image
image
image
Ilka Reinhardt, Gesa Kluth, Sabina Nowak
and Robert W. Mysłajek
Standards for the monitoring of the
Central European wolf population
in Germany and Poland
BfN-Skripten 398
2015

image
image
Standards for the monitoring of the
Central European wolf population
in Germany and Poland
Ilka Reinhardt
Gesa Kluth
Sabina Nowak
Robert W. Mysłajek

Cover picture:
S. Koerner
Graphic:
M. Markowski
Authors’ addresses:
Ilka Reinhardt
LUPUS, German Institute for Wolf Monitoring and Research
Gesa Kluth
Dorfstr. 20, 02979 Spreewitz, Germany
Sabina Nowak
Association for Nature “Wolf
Twadorzerczka 229, 34-324 Lipowa, Poland
Robert Myslajek
Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Biology,
University of Warsaw
Project Management:
Harald Martens
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN), Unit II 1.1 “Wildlife Conservation”
The present paper is the final report under the contract „Development of joint monitoring standards for
wolves in Germany and Poland“, financed by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear safety (BMUB).
Client:
German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety (BMUB).
Contract period:
01.03.2013 - 31.10.2013
This publication is included in the literature database “DNL-online”
(www.dnl-online.de).
BfN-Skripten are not available in book trade. A pdf version can be downloaded from the internet
at:
http://www.bfn.de/0502_skripten.html.
Publisher:
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN)
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Konstantinstrasse 110
53179 Bonn, Germany
URL:
http://www.bfn.de
The publisher takes no guarantee for correctness, details and completeness of statements and views in this
report as well as no guarantee for respecting private rights of third parties. Views expressed in this
publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publisher.
This work with all its parts is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the strict limits of the copyright law
without the con-sent of the publisher is inadmissible and punishable.
Reprint, as well as in extracts, only with permission of Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
Printed by the printing office of the Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and
Nuclear Safety
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
ISBN 978-3-89624-133-7
Bonn, Germany 2015

1
Content
Summary .................................................................................................................................... 2
Zusammenfassung ...................................................................................................................... 2
Streszczenie ................................................................................................................................ 3
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
2. Background ............................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Current situation of wolves in Poland .............................................................................. 6
2.2 Current situation of wolves in Germany .......................................................................... 7
2.3 Requirements pursuant to the Habitats Directive ........................................................... 8
2.3.1
Required data ....................................................................................................... 9
2.3.2
Reporting obligations ........................................................................................... 9
2.4 Current monitoring of wolves in Poland ........................................................................ 13
2.5 Current monitoring of wolves in Germany .................................................................... 14
3. Monitoring basics and suggestions ...................................................................................... 17
3.1 Terminology and aims .................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Methods for monitoring wolves ..................................................................................... 17
3.3 Monitoring methods feasible for the Central European Wolf Population .................... 18
3.4 Stratified monitoring ...................................................................................................... 19
4. Proposed standards for the monitoring of the Central European wolf population ............ 20
4.1
Assessment of wolf observations .............................................................................. 20
4.2
Criteria that characterize an "experienced person" .................................................. 21
4.3
Data analysis, interpretation and methods recommended ...................................... 21
4.3.1
Spatial analysis – area of occurence .................................................................. 22
4.3.2
Demographic analysis – population size ............................................................ 25
4.3.3
Standardisation of data interpretation .............................................................. 30
4.3.4
Data storage and evaluation .............................................................................. 33
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 35
Literature .................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendix 1. Funding sources and costs of wolf monitoring in different European countries 39

2
Summary
Germany and Poland share a joint wolf population ‐ the Central European population. For a
joint assessment of the status of transboundary populations, the underlying data must be
comparable. In 2012, the members of the Polish‐German wolf working group decided to
commission the development of joint monitoring standards as a prerequisite to allow a
robust population‐level evaluation of population size, area of occurrence and their
respective trends.
The proposed joint German‐Polish monitoring standards presented here are based on the
SCALP criteria, which classify wolf observations according to their verifiability. Population
size and area of occurrence assessments are based on hard facts (C1) and confirmed
observations (C2) only. There are still minor differences in data evaluation between
Germany and Poland, which we aim to overcome in coming years as we gain experience
applying the criteria. Wolf scientists from both countries should meet once a year to report
national monitoring results, jointly determine the status of possibly transboundary
territories and estimate the effect of deviations that still exist in data evaluation.
The output of these meetings should be an annual status report on the Central European
wolf population, with joint assessment of population size and a transboundary distribution
map. The meetings should also be used to review and refine the standards, taking into
account the expected increase in population size and concomitant increase in range. It is
recommended that other countries sharing the same population, like the Czech Republic and
in future perhaps Denmark and the Netherlands, too, should join these meetings and adopt
the same monitoring standards.
Zusammenfassung
Deutschland und Polen teilen sich dieselbe Wolfspopulation, die Mitteleuropäische
Population. Um den Populationsstatus grenzübergreifend einschätzen zu können, müssen
die zugrunde liegenden Daten vergleichbar sein. 2012 gaben die Mitglieder der deutsch‐
polnischen Wolfsarbeitsgruppe daher die Entwicklung gemeinsamer Monitoringstandards in
Auftrag. Diese sind die Voraussetzung, um robuste Schätzungen der Populationsgröße, des
Vorkommensgebietes und
der Trends dieser beiden Faktoren auf Populationsebene
durchführen zu können.
Die hier vorliegenden Vorschläge für deutsch‐polnische Monitoringstandards basieren auf
den SCALP‐ Kriterien, anhand derer Wolfshinweise nach ihrer Überprüfbarkeit klassifiziert
werden. Schätzungen bezüglich der Populationsgröße und des Vorkommensgebietes
beruhen ausschließlich auf Nachweisen (C1) und bestätigten Hinweisen (C2). Noch gibt es
kleinere Abweichungen in der Datenevaluierung zwischen beiden Ländern, die in den
nächsten Jahren mit zunehmender Erfahrung bei der Anwendung dieser Standards
überwunden werden sollten. Wolfswissenschaftler beider Länder sollten sich jährlich treffen,
um die nationalen Monitoringergebnisse zu präsentieren, den Status möglicherweise
grenzübergreifender Territorien zu bestimmen und die Auswirkungen der noch vorhandenen
Unterschiede in der Datenevaluierung abzuschätzen.
Als Ergebnis dieser Treffen sollte ein jährlicher Statusbericht der Mitteleuropäischen
Wolfspopulation erstellt werden, der eine gemeinsame Populationsgrößenschätzung und
eine grenzübergreifenden Verbreitungskarte enthält. Die jährlichen Treffen sollten auch

3
dazu genutzt werden, die gemeinsamen Monitoringstandards zu überarbeiten und
weiterzuentwickeln, auch in Hinblick auf das zu erwartende weitere Wachstum und der
damit einhergehenden Ausbreitung der mitteleuropäischen Population. Wir empfehlen, dass
weitere Staaten, die dieselbe Population teilen, wie die Tschechische Republik und in
Zukunft möglicherweise auch Dänemark und die Niederlande, an den jährlichen Treffen
teilnehmen und die Standards übernehmen.
Streszczenie
Niemcy i Polska dzielą tą samą populację wilka, nazywaną populacją środkowoeuropejską.
Aby móc wspólnie oceniać status populacji gatunków o zasięgach trans granicznych zebrane
na ich temat dane powinny być porównywalne. W 2012 r. członkowie Polsko‐Niemieckiej
grupy roboczej ds. wilka zaleciła opracowanie wspólnych standardów monitoringu, które
umożliwiłyby
ocenę liczebności, obszaru występowania oraz trendów zmian tych
parametrów na poziomie całej populacji.
Standardy monitoringu przedstawione w niniejszym opracowaniu opierają się na
zmodyfikowanych kryteriach SCALP (Status and Conservation of the Alpine Lynx Population),
w których dane o obecności wilków są klasyfikowane zgodnie z ich
weryfikowalnością. Ocena
wielkości populacji i obszaru występowania gatunku są oparte wyłącznie na stwierdzeniach
pewnych (C1) oraz odpowiednio zweryfikowanych (C2). Istnieją wciąż niewielkie różnice w
zaproponowanej ocenie danych pomiędzy Niemcami i Polską, które w przyszłych latach
chcielibyśmy stopniowo eliminować wraz ze wzrastającym doświadczeniem w monitoringu i
zachodzącymi zmianami w wielkości i zasięgu populacji. Specjaliści zajmujący się badaniami
nad wilkami z obu państw powinni się co roku spotykać, aby przedstawić wyniki
przeprowadzonego monitoringu w każdym z krajów, wspólnie ocenić status transgranicznych
terytoriów wilków oraz oszacować wpływ różnic w metodyce na uzyskane wyniki.
Wynikiem tych spotkań powinien być roczny raport na temat sytuacji środkowoeuropejskiej
populacji wilka oraz wspólna ocena wielkości populacji wraz z mapą rozmieszczenia gatunku.
Spotkania powinny również zmierzać do stopniowego doskonalenia i ujednolicenia
standardów monitoringu. Zaleca się by pozostałe
kraje dzielące tą samą populacją, np.
Czechy a w przyszłości prawdopodobnie również Dania i Holandia, włączyły się w te
spotkania i również zastosowały zaproponowane standardy.

