficient funding for additional costs were cited [26].
A second South Tyrolean study, published in 2026, confirms this picture.
Alongside technical problems, researchers identified staff shortages, additional work, social resistance, limited professional support, funding problems and an alpine farming system under general economic pressure [27].
That is something entirely different from:
“Farmers are too lazy.”
The problem runs deeper.
In some cases, an entire management system would have to change
Many alpine grazing systems developed at a time when large predators were virtually absent.
As a result, sheep can in some cases graze freely over large areas with comparatively little supervision.
Livestock protection often requires the opposite:
More compact herds,
regular monitoring,
shepherding,
night enclosures,
electric fences,
livestock guardian dogs.
That means structural change.
And that is probably where one of the biggest conflicts lies.
Not:
Wolf versus farmer.
But:
Wolf versus a management model that worked for decades without wolves.
The current Austrian study by Faffelberger and Knauer therefore reaches a very interesting conclusion: livestock protection is technically possible in the Austrian Alpine region, but may in some cases require substantial institutional, social and economic changes [17].
That is far more honest than either political extreme.
Livestock protection costs time above all
A current EU practical project in the Italian province of Grosseto shows why it is not enough to pay a farm for a fence or dog.
Eighty-six farms were supported there. A total of 45 livestock guardian dogs were used on 27 farms, while 79 protective fences were installed on 67 farms.
According to the European Commission, the measures reduced the number of attacks by 47 per cent and the number of animals killed by 50 per cent [28].
But the economically perhaps most interesting figure is another one.
The cost of livestock protection was estimated at around 43 to 54 euros per animal per year.
Fifty-two per cent of these costs consisted of additional labour, above all family labour [28].
That explains a great deal.
Funding an electric fence is comparatively easy.
Paying someone to inspect it, clear vegetation around it, move it, repair it and manage animals every day is much harder.
That is precisely why livestock protection can remain unattractive to an individual farm despite available funding.
Kurt Kotrschal goes one step further
In an interview with the Initiative for a Federal Hunting Act, Kotrschal was asked specifically why adequate livestock protection was not being implemented in Austria.
His answer is exceptionally clear.
He does not hold individual farmers alone responsible, but sees resistance particularly among agricultural interest groups and argues that existing EU opportunities are therefore not being sufficiently used [29].
That is Kotrschal’s statement.
It is not a fact proven by that statement alone.
But some of the figures researched are at least consistent with his diagnosis:
The federal government had to raise the livestock guardian dog premium because demand was exceptionally low.
EU funding opportunities are only partially used in Austria.
Recent research describes not only practical barriers in alpine farming systems, but also social and institutional resistance to livestock protection [17][23][27].
This criticism should therefore not simply be dismissed as “wolf romanticism”.
It deserves a factual response.
At the same time, agriculture has legitimate objections
This side also belongs fully in the article.
A vast high alpine pasture with steep, rugged terrain is something different from a fenced valley pasture.
After the cattle attack in Tschagguns, for example, the province stated that conventional livestock protection measures were not practicable on the high alpine pasture concerned because of the terrain and vegetation [4].
Livestock guardian dogs can also create conflicts with hikers and free-roaming companion dogs. The European Commission explicitly describes such user conflicts in regions where livestock guardian dogs have been used for longer [30].
Then there are staff shortages, liability issues, training, husbandry requirements and the fact that at least two dogs are necessary.
The answer therefore cannot be:
Every farmer gets two dogs tomorrow and the problem is solved.
But neither can the answer be:
Our landscape is different, so livestock protection fundamentally does not work here.
It is precisely this blanket assertion that is significantly called into question by Austrian research from 2026 [17].
Perhaps we have been funding the wrong things so far
If more than half of actual livestock protection costs consist of labour, then investment funding alone is only half a solution.
A farmer may not primarily need money for a fence.
They need:
Staff.
Trained shepherds.
Advice.
Livestock guardian dogs from suitable working lines.
Training.
Insurance.
Veterinary care.
Accommodation on the alpine pasture.
Support in managing conflicts with tourists.
And long-term planning security.
The European Commission explicitly points out that, in principle, the CAP can support not only investments but also certain running costs and additional labour [20][21].