4
1. Introduction
Wolves in Germany and the western half of Poland (west of the 18° 08’ meridian) belong to
the Central European Lowland population (KACZENSKY et al. 2013), short Central European
wolf population (CEWP). This population is one of the fastest growing wolf populations in
Europe today. Several dispersers have already reached Denmark and the Czech Republic.
The rapid expansion of this population presents a clear challenge for its conservation and
monitoring.
In 2009, a first official Polish‐German meeting on wolves took place. Attendees included
members of federal ministries and authorities, regional (Länder, Provinces) ministries and
authorities, as well as wolf biologists from both countries. At this meeting, it was agreed that
Germany and Poland share a common wolf population, and the decision was taken to
establish a transboundary wolf working group. Since then, the German‐Polish wolf working
group has met on average once a year. In 2011, the members of the working group decided
to commission a feasibility study for joint management of the common Polish‐German wolf
population. The study, was concluded in 2012 (REINHARDT et al. 2012), and, among other
things, recommended to develop common monitoring standards for the shared population.
The purpose was to provide a uniform basis for data analysis and interpretation, including
units of data collection (e.g. individuals or packs / pairs for population size, grid size for area
of occurrence); furthermore, to define monitoring methods. Such standards are a
prerequisite to permit a population level evaluation of population size, area of occurrence
and respective trends.
In 2012, the members of the Polish‐German wolf working group decided to commission the
development of such standards. The German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear safety (BMU) gave LUPUS – German Institute for Wolf Monitoring
and Research a mandate to develop “Joint monitoring standards for the wolf in Poland and
Germany” with regard to the Central European wolf population to condition that Polish wolf
scientists were engaged as a co‐authors. Since Dr. Sabina Nowak from the Association for
Nature “Wolf” and Dr. Robert W. Mysłajek from the University of Warsaw had been
monitoring wolf recovery in Western Poland since 2001, and Dr. Nowak is a member of the
German‐Polish wolf working group and Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe (LCIE), they
were invited to co‐author this report.
National monitoring standards for large carnivores (LCs) have been established in Germany
since 2009 (KACZENSKY et al. 2009). Thesestandards are accepted by all the German Länder
and were reviewed in 2014 (REINHARDT et al. in prep). Obviously, the joint wolf monitoring
standards were to accord with these already existing national standards and ideally to be
comparable with those of other European countries with established cross‐ border
monitoring programmes.
Against this background, a two ‐ day workshop on cross border monitoring of wolf
populations was held in in Neustadt / Germany in May 2013. Wolf monitoring experts from
France, Piedmonte / Italy, Sweden, Poland and Germany participated. The results of this
workshop were compiled in a draft report of joint wolf monitoring standards for Poland and
Germany. This draft was then circulated among Polish wolf scientists for further discussion
and review. In Germany, this step was omitted since the joint standards drafted accorded

image
5
with existing national monitoring standards. The comments of the Polish wolf scientists were
then used to finalise this paper.
This final report is based on the standards for monitoring large carnivores in Germany
(KACZENSKY et al. 2009, REINHARDT et al. in prep), which received strong input from European
experts on wolf monitoring. National monitoring experts from Poland and Germany gave it
its final shape. These experts are asked to give their input in future too, since the standards
should be refined and adapted to the new knowledge gathered and experience gained
through working with the standards.
Fig. 1: Wolf distribution and populations in and around central Europe
.
Dark cells permanent
occurrence, grey cells occasional occurrence. Map: K
ACZENSKY et al. 2013. Data from Poland and
Germany are from 2011 / 2012.

6
2. Background
2.1 Current situation of wolves in Poland
The wolf was persecuted in Poland for centuries, and hunted – at least in some parts of the
country – till 1998, when it became strictly protected (NOWAK AND MYSŁAJEK 2011). Wolf
numbers increased during wars and uprisings, but were reduced in periods of political
stability (JĘDRZEJEWSKA et al. 1996). Large‐scale wolf persecution involving direct killing,
poisoning and pup extermination was conducted in Poland from 1955‐1975. As a result, the
population was reduced to several dozen individuals, and wolves disappeared from most of
the forests of Poland (WOLSAN et al. 1992). In 1975, the wolf gained the status of a game
species, with a short protection season in Western Poland. In following years, the protection
season was expanded throughout the whole country. Until the late 90s, wolf numbers and
range increased in the eastern part of Poland and the Carpathian Mountains. However,
wolves were never permanently present in Western Poland, because whenever they settled
there they were quickly eradicated due to intensive trophy hunting.
In 1998, as a result of a national‐wide campaign of non‐governmental organizations, the wolf
was put under strict protection in the entire country. Thus, Poland was the only country in
central and eastern Europe to protect its vital population of this large carnivore for several
years before joining the European Union.
Data collected during the 2000/2001 National Wolf Census revealed that wolves mainly
inhabited the Carpathian Mountains, and the large forests of the north‐eastern and eastern
parts of Poland, while Western Poland comprised only a few individuals. The number of wolf
packs was estimated at about 110, and the total number of wolves at about 550 individuals
for the whole country (JĘDRZEJEWSKI et al. 2002). In the following years, thanks to strict
protection, wolves gradually resettled in the remaining suitable habitats east of the River
Vistula and started to re‐colonize forests west of this river, where they had been extirpated
many years before. (NOWAK AND MYSŁAJEK 2011).
Currently, based on monitoring data collected by the Association for Nature “Wolf” in
Western Poland, at least 30 resident wolf family groups and pairs were present there in 2013
(S. NOWAK AND R. W. MYSŁAJEK, UNPUBL.).

image
image
image
image
7
Fig. 2: Wolf packs and pairs distribution in Western Poland in the monitoring year 2012 / 2013. Note
that packs and pairs are not distinguished yet in this map. In East and South-East Poland areas
occupied by wolves are shaded.
2.2 Current situation of wolves in Germany
In Germany, wolves were eradicated in the 19
th
century. However, wolves have a large
potential for rapidly spreading into and colonising new areas, or areas of their old
distribution range. Dispersing animals can wander hundreds of kilometers from their natal
packs and re‐colonize areas where wolves disappeared a long time ago. In the second half of
the
20th century, more than 40 wolves came to Germany, from Poland. They mainly
appeared in the north‐east of Germany. Most were shot, while others were killed by road or
railway traffic (REINHARDT & KLUTH 2007). Preventing resettlement of the wolf was the
pronounced goal of the German Democratic Republic, while in the Federal Republic of
Germany; the species, albeit absent, had been strictly protected since 1980 (REINHARDT &
KLUTH 2007).
After German reunification, the wolf became a protected species in the whole country.
Although legally protected, at least six wolves were shot in the 1990s. It was not until the
late 90s that two wolves succeeded in establishing a territory in Germany. In 2000, the first

image
image
image
image
image
image
8
litter of wild born wolf pups was confirmed on active military grounds in Saxony, close to the
Polish border (REINHARDT & KLUTH 2007). This was the starting point for re‐colonisation.
Establishment of a second wolf pack in 2005 marked the beginning of rapid population
growth. In 2013 / 2014, the presence of 25 packs, eight pairs of wolves as well as several
single resident individuals was confirmed in Germany. The territory of one pack lies partly in
the Czech Republic. Reproduction was proved in four Länder, while in recent years single
individuals have been confirmed in five others.
Fig. 3: Wolf distribution in Germany in the monitoring year 2013 / 2014.
2.3 Requirements pursuant to the Habitats Directive
The overarching aims of the Habitats Directive are to achieve and maintain a "favourable
conservation status" (FCS) for all habitats and species of European importance, and to
protect the biodiversity of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the Member States
(DocHab 04‐03/03‐rev.3). To determine whether these aims are being reached in individual
cases, the Member States are called on to "undertake surveillance of the conservation status
of the natural habitats and species referred to in Article 2, with particular regard to priority
natural habitat types and priority species" (Art. 11, Habitats Directive). Since the wolf is
listed in Annexes II and IV in Germany, and in Poland it is included in Annexes II and V of the
Habitats Directive, monitoring of their conservation status is an obligation that follows
directly from Art. 11 of that Directive.

9
2.3.1 Required data
In the "Guidelines for Population Level Management Plans for Large Carnivores in Europe"
(LINNELL et al. 2008), the term "favourable conservation status" (FCS) is defined as follows
(while these guidelines are not legally binding, they are viewed by the Commission as best
practice):
A population is considered to have a favourable conservation status if all of the following
eight conditions are fulfilled:
1 – The population is stable or increasing in size.
2 – It has a sufficiently suitable habitat.
3 – The habitat in question will retain its quality.
4 – The population size for the "Favourable Reference Population" (FRP) has been
achieved (according to the IUCN's Red List criteria D or E).
5 – The population size is equal to or greater than it was at the time the Directive
came into force.
6 – The "Favourable Reference Range" (FRR) has been occupied.
7 – Connectivity within and between populations is being maintained or enhanced (at
least one genetically effective immigrant per generation).
8 – An effective, robust monitoring programme has been established.
Thus, to determine whether the aims of the Habitats Directive have been achieved for a
given population, we require data on the population's size and trends; on its distribution
(area, and connectivity with other populations); on the availability of suitable habitat and on
the quality of the habitat; as well as on the threats to the population. To obtain such data, an
effective, robust programme of monitoring must be carried out.
2.3.2 Reporting obligations
Key findings from monitoring are to be reported to the Commission every six years (Art. 17
Habitats Directive). For a detailed explanation of reporting obligations, we have relied on the
following supporting texts for the Directive:
"Assessment, monitoring and reporting under
Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory notes and guidelines
for the period 2007‐
2012. Final Version 2011 and DocHab‐04‐03/03 rev.3"
.
Favourable Reference Values (FRV) are key concepts in the evaluation of conservation
status. Member states are required to identify threshold values for range and population
size in order to evaluate whether the actual range or population are sufficiently large to
qualify as “favourable”. Favourable Reference Values should be based purely on scientific
grounds. They may be changed between reporting cycles as our understanding of a species
changes.
Practicable definitions of Favourable Reference Population (FRP) and Favourable Reference
Range (FRR) were developed by LINNELL et al. (2008) for large carnivores.

10
Favourable Reference Population
(FRP): in order to qualify for a favourable conservation
status the population size has to ensure the long‐term viability of the species (same unit as
population size). A FRP must fulfill the following criteria:
1 – The population must be at least as large as it was at the time the Habitats
Directive came into force. AND
2 – The population must be at least as large as (preferably, considerably larger than)
the minimum viable population (MVP) as defined by the IUCN viability criteria D
(>1000 mature animals) or E (extinction risk based on a quantitative PVA –
population viability anylysis – <10 % within a period of 100 years). AND
3 – The population is being continually monitored via a robust monitoring
programme.
Favourable Reference Range (FRR):
the area required to sustain a population that has
reached favourable conservation status (in km², if possible with GIS‐map). A FRR must fulfill
the following criteria:
1 – be larger than the minimum area for maintenance of the reference population
(because within a FRR not all areas are equally suitable),
2 – ensure the continuity of distribution within a given population,
3 – ensure connectivity between populations.
The importance of trend information is stressed in the actual texts supporting the Directive,
since trend is regarded as one of the most important components of parameters like range
or population size. To improve the quality of trend information, attention should be paid to
the methodology of the surveillance systems.
Trend
is the directed change of a parameter
over time. In reality, it can be difficult to assess whether there is a real trend in the
short‐term, or whether there is simply a fluctuation or population cycling effect. To
distinguish between fluctuation and trend, more frequent sampling is required. To ensure
frequent
sampling as basis for trend information, trends should be reported over a 12‐year
period.
The
area of occurrence
is a subset of the range, and shows the area actually occupied. It is
shown as occupied 10 × 10 km grids on a map (ETRS LAEA 5210 10 km grid). One way of
measuring the area occupied is by the sum of the grid cells that are occupied by the species.
The
range
may be understood as a polygon that comprises the areas actually occupied.
However, in many cases, a species will not occur throughout its entire range. The range is
formed by filling in the gaps between the grids that are occupied. Nonetheless, range
boundaries must not be drawn so widely around the actual areas of occurrence that range
changes can no longer be detected. The choice of gap distance used to exclude major
discontinuities from the range should reflect the ecological characteristic of the species. For
large terrestrial mammals a gap distance of 40 – 90 km is recommended.
At present, there is no agreement between the member states on which population units
should be used for each species to denote population size. It is recommended whenever
possible and meaningful to use the unit “mature individuals”.
While information on population structure and genetics is not explicitly required for reports,
it is understood that a "certain knowledge" of the pertinent population structure is a

11
requirement for assessment of conservation status. It is noted that such factors as lacking or
very slow population growth, unnaturally high mortality and the lack of any young are all
signs of unfavourable population structures. It may also be meaningful to consider the
genetic structure of a population for assessment.
At the national level, distribution and population maps are to be prepared. The maps are
based on 10 × 10 km ETRS grids projected in ETRS LAEA 52 10. For each biogeographic region
in which the species in question occurs, a report must be prepared that contains the
following information:
Range within the biogeographically region concerned
o
surface area range [km²]
o
method (inventory or statistically robust estimate / extrapolation / expert
assessment)
o
short‐term trend period (rolling 12‐year time window)
o
short‐term trend direction (stable / increasing / decreasing / unknown)
o
short‐term trend magnitude (optional)
o
Favourable Reference Range (in km² with GIS file if available)
o
reason for change
Population
o
population size estimation (unit, minimum, maximum)
o
year or period (when data for population size was recorded)
o
method (inventory or statistically robust estimate / extrapolation / expert
assessment)
o
short‐term
trend period (rolling 12‐year time window)
o
short‐term trend direction (stable / increasing / decreasing / unknown)
o
short‐term trend magnitude (optional; minimum, maximum, confidence interval)
o
Favourable Reference Population
o
reason for change
Habitat for the species
o
area estimate [km²]
o
year or period
(when data for population size was recorded)
o
method (inventory or statistically robust estimate / extrapolation / expert
assessment)
o
quality of the habitat (good / moderate / bad / unknown)
o
short‐term trend period (rolling 12‐year time window)

12
o
short‐term trend direction (stable / increasing / decreasing / unknown)
o
area of suitable habitat for the species [km²] (area thought to be suitable but from
which species may be absent)
o
reason for change
Main pressures (actual pressures; list available under
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal)
Threats (future threats; list available under
http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/article17/reference_portal)
Complementary information
For instance, where two or more member states have made a joint conservation status
assessment for a transboundary population of a (usually wide‐ranging) species, this should
be explained here. Note clearly the Member States involved, how the assessment was
carried out and any joint initiatives taken to ensure a common management of the species
(e.g. population management plan).
Conclusions
In a final section, the species' conservation status in the relevant biogeographic region, at
the end of the reporting period, is estimated (pursuant to Annex C, notes & guidelines –
Reporting under Article 17 ).
Scale
The scale of assessment for the Directive is clearly the biogeographical region and reporting
has to be done for each of the biogeographical regions. The guidelines highly recommend a
population level assessment, since the unit for conservation planning should be the entire
biological unit; that is the population. This is in accordance to the Directive as stated in the
guidance documents: Populations should be seen as biological populations irrespective of
political borders. In cases where populations are transboundary, member states are
encouraged to undertake a common assessment but to report separately (DocHab 04‐03/03‐
rev.3).
Conclusions for monitoring
According to Art. 17 of the Directive, reports should be submitted every six years.
Monitoring efforts themselves must be undertaken continuously and systematically,
however, if they are to yield clear views of conservation status and of any relevant trends.
To permit analysis at the EU level, the final report submitted to the Commission should be
comparable to, and compatible with, those of other countries. As a result of these