So the question is not merely:
Is there money?
But:
What is it used for — and is the funding model designed so that a farm can actually change its management system?
That is a much better question.
Culling is politically much easier than structural change
A wolf kills an animal.
A culling order is issued.
A hunter shoots the wolf.
The problem appears solved.
Politically, that is easy to communicate.
Livestock protection works differently.
It requires planning.
Advice.
Training.
Staff.
Funding models.
Checks.
Cooperation between farmers, authorities, tourism, nature conservation and the public.
And it requires work every year.
Perhaps that is part of the appeal of the culling debate.
Not necessarily because anyone has bad intentions.
But because a visible immediate measure is easier to communicate politically than structural change that takes years.
Vorarlberg itself shows that culling does not automatically end the problem
At the beginning of August, the wolf in Montafon that later DNA results showed was indeed responsible for several attacks was killed [5].
This is precisely the case supporters of targeted removals can point to as functioning management.
And yet further DNA analysis showed:
A second wolf was involved in at least one of the attacks at the time.
In September, a sheep was also killed again in the Bludenz district [5].
That does not mean the cull was ineffective.
The identified problem wolf could not kill any more animals afterwards.
But it demonstrates the limits of the tool:
Killing a wolf does not create livestock protection.
The next wolf passing through still encounters the same herd and the same husbandry system.
And this is where I consider the wolf debate dishonest
We talk a great deal about how many wolves we are willing to tolerate.
We talk much less about what livestock farming must look like when wolves are present.
Yet that is precisely the long-term question.
The wolf has returned to large parts of Europe.
Its European protection status has now been lowered, but it remains protected [8].
Even more extensive culls would not mean that a wolf will never again migrate to Austria from Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Slovenia or other populations.
Wolves travel great distances.
A system that works only as long as no wolf appears at all therefore remains fundamentally vulnerable.
Livestock guardian dogs could play a larger role — but we would have to genuinely want them to
As a dog trainer, I find this aspect particularly interesting.
A good livestock guardian dog does not work like a conventional protection dog.
Ideally, it should not have to fight the wolf at all.
Its most important function is to signal presence, secure the herd territorially and tell the wolf:
Access here is difficult and risky.
This works best as part of an overall system.
A compact herd.
Suitable dogs.
People.
Fencing or a night enclosure where appropriate.
Monitoring.
Management.
And that is precisely why the livestock guardian dog should neither be romanticised nor dismissed as unsuitable.
It is a highly specialised working dog.
And its successful use requires knowledge.
Perhaps this is exactly where Austrian dog expertise is needed
Austria is currently discussing certificates of competence for private dog owners in depth.
At the same time, a highly complex working dog is central to a socially important task in livestock protection.
Why are we not investing much more heavily in:
Training programmes,
suitable breeding lines,
professional rearing facilities,
certification,
advice for alpine farms,
tourism concepts,
information programmes for hikers,
and long-term funded livestock protection teams?
The Austrian Centre now has certification standards, and animal welfare law defines concrete requirements for their use [18][19].
The structures are therefore beginning to emerge.
Their actual uptake, by contrast, remains very low.
Perhaps the real problem is not the wolf at all
The longer I looked at the studies, the clearer something else became.
The return of the wolf exposes a problem that was already there:
Alpine farming is under considerable economic and staffing pressure.
Farms are disappearing.
Suitable workers are lacking.
Shepherding work is strenuous and comparatively poorly paid.
Many systems function only through public subsidies and enormous amounts of family labour.
The South Tyrolean research describes precisely these structural problems [27].
The wolf does not cause them.
It intensifies them.
And perhaps that is why it becomes a symbol for so much more.
For structural change.
For bureaucracy.
For the feeling of not being understood by an urban society.
For the fear of losing traditional management practices.
If that is true, then this conflict will not be solved with one hundred culling orders either.
Conservationists should not argue from above, either
Conversely, I believe it must be said just as clearly:
It does not help any farmer when someone from a city explains that they should “just put up a fence”.
Livestock protection means real additional work.
It can cost money.
It can change traditional workflows.
And it can be exceptionally difficult on certain land.
Anyone demanding coexistence must therefore also be prepared to share its costs as a society.