13
requirements, monitoring efforts need to be standardised, and interpretation of their results
need to be standardised as well, at both the national and international levels.
2.4 Current monitoring of wolves in Poland
Currently, there is no nation‐wide system for monitoring the wolf population in Poland;
however, efforts are being made to establish such a system. Every year, official information
on the population size of protected species is published by the Central Statistical Office. In
the past several years, these estimates have been done on the basis of annual reports
provided by regional directorates of environmental protection (RDEPs) on population size of
protected species. These reports are prepared in the RDEPs based on information obtained
from local NGOs, scientists, environmentalists, forest divisions and hunters. In some areas,
the population numbers are based on data collected within well‐conducted census or
monitoring projects, in others on guestimates or simply by summing up of numbers reported
by forest divisions or hunting clubs. In the past, when the National Census of Wolves and
Lynx (described below) provided information on wolf numbers in the whole of Poland, these
figures were published as official estimates by the Central Statistical Office.
The government office responsible by law for the monitoring of protected species ‐ the
General Inspection of Environmental Protection (GIEP) ‐ commissioned and provided funds
for monitoring wolves in three Natura 2000 sites from 2006‐2008, and in 10 Natura 2000
sites from 2012‐2014 (of which 3 sites were the same as 2006‐2008). Currently, Poland has
73 Natura 2000 sites designated for the protection of wolves, which cover 22% of the areas
in the country inhabited by this species. Monitoring activities conducted by GIEP from 2006‐
2008 covered about 5% of habitats occupied by wolves, however monitoring was only done
in the continental bioregion. In the second period from 2012‐2014, monitoring will cover
roughly 12% of the species habitat.
The only project to cover the whole of Poland was the National Census of Wolves and Lynx, a
project financed
by non‐ governmental funds. The Census was initiated in 2000 by the
Mammal Research Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences (MRI PAS), the Association for
Nature „Wolf” and the General Directorate of State Forests, and was continued up to 2009
with large effort from hundreds of foresters, national park staff
and scientists (for details
see: J
ĘDRZEJEWSKI et al. 2002, REINHARDT et al. 2012). Over 28,000 sets of information were
collected during this period. Analyses and reporting of results for the whole of Poland were
done on a yearly basis. In the past three years, information on wolf and lynx presence has
still been collected and MRI PAS has analysed the distribution
of wolves, but with less
intensity and with lower participation from the forest service. Nonetheless, 1,000‐2,000
records are still provided on various regions each year, and results with current maps of wolf
and
lynx
distribution
are
published
regularly
on
a
special
website
(http://www.zbs.bialowieza.pl/artykul/526.html).
The methodology developed within the
project was published by GIEP in a methodological handbook describing the recommended
methods of wolf population monitoring, indicators of population status, indicators of habitat
status within Natura 2000 sites and other forest tracts (JĘDRZEJEWSKI et al. 2010).
Additionally, censuses are conducted and financed in some regions by non‐governmental
organisations, regional directorates of State Forests, national parks or regional directorates
of environmental protection. Most of these projects use similar methods of data gathering

image
14
as prepared for the National Census. This allows to add the information collected to the
database of the National Census to fill the gaps and assess changes in wolf occurrence in the
whole of Poland. For example, surveys of wolves were conducted in February 2011 and 2013
by the Regional Directorate of State Forests in Olsztyn in the North Eastern part of Poland.
Collected data were added to the database of the National Census and analysed together
with MRI PAS. In Western Pomerania Province (NW Poland)a winter census of wolves was
conducted in the past two years by the Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection in
Szczecin, together with local national parks and two regional directorates of state forests.
The collected data were also provided to MRI PAS.
Since 2001, long‐term monitoring of the recovering wolf population has been conducted in
Western Poland by the Association for Nature „Wolf” using the same methods as the
National Census with the addition of genetic analysis (NOWAK AND MYSŁAJEK 2011).
Assessments of population size and distribution in Western Poland have been added to
reports from the National Census.
Fig. 4: Area of occurrence of wolves in 2012 / 2013 in Western Poland. Data on wolf distribution in the
eastern part of the country is based on the SPOIS report from 2012.
2.5 Current monitoring of wolves in Germany
The Federal Republic of Germany is a federalist system with a Federal Government and 16
federal states or Länder. The Federal Government defines the basic legal framework, and the
Länder implement it. Large carnivores are protected by federal laws (as well as by EU laws),
and the Federal Government reports to the EU Commission. However, since implementation
of large carnivore conservation is under the jurisdiction of the Länder, they are also
responsible for the monitoring of large carnivores.

15
National monitoring standards for large carnivores accepted by all the Länder (KACZENSKY et
al. 2009) have been in place in Germany since 2009. These standards take into account EU
requirements on reporting for the Habitats Directive and enable comparability of monitoring
data within Germany. They are designed to make documentation and assessments of large‐
carnivore observations comparable and transparent.The standards define how population
size and area of occurrence are estimated on a national basis. They describe monitoring
methods suitable for LC monitoring and define how large carnivore signs must be evaluated.
To do so, LC signs are classified according to their verifiability into hard facts, confirmed
observations and unconfirmed observations. To estimate the area of occurrence and the
population size, only data from hard facts and confirmed observation are used. The
standards contain a monitoring manual that describes in detail under what conditions what
signs of large carnivores can qualify as hard evidence, confirmed observation or unconfirmed
observation, and how hard evidence and confirmed observations must be documented.
These monitoring standards were reviewed in 2014 (REINHARDT et al. in prep.). The data used
for area of occurrence and population size estimation are presented and jointly evaluated at
annual meetings of persons responsible for LC monitoring in the various Länder. The results
of these yearly meetings, are maps of the actual area of occurrence (figure 5) and population
size estimations for wolf and lynx for the previous monitoring year, harmonized on a
national level. This process is facilitated by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
Overall mortality data on the wolf and new occurrences of packs and pairs are collected year
round by LUPUS. These data are provided to Länder authorities upon request. This service
allows for more recent information on the actual wolf situation between the annual
meetings.
Responsibility for engaging institutions or individuals for monitoring services rests with the
Länder. The monitoring effort and funds allocated differ largely between the Länder as does
the monitoring structure. As a rule, data are still collected and evaluated on the level of the
Länder. Sometimes one or two experts are in charge. Besides taking care of their own field
work, these experienced persons coordinate the activities of trained persons and carry out
the data evaluation and analysis. In other areas,
most of the data are collected by trained
persons alone without much coordination and guidance. Not always are experienced
persons for data evaluation and analysis available. Several Länder have created structures
allowing for the provision of expertise across administrative borders and use the expertise of
experienced persons for transboundary data
evaluation. The annual national meetings
described above serve as calibrating process to gain robust national population size
estimations despite the existing monitoring fragmentation.

image
16
Fig. 5: Area of confirmed occurrence of wolves in 2013 / 2014 in Germany.

17
3. Monitoring basics and suggestions
3.1 Terminology and aims
Although everyone seems to be familiar with the term monitoring, it is often confused with
census or survey. Whereas a survey is defined as a collection of quantitative or qualitative
information through standardized procedures in order to define a status at one time step,
monitoring means "a regular and structured surveillance [series of surveys] in order to
ascertain the compliance of a measure with an expected goal to be reached (e.g. recovery of
an endangered population to a viable status", HELLAWELL 1991
fide
BREITENMOSER et al. 2006).
Monitoring is a process where the results are continuously compared with the desired goal.
Before designing a monitoring programme the objective has to be defined first. Second, the
accuracy and precision required to assess whether the monitoring goal has been attained
must be known. Both the question to be answered and the accuracy needed will finally
determine the monitoring methods to be used. The analysis and interpretation of
monitoring results in comparison with the objective will determine the adjustment of the
actions needed in order to reach the monitoring goal (LINNELL et al. 1998, BREITENMOSER et al.
2006).
In regard to the Habitats Directive, the conservation goal is to achieve and maintain
favourable conservation status of wolves. The parameters suitable for assessing the
attainment of this goal are given by the reporting format like population size, population
trend, range and range trend, habitat, etc.
Monitoring of population development does not require keeping track of every single wolf.
However, for other reasons, this may still be necessary because a single individual may cause
a whole host of problems. Surveying a single wolf may therefore be essential from a
management and/or public relation point of view.
3.2 Methods for monitoring wolves
According to BREITENMOSER et al. (2006) passive and active monitoring can be distinguished.
Passive monitoring requires no original field work but mainly means the collection,
evaluation and analysis of information that is provided by the public through chance
encounters. This may include wolves found dead, damage reports or direct observations.
When populations are
hunted, this would also involve harvest data. Care has to be taken
when analyzing and interpreting this information since these methods can produce biased
results. For example, some causes of mortality may be easier to detect (traffic kills) than
others (illegal killing, natural diseases). Additionally, the data collected by passive monitoring
might not be appropriate for all monitoring questions, e.g. the number of depredation
events is not closely linked to wolf population size, but depends more on the husbandry
method being used (KACZENSKY 1996). The existence of an animal killing a disproportionate
number of livestock strongly biases the data (L
INNELL et al. 1998).
Active monitoring means collecting data specifically for the purpose of a monitoring
programme (BREITENMOSER et al. 2006, GESE et al. 2012). This includes field work, but also
special inquiries or habitat analyses. Data are collected in a targeted and systematic way to
minimize the bias, and the monitoring results can directly answer the questions asked.

18
3.3 Monitoring methods feasible for the Central European Wolf
Population
Obviously
snow tracking
is the most common monitoring method for wolves. However, the
climate conditions in Germany and Western Poland often do not allow systematic
application of this method. Thus, snow tracking cannot become a principle method for the
Central European population. However, whenever snow conditions allow tracking, the
opportunity should be used to gain as much information as possible (pack size, marking
animals, new occurrences, etc.).
Genetic analyses
are standard nowadays in LC monitoring. The collection of genetic material
(faeces, hairs, saliva collected at kills) can be done all year round. Snow is appropriate to
collect samples of marking individuals (urine or oestrus blood). Genetic methods should be
applied widely in monitoring the Central European population.
Presence sign survey
– the search for signs left by large carnivores like tracks, scats, scratch
marks or kills – is probably the most common monitoring method for LCs (see KELLY et al.
2012, LINNELL et al. 1998). It can be done all year round under almost all environmental
conditions and should be used as a basic monitoring method for this population. Applied
randomly it produces presence / absence data for distribution maps.
Elicited howling
is used for the detection of wolf reproduction in summer in many wolf
areas. So far, the method has been applied with little success in Germany and moderate
success in Poland (NOWAK et al. 2007). However, the success (answering) rate is generally low
with this method (FULLER et al. 1988). Meanwhile, other methods like camera trap surveys or
genetic analyses have proven successful for confirmation of wolf reproduction (FABBRI et al.
2007, GALAVERINI et al. 2012). Nevertheless, cases using elicited howling might still be
reasonable (LLANEZA et al. 2005). A recent study shows that when analyzing recorded wolf
howling individual identification is possible (ROOT‐GUTTERIDGE et al. 2013).
Camera trapping
has proven successful for monitoring wolves (GALAVERINI et al. 2012). By
means of this method, most reproductions are confirmed in Germany and Western Poland.
In addition, data on minimum pack size, discrimination between neighbouring packs and the
area of occurrence can be gained with camera trapping. Some information on individual
body conditions and disease symptoms like mange can also be obtained with this method.
Telemetry
in itself is not a monitoring method. However, it can provide valuable information
on territory size, habitat use or reasons for mortality that is otherwise difficult to obtain.
Telemetry studies are often used to calibrate the results of a monitoring program. For
instance, without knowledge about the territory sizes in a certain area, it is difficult to
distinguish between neighbouring pairs or family groups. Radio telemetry studies provide
the most accurate data, but are mostly limited to small areas and few individuals
(BREITENMOSER et al. 2006, FULLER AND FULLER 2012). BREITENMOSER et al. (2006) recommend
telemetry to calibrate local monitoring programs. Since territory size data collected from just
a few individuals can vary widely (REINHARDT AND KLUTH 2011), an adequate sample size is
necessary.
Data and information obtained without original field work like chance observations reported
by the public, animals found dead, livestock killed by wolves should also be collected in a
standardized way.

19
3.4 Stratified monitoring
Monitoring large carnivores is a difficult task because top predators are always rare and
roam over large areas. In practice, these constraints make it almost impossible to monitor
wolves with the same intensity over their whole distribution area; especially when
populations grow larger than that of the current range of the Central European wolf
population. In consequence, many countries use so‐called stratified monitoring programmes
(see BREITENMOSER et al. 2006 and GREENWOOD AND ROBINSON 2006 for detailed introduction).
This means monitoring may differ with regard to intensity and methods on the various scales
in space and time. Whereas on a broad, long‐term scale more general questions have to be
answered like distribution, trends in range and population size, on smaller scales more
detailed information is ascertained like home range size and pack size (needed to estimate
density), habitat use, the proportion of floaters or data on reproduction.
The precise data gained in comparatively small study areas are needed to calibrate and
interpret the information obtained with less expensive methods and less intensive effort
over a larger area (BREITENMOSER et al. 2006, BOITANI et al. 2012).
Monitoring coordination across administrative levels is a prerequisite for a stratified
monitoring approach.

20
4. Proposed standards for the monitoring of the Central
European wolf population
During an international workshop in May 2013 in Germany, we aimed to harmonize as many
details as possible of the methodology used by Poland and Germany to monitor the wolf
(regarding the Central European population), while drawing heavily from the experience and
solutions provided by wolf experts from the Alps (France / Piedmont) and Scandinavia
(Norway / Sweden). As a result, we were able to agree on common definitions, parameters
(e.g. sampling units, sampling frequency) and how different units (e.g. packs, pairs, area of
occurrence) must be confirmed.
In a second consultation process, wolf scientists from both countries agreed on using the
SCALP criteria, where observations are classified according to their verifiability into C1 = hard
facts (pictures, genetic records, dead animals, etc.), C2 = confirmed observation (e.g. tracks,
scats, kills, etc. confirmed by an experienced person) and C3 = unconfirmed observations (all
observations that cannot be confirmed) as recommended by Linnell et al. (2008).
In the following, we explain in detail how data will be assigned to different categories.
Wherever the approach differs between Poland and Germany this is stated. The
consequences of differences in data evaluation are discussed in chapter 4.3.3. The German
part refers to KACZENSKY et al. (2009), revised by REINHARDT et al. (in prep).
4.1
Assessment of wolf observations
The SCALP criteria were developed in the framework of SCALP (Status and Conservation of
the Alpine Lynx Population), a conservation initiative
(www.kora.ch)
that among other things
developed standardised criteria for interpretation of lynx‐monitoring data. In the following,
we define the SCALP criteria required for standardised monitoring of wolves in the Central
European Population.
A few preconditions apply:
For the evaluation of field data at least one experienced person must be available.
"Experienced" in this regard means having extensive field experience with the large‐
carnivore species concerned (cf. 4.2).
All observation must be checked for genuineness (i.e. the
possibility of intentional
deception must be ruled out).
The letter "C" stands for "category". The numbers 1, 2 and 3 below have nothing to do with
the observer's qualifications; they are used to denote the level of validation for an
observation.
C1: Hard evidence
= Hard fact, i.e. evidence, that unambiguously
confirms the presence of a
wolf (live capture, dead animal find, genetic proof, photo, telemetric location).
C2: Confirmed observation
= Indirect signs like tracks, scats, kills and wolf dens confirmed by
an experienced person as being caused by a wolf. The experienced person can either confirm
the signs himself in the field, or based on documentation by a third party.

21
In Poland, a wolf sighting by an experienced person under good conditions may be counted
as C2.
C3: Unconfirmed observation
= All observations that are not confirmed by an experienced
person or observations which by their nature cannot be confirmed. Examples in Germany
include all sightings without photographic proof (in Poland sightings by an experienced
person may be counted as C2); all signs that are too old, unclear or incompletely
documented; signs that are too small in number to provide a clear picture (for example a
single track); signs that, for other reasons, do not suffice to provide confirmation; and all
signs that cannot be verified. Category C3 can be divided into the sub‐categories "likely" and
"unlikely".
False: false observations
= observation for which a large carnivore can be ruled out as the
cause.
Evaluation not possible =
signs that cannot be evaluated because of lack of minimum
information needed (e.g. reports of visual observations of tracks or kills).
4.2
Criteria that characterize an "experienced person"
A person is considered "experienced" if he or she has already had extensive experience in
the collection of field data on wolves, meaning that he or she is practised in recognising and
interpreting signs left by the species in the field. In other words, such a person must have
recently taken part over a considerable period of time in relevant field work in the
framework of national or international recognised scientific wolf projects or monitoring
done with methods recommended for the monitoring of wolves in Germany or Poland.
Furthermore, such a person must be familiar with wolf biology and its prey animals (both
wild animals and livestock). To maintain his or her skills in recognising and classifying signs of
wolves, such a person must have the opportunity to see and evaluate signs of this carnivore
on a regular basis. In addition, frequent exchange of experience with other persons active in
the monitoring
of wolves is of great value.
4.3
Data analysis, interpretation and methods recommended
In the following chapter, we explain how monitoring data should be analyzed and results
interpreted in order (1) to meet the monitoring requirements under the Habitats Directive
and (2) to enable authorities to answer questions which might become important for
management and conservation needs. Analysis of data regarding the area of occurrence
differs slightly between Germany and Poland (table 1). The main difference is that Poland
aims only to generate data on permanent occurrence for the yearly assessment, while in
Germany sporadic occurrences are included. Differences between permanent and sporadic
occurrence in Germany are shown when maps from consecutive monitoring years are placed
on top of each other. Grid cells occupied only once represent sporadic occurrence.