To me, that means:
Not only compensation after an attack,
but funding before an attack.
Not only materials,
but working time.
Not only brochures,
but people on the ground.
Not only demands,
but advice and long-term support.
The examples from Italy show that this kind of intensive cooperation can make livestock protection significantly more successful [28].
So what remains of the claim that “farmers only want to cash in”?
After this research, I would not write it that way.
It is too sweeping.
And it does not do justice to the work of many farmers.
What I would write, however, is:
Austria has a livestock protection deficit that requires explanation.
EU funding opportunities exist.
National funding programmes exist.
Provincial funding exists.
Funding for livestock guardian dogs even had to be increased because it was hardly used.
At the same time, it is repeatedly argued in public that livestock protection is not practically possible.
Newer research, by contrast, shows that a protectable system can in principle be found for Austrian sheep and goats on alpine pastures — though in some cases only through substantial changes to the existing management model [17][23].
This contradiction is what needs to be discussed.
Not insultingly.
Not in sweeping terms.
But very clearly.
The probably most uncomfortable question is therefore: what do we actually want to fund?
Do we want to fund a system that essentially tries to preserve unchanged the conditions that existed before wolves returned?
Or do we fund agriculture that can adapt to a changed ecological reality?
This is not a question any individual farmer can answer.
It is a social and political decision about funding structures, labour, tourism, nature conservation and agriculture.
The EU provides instruments.
Science is increasingly providing knowledge about what works.
Technical feasibility is greater than is often claimed.
At the same time, the costs and organisational hurdles are real.
That leaves no convenient excuse for either side.
And what about the wolf itself?
Amid all these discussions, the animal itself almost disappears from view.
The wolf is neither the romantic guardian of an untouched ecosystem nor the bloodthirsty monster of fairy tales.
It is a highly social, intelligent predator.
Kotrschal’s decades of work on wolves, dogs and humans show precisely how complex these animals’ social behaviour is [9][10].
A wolf does not kill a sheep out of malice.
It uses a food source when it is available and relatively easily accessible.
And that is exactly why livestock protection is possible at all.
It does not try to persuade the wolf morally.
It changes the wolf’s cost-benefit calculation.
An unprotected sheep: easy.
A closed herd, electric fence, people and two livestock guardian dogs: difficult.
That is behaviour.
My conclusion: the eight wolf attacks are not the most important figure
The ORF report begins with a provocative figure:
Rockfall kills more cattle than wolves.
An important figure.
But after this research, I consider another figure almost more significant:
Eight.
Eight livestock guardian dogs were applied for in the first funding year under the relevant Austrian programme.
So few that the federal government subsequently had to increase the subsidy significantly [23].
This figure does not prove that farmers refuse livestock protection.
It does not prove that livestock guardian dogs would work everywhere.
And it certainly does not prove that agriculture has no legitimate concerns.
But it reveals an enormous gap between what is publicly said about a lack of alternatives and what is actually implemented.
This gap interests me more than the next culling order.
Because the science provides no convincing evidence that general or non-specific wolf hunting permanently solves the problem of attacks. At the same time, it shows that the targeted removal of specific problematic animals can have local effects under certain conditions [13][14][16].
Livestock protection, in turn, can significantly reduce damage, but it is labour-intensive, costly and requires major changes in some regions [15][17][28].
That makes reality more complicated than both slogans:
“Shoot the wolf.”
and
“Farmers should simply be more careful.”
Neither is enough.
I see the key task elsewhere:
We must finance, organise and professionalise livestock protection in such a way that it is genuinely feasible for agricultural businesses.
And in return, we may then also expect existing options to be seriously used.
Because when public funds are flowing, responsibility cannot be a one-way street.
The wolf is back.
The real question is therefore no longer whether we like that fact.
The question is:
Are we prepared to organise our coexistence with it as professionally as we organise its culls?
“Rockfall kills more cattle than wolves.”
This recent ORF investigation from Vorarlberg made me curious.
So I researched further.
In 2026, at the time of the survey, eight wolf attacks stood against 124 animals killed as part of TBC control. An average of around 300 cattle die every year on Vorarlberg’s alpine pastures for a wide variety of reasons.