22
4.3.1 Spatial analysis – area of occurence
Two spatial population indices (occurrence and range) and their trends describe the spatial
extent of a population.
Occurrence
refers to the area that is actually occupied by the species
in question. It is described in terms of occupied 10 × 10 km grid cells. In
Germany,
a grid cell
is considered occupied if at least one observation classified as C1 has been provided for it.
Where no C1 has been provided, at least three C2 signs are needed.
In
Poland
, where the aim is to confirm permanent wolf occurrence, a grid cell is only
considered occupied if at least two C1 have been provided for it. If only one C1 has been
provided, at least two additional C2 signs are needed. If no C1 is available, a minimum of
four C2, but not only sightings (see, 4.1) must be provided. If wolf reproduction has already
been confirmed in one grid, one C1 or C2 suffices in neighbouring grids to classify them as
occupied. If occurrence of more than one wolf was confirmed in a cell during the previous
monitoring year, only one C1 or C2 is needed in this cell the following year to classify it as
occupied.
The C2‐signs provided to occupy single grid cells have to be independent from each other.
Cells with C3 signs only are considered unoccupied.
Telemetry locations of non‐resident wolves can occupy a grid cell as long as the animal has
not dispersed yet and stays in the immidiate vicinity of its parental territory. The grid cells
crossed during dispersal are not displayed on the annual distribution maps. They will be on
the national German maps compiled every six years where permanent and sporadic
occurrence is dipicted.
The area of occurrence is estimated annually. The trend is estimated by a linear regression
over all data available (number of occupied cells over time).

23
Table 1: Determining wolf occurrence in a grid cell in Germany and Poland
(green = occurrence confirmed = occupied cell;
?
= occurrence not confirmed).
conditions
Germany
Poland
1 x C1
?
≥2 x C1
1 x C1 & ≥2 x C2
1 x C1 & ≥2 wolves confirmed in
previous year
1 x C2 & ≥2 wolves confirmed in
previous year
?
1 x C1 & reproduction
confirmed in neighbouring cell
1 x C2 & reproduction
confirmed in neighbouring cell
?
3 x C2
?
≥4 x C2
≥1 x C3
?
?

24
Fig. 6: Example for determining wolf occurrence (green). For conditions for occupying a grid cell in
Germany and Poland see table 1. Left: continuous distribution with possible extension to the west. The
western extension is speculative. Right: distribution with gaps. The gaps could be real, i.e. gaps in
actual occurrence, or they could be the result of inadequate monitoring.
Fig. 7: Left: Probably the occurrence of a single animal. Right: possible presence of a species without
supporting data. Clarification is required. This situation could be the result of (1) deficient monitoring
(for example, as carried out by inexperienced persons) or (2) reports by "enthusiasts" who simply
suppose the species is present.
4.3.1.1
Recommended methods for surveying the area of occurence
In a first step, collection of chance observations (passive monitoring) requires no field work.
It involves collection, assessment and analysis of information that has been obtained by
chance – for example, examination of wolves found dead, assessment of damage to
livestock, collection of direct sightings reported by the public, and carrying out of
questionnaire surveys. Data obtained in this way must be interpreted with caution, since
they can be affected by systematic discrepancies.
When unconfirmed records accumulate from an area where wolves have not been
confirmed yet, an active search for wolf signs should be carried out. At the same time, there
is always a risk of confusing wolves with dogs. Furthermore, wolves tend to trigger strong
emotions, and media reports can therefore lead to waves of "wolf sightings". Repeated
sightings can then prove "contagious". Given the many dogs in our respective countries, it is
obvious that many dogs – especially wolf‐like breeds such as huskies or German shepherd
?
?
???
??
?? ???
?? ???
????
?? ??
???
??
??
?????????
?
? ?? ? ?? ?? ?
?????????
? ??
? ?? ? ?? ?? ?
? ?
? ?? ??? ?? ?
?????????
?????????
?????????

25
mixes – will be mistaken for wolves. In each case, it is up to the relevant experienced person
to decide whether an observation that seems doubtful should be pursued.
Questionnaires are rather problematic because sightings, tracks or other types of
observations are often not interpreted correctly as a result of inexperience (ELGMORK et al.
1976, VAN DYKE AND BROCKE 1987a, b,
cited in
LINNELL et al. 1998).
Every wolf found dead should be examined in accordance with a standardized procedure,
because these wolves are sources of important information. It is recommended to establish
national reference institutes for complete analyses of wolves found dead. In this respect, the
Leibnitz Institute of Zoo‐ and Wildlife Research (IZW) is responsible in Germany. When
interpreting data such as cause of death or age‐class distribution, one must be aware that
these data will almost certainly not show a random distribution.
In the most widely used method for confirming the presence of wolves, transects (forest
roads, terrain lines, grid‐network lines, etc.) or certain areas selected in advance are
searched for traces of wolves (tracks, scat).
Presence sign survey
provides data relative to
the presence or absence of wolves. Since wolves like to use and drop scats on forest roads,
forest roads and paths should be repeatedly searched on foot, by bicycle or car.
Snow provides an ideal medium for confirming the presence of wolves. However, in the
lowland areas of Germany and Western Poland, the snow cover is often inadequate for
purposes of systematic
snow tracking.
Whenever the opportunity does present itself, it
should be exploited immediately. When a moderate snow cover is present, forest
roads/pathways can be patrolled by car. For purposes of confirmation, wolf tracks should be
followed back for at least 500 m. In mountain areas, winter tracking is only possible on foot
or on skis, which means more persons will normally be required to search an area than
would be required for a lowland area.
Wherever the situation is unclear,
camera‐traps
can be useful tools for confirming the
presence of a wolf. Such traps can be set up at watering holes, at possible wolf kills or along
roads and pathways where tracks or scats have been found that could not be positively
identified. Only in rare cases can use of camera‐traps alone replace wolf confirmation by
other means. It is unlikely that a wolf will be caught on a camera‐trap without having
previously left tracks or scat. Therefore, use of camera traps only makes sense in
combination with regular presence sign survey.
In sum:
Passive monitoring alone does not suffice for the purpose of reliably delimiting areas
of occurrence. Nonetheless, “second‐hand” information provided by chance should be
included in the monitoring records, but care must be taken when interpreting these data
because they are often biased. As a rule, confirmation of wolves in a given area will only be
possible through active monitoring. Presence sign survey (either with or without snow) is the
most suitable method for such confirmation. It is labour intense, but requires few resources.
4.3.2 Demographic analysis – population size
An accurate estimation of population size is very difficult to obtain for wolves. Wolves live in
family groups (packs) consisting in general of the parents and their offspring. The number of
packs is not only easier to assess than the number of individual wolves, but also more
meaningful with regard to conservation status. Therefore, we recommend working with

26
population indices like the number of packs and scent marking pairs. The LCIE also
recommend using packs instead of number of individuals for wolf population size.
For the Directives report (reporting period 2007 – 2012), the population size was to be given
in mature individuals. In general, regarding the wolf, this means doubling the number of wolf
pairs and packs and adding the number of mature single resident wolves known. In
individual cases, when it is known that more or less than two mature individuals live in a
pack the number may be corrected.
Table 2: Definitions.
Definition
Wolf presence type in
the area:
Single resident wolf
Single wolf living in an area for at least 6 months.
Scent marking pair
Male and female wolf marking together but not (yet) having reproduced.
Pack (family group)
A group of more than two wolves living in a territory.
Reproductive pack
(family group)
Consists of at least one mature wolf with confirmed reproduction.
Age class of wolves:
Mature
≥ 22 month
Pup
Wolf in its first year of life. Since most pups are born at the beginning of
May the transition from pup to yearling takes place on 1
st
May.
Yearling
Wolf in its second year of life
Monitoring year
1st May – 30th April.
For small to middle size populations (about 50 packs per management / monitoring unit), we
recommend a combination of presence sign survey (including snow tracking whenever
possible), camera trapping and genetic analyses to estimate the area of occurrence and
population size. From a population size of about 50 – 100 packs, a stratified monitoring
approach seems reasonable. However, for such an approach coordination and data analysis
across intra‐national administrative boundaries is required. Furthermore, it must be assured
that the reference areas are representative for the whole area.
A rolling system could be applied to estimate the size of larger populations with more than
100 packs per management / monitoring unit, provided that the range is known. A robust
range estimation over a large area seems feasible with an active network engaged in
opportunistic monitoring
.
On the understanding that such an extensive network of trained
persons providing year‐round observations over the whole area of occurrence exists, a (95%)
Kernel density estimation of C1 and C2 data points could be used as
range
for spatially
stabile populations. In areas where the population is still expanding, more active sign survey
might be needed like in small and middle sized populations.
A rolling system to estimate the population size covers the whole area within the range
every three (or six) years. For this purpose, the range is divided into three (six) parts and the
population size (minimum number of packs / pairs) is sampled each year in one of the three
(six) compartments. During the six year reporting period, each area is sampled twice (or
once). A three ‐ year sampling frequency will allow for a calculation of trend over a 12 – 24

27
year period. Another way to estimate population size in large populations could be by a
stratified approach (see above).
The methods used to evaluate population size and to differentiate between neighbouring
territories do not distinguish between smaller and larger populations. An active monitoring
approach is necessary for both. However, with respect to larger populations it will no longer
be possible (or necessary) to sample every detail over the whole area. Here, the stratified
approach will be applied.
As much information as possible should be collected on a number of packs on a yearly basis
(pack size, territory size, number of pups), even for larger populations. These data help to
understand population dynamics and are necessary to calibrate data in a more stratified
approach.
4.3.2.1 Recommended methods for determining the population size and
confirming reproduction
Reproduction
In many countries, the number of animals snow tracked together within a pack's territory in
winter is used to confirm reproduction. However, most of the yearlings in these areas have
already dispersed by their second winter. In Germany, presence of at least some yearlings in
a pack during winter time is quite normal (REINHARDT & KLUTH unpubl.). However, this makes
interpretation of tracks more difficult. Therefore reproduction has to be confirmed in the
summer and fall. An active search for wolf‐pup signs begins in the middle of June in areas
where at least two adult wolves have been confirmed.
An accumulation of wolf scat from April – September within relatively confined areas can
point to reproduction. Near
rendezvous sites
, wolf scats can accumulate on forest roads and
pathways that wolves use more intensively during this period than the rest of their territory
(ZUB et al. 2003). In recent years, use of
camera traps
in combination with presence sign
survey has been the most successful method for confirming reproduction in Germany and
Western Poland. Camera traps are placed along forest roads or intersections where wolf
signs accumulate and / or pup tracks (e.g. at water ponds) have been found. With increasing
age, the pups become more and more active increasing the possibility that they are using
the same paths as the adults. Some parents change locations with their pups several times
during the summer in which case the search for centres of activity may have
to be repeated
several times and camera trap locations adapted accordingly.
Recognizing pups becomes increasingly difficult during the monitoring year and requires
special experience. In their first winter, most pups have an especially fluffy pup fur. For some
individuals it may still be difficult to assign them correctly as pup or
yearling on the basis of
photographs alone. To distinguish pup tracks in late winter from the tracks of older wolves,
very good tracking conditions are needed. In deep snow this is hardly possible.
Another method to confirm reproduction in summer is
howling stimulation
. For this
purpose, recordings of wolf howls are played or persons emit howls of their own, in an
attempt to elicit an answer from wolves. Often, pups will be quicker to respond to such
stimuli, and they can be identified as young animals on the basis of their high‐pitched calls
(NOWAK et al. 2007). In general, however, stimulating howling has a low success rate, and its

28
success can vary even in one and the same region (MARBOUTIN 2008). Therefore, care must
be taken in relevant interpretation. A lack of any response does not necessarily means a lack
of reproduction.
Reproduction can also be confirmed by
genetic analyses
, albeit with some time delay. Again,
this method relies on
presence sign survey
, including snow tracking to collect enough
genetic samples to clarify kinship relations within a pack. However, with this method, too,
there are always some cases where it remains unclear whether an individual was a pup or a
yearling when sampled.
In Poland, freshly excavated or renovated dens found in summer or early autumn can also be
considered as confirmation of reproduction. In Germany, a den alone does not suffice to
confirm reproduction even if the den shows recent signs of digging. There have been several
cases where wolves have dug or inspected dens, but have not reproduced (see 4.3.3).
In sum:
Confirming reproduction is usually a work‐intensive process. Presence sign survey in
combination with use of camera traps during summer has become the most promising
combination of methods under conditions prevailing in the lowlands of Western Poland and
Germany. Genetic analysis can also help to confirm reproduction, albeit with some time
delay. Genetic methods too involve extensive field work for sampling.
Minimum population size
Packs can be detected through sign survey, including snow tracking, camera traps or genetic
analysis. The signs found must confirm clearly the presence of either more than two animals
together or reproduction. To prove presence of a pair of wolves they must be confirmed
together marking or repeatedly with an interval of at least four weeks between individual
signs. Hereby an attempt is made to exclude cases where two wolves have been confirmed
together that do not actually form a pair.
In recent years, it has become clear that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish
one pack from another when an area becomes saturated with wolf territories. This requires
intensive camera trapping and / or application of genetic methods. In individual cases,
telemetry may be helpful; however, it is not reasonable to radio collar wolves in all
territories. To facilitate assignment to different
territories we have developed rules based on
the experiences from the past few years (table 3). With growing knowledge, these rules
should be adapted.
For this kind of analysis, it is crucial to assess and interpret all the data from the area in
question together, regardless of administrative boundaries. Even if
all existing data are
known it may take several months or even a year until the picture is pieced together. The
more details are missing, the more difficult analysis of the overall picture becomes.
Surveying for the number of packs / pairs in this way renders an estimate of the minimum
population size. The combination of presence sign survey, camera traps and genetic analyses
appears to be feasible even with an expected further population increase in coming years.
For some populations, a minimum – maximum estimate is given of the actual numbers of
wolves present. The minimum pack size can be determined based on snow track or sand
track surveys, camera trapping or intensive genetic monitoring.
In many countries, the pack size is determined in late autumn / winter by snow tracking. In
Germany / Western Poland this is difficult because of uncertain snow conditions. However,

29
reasonable data is often available from the summer half year. To guarantee data
comparability with other countries, we recommend to determine summer and winter pack
size whenever possible in order to develop a robust correction factor. At least the sample
time should be mentioned when referring to pack size.
To estimate the population size in number of individuals, capture‐mark‐recapture analyses
based on genetic data would be most suitable. This method yields population estimates
(minimum, maximum) with confidence intervals based on the proportion the same
individuals are repeatedly “captured” and new individuals are discovered. With the
development of new genetic methods, lab prices may drop considerably over the next few
years, making CMR more feasible. However, the effort involved in collecting sufficient
genetic samples remains high. The sampling effort per territory should be comparable over
the area of occurrence.
The questions addressed using genetic analyses may differ between the two countries
(REINHARDT et al. 2012). However, we strongly recommend conducting joint genetic
monitoring in border areas in order to be able to identify cross border territories. This should
include all the territories on the Oder‐Neisse border. To do so, about 5 ‐ 10 samples per
territory and year should be collected and analysed on each side of the border. Until 2013,
samples from both Germany and Western Poland were analysed in the same lab, i.e. the
Senckenberg Institute (Gelnhausen, Germany). To ensure data comparability, we
recommend using a common lab in future, too. If this is not possible, the different labs
should use the same protocols and ensure calibration that allows for joint data analysis.
In sum:
The combination of survey methods (presence sign survey, camera traps, genetic
analyses) has proved sufficient to determine the minimum population size in Germany and
appears to be feasible in spite of the further increase in population expected in the years
ahead.
If an estimation of population size in number of individuals is requested, it would require
intense genetic monitoring across the whole area of occurrence

30
4.3.3 Standardisation of data interpretation
Table 3: Parameters, recommended methods and accuracy needed to estimate the area of
occurrence and population size for wolves in the Central European wolf population.
Parameter
Method
Precision and scope of required data
Germany
Poland
Area of
occurrence
Presence sign
survey, camera
trapping, genetic
analyses
One C1, or three
independent C2* signs per
10×10 km cell and year;
Two C1, or one C1 and two
C2, or 4 C2*, ** signs per
10×10 km cell and year. If
presence of more than one
wolf was confirmed
in this
cell the previous year, or if
reproduction has already
been confirmed in a
neighbouring cell, fewer C1
or C2 are needed.
Population size
Presence sign
survey, camera
trapping, genetic
analyses, snow
tracking
A pack must be confirmed by
C1 or at least two
independent C2* data. If a
min. 2 km C2‐track is
documented, this one C2
suffices.
To confirm a pair one C1 or
C2* is required showing
territorial marking
or
without marking at least two
C1 or C2* ,with an interval of
at least four weeks.
Single resident individuals
must be confirmed over at
least six months by two C1
or three independent C2*.
A pack must be confirmed by
C1 or at least two
independent C2*, ** data.
If
a min. 2 km C2‐track is
documented, this one C2
suffices.
To confirm a pair one C1 or
C2* is required showing
territorial marking or
without marking at least two
C1 or C2*, ** with an
interval of at least four
weeks.
Single resident individuals
must be confirmed
over at
least six month by two C1 or
four independent C2*, **.
Distinguishing
between
adjacent
territories
Genetic analyses,
camera traps,
telemetry,
presence sign
survey
Reproduction is confirmed in
both areas
simultaneously
OR
reproduction is confirmed in
May – July at least 10 km
apart OR
one of the territories is
known by telemetry OR
distinction possible because
individuals are clearly
identifiable (camera traps)
OR
by means of genetic analyses
Reproduction is confirmed in
both areas
simultaneously
OR
reproduction is confirmed in
May – July at least 10 km
apart OR
one of the territories is
known by telemetry OR
distinction possible because
individuals are clearly
identifiable (camera traps)
OR
by means of genetic
analyses