Yet hardly any other animal dominates the agricultural policy debate as strongly as the wolf.
It becomes even more interesting when it comes to livestock protection.
EU funding opportunities exist. Austria subsidises shepherding and livestock guardian dogs. The supplement was even increased from 756 to 1,200 euros per dog.
Why?
Because in the first funding year, only eight livestock guardian dogs had been applied for.
So I took a closer look:
Does livestock protection really not work on Austrian alpine pastures?
What do livestock guardian dogs actually cost?
Why is it not enough simply to put a dog with the herd?
What role do labour shortages, tourism, tradition and agricultural interest groups play?
And is Kurt Kotrschal right when he says: “There is no way around livestock protection”?
The new ZEITKANTE DEEP DIVE tries neither to condemn farmers nor to romanticise the wolf.
It asks a more uncomfortable question:
If we invest millions in alpine farming, why do we not invest with the same determination in a functioning system that protects livestock before they are attacked?
HASHTAGS:
#Wolf #LivestockProtection #LivestockGuardianDog #WolfCulling #Vorarlberg #Austria #AlpineFarming #Agriculture #NatureConservation #AnimalWelfare #KurtKotrschal #ZEITKANTE
RECHERCHE
Sources
- [1]ORF Vorarlberg (2026): „Steinschlag tötet mehr Rinder als Wolf“. Beitrag vom 18. September 2026. Grundlage für die Vorarlberger Zahlen zu Steinschlag, durchschnittlichen Rinderverlusten, TBC, Wolfsrissen, Wolfsbestand und öffentlicher Kommunikation. [ORF Vorarlberg – Steinschlag tötet mehr Rinder als Wolf](https://vorarlberg.orf.at/stories/3371632/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [2]
- [3]Österreichzentrum Bär, Wolf, Luchs (2026): Nutztierrisse 2025 nach Bundesländern. Detailzahlen für Vorarlberg.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [4]ORF Vorarlberg (2026): „Wolf in Vorarlberg zum Abschuss freigegeben“. Bericht vom 2. August 2026 über den Riss eines Jungrinds in Tschagguns und die Einschätzung zur Praktikabilität von Herdenschutz auf der betroffenen Hochalpe.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [5]ORF Vorarlberg (2026): DNA-Ergebnisse zu den Wolfsrissen im Montafon. Berichte vom 8. und 16. September 2026 über die genetische Zuordnung der Risse und die Beteiligung eines zweiten Wolfs.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [6]Land Vorarlberg / RIS (2026): Jagdgesetz § 41a. Regelung zum Abschuss eines Wolfs bei unmittelbarer Gefährdung.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [7]Land Vorarlberg (2026): Änderungen des Jagdgesetzes und der Wolfsmanagementverordnung. Darstellung der politischen und rechtlichen Begründung der Neuregelung.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [8]
- [9]Wolf Science Center: Geschichte und Forschungsauftrag. Das WSC wurde 2008 von Friederike Range, Zsófia Virányi und Kurt Kotrschal gegründet und gehört seit 2017 zur Veterinärmedizinischen Universität Wien. [Wolf Science Center – Geschichte](https://www.wolfscience.at/de/wsc-forschung/geschichte-des-wsc/?utm_source=chatgpt.com)
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [10]Kotrschal, K. (2023): „Wolf–Dog–Human: Companionship Based on Common Social Tools“. *Animals*, 13(17), 2729. Peer-reviewte Übersichtsarbeit zu sozialen und kooperativen Gemeinsamkeiten von Wolf, Hund und Mensch. DOI: 10.3390/ani13172729.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [11]
- [12]ORF.at (2026): „NGOs: Wolf nicht in günstigem Erhaltungszustand“. Enthält aktuelle Aussagen Kurt Kotrschals zu Abschüssen und hochwertigem Herdenschutz.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [13]Kutal, M.; Duľa, M.; Royer Selivanova, A.; López-Bao, J. V. (2023): „Testing a conservation compromise: No evidence that public wolf hunting in Slovakia reduced livestock losses“. *Conservation Letters*, 17, e12994. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12994.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [14]Nadler Valency, R. et al. (2025): „Effects of lethal and non-lethal wolf management measures on livestock depredation in the Golan Heights, Israel“. *Ecological Solutions and Evidence*, 6, e70157. DOI: 10.1002/2688-8319.70157.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [15]Bruns, A.; Waltert, M.; Khorozyan, I. (2020): „The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans“. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, 21, e00868. DOI: 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00868.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [16]Bradley, E. H. et al. (2015): „Effects of wolf removal on livestock depredation recurrence and wolf recovery in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming“. *Journal of Wildlife Management*, 79(8), 1337–1346. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.948.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [17]Faffelberger, I. E.; Knauer, F. (2026): „Feasibility analysis of livestock protection implementation on alpine pastures“. *Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice*, 16:15739. Veterinärmedizinische Universität Wien. DOI: 10.3389/past.2026.15739.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [18]Österreichzentrum Bär, Wolf, Luchs: Kriterien und Zertifizierung von Herdenschutzhunden. Beurteilung unter anderem von Herdentreue, Sozialverhalten und Begegnungen mit Wanderern, Radfahrern und anderen Hunden.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [19]Republik Österreich / RIS: 2. Tierhaltungsverordnung, Anlage 1, Punkt 1.10. Rechtliche Vorgaben für Ausbildung und Einsatz von Herdenschutzhunden, darunter Mindestzahl von zwei Hunden sowie Betreuung und Begleitung.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [20]Europäische Kommission: EU funding and large carnivores. Übersicht zu Fördermöglichkeiten aus der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik für Herdenschutzhunde, Zäune, Hirtenunterkünfte, Behirtung und andere Präventionsmaßnahmen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [21]Europäische Kommission: Facts and Common Misconceptions – Large Carnivores. Informationen zu möglichen Förderquoten von bis zu 100 Prozent für bestimmte nichtproduktive Investitionen sowie zur Förderung laufender Kosten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [22]Agrarmarkt Austria / BMLUK (2026): ÖPUL „Tierwohl – Behirtung“. Behirtung und Herdenschutzhunde als förderfähige Maßnahmen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [23]BMLUK: GAP-Strategieplan / ÖPUL-Anpassungen. Anhebung des Herdenschutzhund-Zuschlags von 756 auf 1.200 Euro ab Antragsjahr 2025 aufgrund geringer Beantragung; im ersten Jahr waren lediglich acht Hunde gefördert worden.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [24]
- [25]Land Vorarlberg (2026): Rechnungsabschluss 2025 / Alpstatistik. Angaben zu rund 14 Millionen Euro für Leistungen der Alpwirtschaft und 40,8 Millionen Euro Ausgaben im Bereich Landwirtschaft.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [26]Stauder, J. (2023): „Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to Explore the Intention of Farmers to Use Livestock Protection Measures“. *Mountain Research and Development*, 43(2), R22–R30. DOI: 10.1659/mrd.2022.00034. Qualitative Untersuchung von 45 Schafhaltern auf vier Südtiroler Alpen.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [27]Stauder, J.; Platzgummer, J.; Ende, L.; Favilli, F.; Kostner, B. (2026): „Managing livestock protection and summer pasture farming: The results from a participatory stakeholder process in the Alps“. *Conservation Science and Practice*, 8(5), e70284. DOI: 10.1111/csp2.70284.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [28]Europäische Kommission (2026): Grosseto/LIFE MEDWOLF. Praxisbeispiel zu Herdenschutzhunden und Zäunen auf 86 Betrieben; dokumentierte Angriffsrückgänge sowie Angaben zu Arbeits- und Gesamtkosten.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [29]Interview mit Kurt Kotrschal – Initiative Bundes-Jagdgesetz. Kotrschals Position zu mangelnder Nutzung von Herdenschutz und EU-Fördermöglichkeiten. Die Quelle ist eine Interessensinitiative und wird deshalb ausdrücklich als Interviewaussage Kotrschals, nicht als unabhängiger Beleg verwendet.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE - [30]Europäische Kommission – EU Large Carnivore Platform: Praxisbeispiel Vercors, Frankreich, zu Konflikten zwischen Herdenschutzhunden, Landwirtschaft, Wanderern und anderen Nutzern der Landschaft.
↑ BACK TO FIRST REFERENCE