31
Pack size
Presence sign
survey (focus on
tracks), snow
tracking, genetic
analyses, camera
trapping
The minimum number for
pack size can be confirmed
by one C1 or C2***.
The minimum number for
pack size can be confirmed
by one C1 or C2***.
Reproduction
Presence sign
survey (focus on
pup tracks), snow
tracking, genetic
analysis, camera
traping, howling
survey
At least one pup must be
confirmed by C1 or two
independent C2* signs OR
a lactating female is
confirmed by C1.
At least one pup must be
confirmed by C1 or two
independent C2*
signs OR
a lactating female is
confirmed by C1 OR
a new or renovated wolf den
in summer was confirmed by
C2*.
* note the different meanings for C2 and C3 in Germany and Poland (see chapter 4.1).
** C2 sightings alone do not suffice.
*** If the presence of a pack has already been confirmed, one C2 may suffice to determine the
minimum pack size.
This report suggests joint monitoring standards for the Central European Wolf population
that allow for a common assessment of the shared population. The remaining differences
between Poland and Germany in data assessment (table 3) are of minor consequence and
will not, in our opinion, hinder a robust population assessment. However, in the following
we list these differences, describe exemplarily which deviations will be seen in the results
and propose remedial measures.
In Poland, a wolf sighting by an experienced person under good conditions may be
counted as C2, while in Germany all sightings ‐ including those by experienced
persons ‐ are C3. The SCALP criteria categorize signs according to verifiability, and not
according to their reliability. This strict form of data assessment was accepted by all
large carnivore experts in Germany during the process of developing the national
monitoring standards. Since 2009, assessment of wolf and lynx signs is done
according to these
criteria. Of course, nobody doubts that under good conditions
experienced persons can recognize a wolf as a wolf, but a sighting cannot be verified
per se. However, it takes some time to become familar with the strict categories of
verifiability. Although Poland has a long tradition in wolf monitoring and
has many
more people experienced in this field than Germany, the system of applying SCALP‐
criteria is new. We believe that this single difference in application of the SCALP‐
criteria will not alter the outcome of the population assessment, particularly with
regard to the fact that C2 sightings alone do not suffice to confirm a pack / pair or to
occupy a grid cell. We are not aware of any wolf sightings by experienced persons in
Germany outside otherwise confirmed wolf areas. Therefore, this difference will
probably not affect the population assessment. However, for future assessments, we
recommend to check whether categorizing sightings by experienced persons as C2 in
Poland has any influence on the emerging results. We would preferably like to
overcome this difference in the next few years.
In Poland, reproduction can be confirmed by signs of a freshly used wolf den, while in
Germany there is evidence that non‐ reproducing wolves can dig dens, too. In winter

32
2006 / 2007, three freshly dug wolf dens were found in the territory of the Zschorno
pair (Brandenburg). This pair consisted of two siblings that from 2007 to 2013 have
not reproduced successfully. In spring 2011, two wolf dens from the previous year
belonging to the Seenland pack (Saxony) were monitored with automatic cameras.
One of these dens was repeatedly checked by a two year old female from this pack,
who did not reproduce. The reproducing female of this pack raised her pups in
another den instead.
This shows there might be dens that are checked / excavated by wolves that do not
reproduce. Applying the Polish approach in Germany would so far have meant one
false confirmation of reproduction (in 2007). In future, we recommend keeping track
of how often wolf reproduction in Poland is confirmed by the presence of a wolf den
alone. Furthermore, we recommend to collect data on how often fresh wolf dens are
found in territories of non‐reproducing wolves, for instance in territories inhabited by
pairs that aren’t reproducing yet. However, we also wish to point out that it in future
it will become more and more difficult to confirm reproduction in every single pack
every year. It may well be that with a further increase in population size we will no
longer be able to accomplish this for the whole population; rather, we will have to
focus on selected areas / packs. When using this stratified monitoring approach we
recommend applying more strict criteria to confirm reproduction than a freshly
excavated den.
Poland aims to map yearly the area with permanent wolf occupancy and therefore
places more strict requirements on occupation of a grid cell than Germany does,
where both permanent and sporadically occupied grid cells are mapped. The
differences between permanent and sporadically occupied grid cells become
apparent when maps from consecutive years are overlaid. In Germany, sporadic
occurrence is also regarded as valuable information, especially in areas without
regular wolf presence. In Poland, it is not regarded as necessary to survey for
sporadic occurrence of wolves nor is it required underHabitats Directive reporting.
In Poland, at least two C1 or four C2 are nessecary to occupy a grid cell, while fewer
C2 are nessecary for grid cells surrounding a cell with confirmed wolf reproduction. In
Germany, only one C1 or three C2 are required regardless of whether reproduction
has been confirmed or not. The
approach to lower the requirements around areas
where reproduction has been confirmed was recommended by the German authors
of this report but turned down at the yearly monitoring meeting held in September
2013 in Germany. Applying the Polish approach to the monitoring data for Saxony for
2012 / 2013, two more
grid cells would have been occupied (32 rather than 30).
Under the German standards, too few C2 signs were documented in the two grid
cells. Since these cells are adjacent to cells where reproduction was confirmed, fewer
C2 would have been necessary in Poland. On the other hand, all grid cells occupied in
2012 / 2013 in Saxony had more than one C1 (only one would have been enough),
none was occupied with C2 alone. Therefore, applying the Polish approach, under
which more than one C1 is necessary to occupy a grid cell, would not have influenced
the outcome. This means that the differences in the two approaches are of minor
consequence in areas with intense monitoring and permanent wolf occupancy.
However, the differences would be larger where monitoring is less intense and in
areas where wolves only show up occassionally. We believe these differences will

33
likely be resolved while working with and refining the joint monitoring standards in
the years ahead. However, for better comparabilty between the areas of occurrence
in Poland and Germany we recommend to mark grid cells as sporadic on the German
side where it is known or very likely that these are only occupied occasionally.
In future, we recommend yearly meetings at which the monitoring data from both countries
should be presented. As a precondition, the standards must be applied in both countries.
The outcome should be a joint population assessement especially with regard to possible
transboundary territories. For these territories the data should be presented and compared
at the meetings in order to assess their status – transboundary or not. In this regard, it is
essential that geneticists working on the CEWP attend these meetings. The focus should also
be on the existing differences in data evaluation discussed above and on whether these
differences impact on the results obtained. These meetings must be scheduled after the
national data compilations. We recommend these yearly meetings for the current Habitats
Directive reporting period. After this period, it should be decided whether the yearly cycle
should be maintained or extended.
The outcome of this yearly joint assessment should be a short status report on the Central
European wolf population with joint distribution maps and population size estimates. For the
distribution maps, circles of 200 km² are drawn for packs. For pairs, another symbol / collar
should be used for differentiation.
During the yearly meetings, possible changes to the joint monitoring standards should be
discussed upon demand and included if agreed. Thus, this should be an active paper that is
subject to constant improvement asnew knowledge is gained based on the experience
gathered at the yearly joint assessments. We highly recommend to invite wolf experts from
all countries sharing the CEWP to these meetings. The aim should be for these countries to
contribute to and adapt these joint monitoring standards.
4.3.4 Data storage and evaluation
Poland
A database containing all the evidence collected on wolf presence has existed in Poland
since 2000. It was designed by the Mammal Research Institute of the Polish Academy of
Sciences to compute data on wolves from the whole of Poland within the frame of the
National Wolf and Lynx census (see
chapter 2.4). Thus, it covers all the defined populations
of wolves existing in the country: Central European, Carpathian and Baltic. Today, the
database comprises over 28,000 sets of information about wolf presence with geographical
coordinates. The same database template is used to monitor wolf recovery in Western
Poland. The template is created in Excel, is easy to operate, analyse, compare in term of time
regions, type of information and allows export to most popular GIS software in order to
make GIS layers (e.g. ArcView “shp” or MapInfo “tab”). The Excel database template is also
easy to share with co‐workers by e‐mail, which allows to compute findings collected by the
most experienced persons directly to the template and send it back to the person
responsible for maintaining the database for the whole country. Having ten years of
experience with this template, we recommend using the same database, but with a
few
improvements and simplifications to monitor wolves in Western Poland.

34
Germany
In Germany, the Länder are responsible for wolf monitoring; thus, the data collected are the
property of the Länder and are generally stored in various regional data bases. Once a year,
the persons responsible for wolf and lynx monitoring meet under the umbrella of the BfN for
a joint assessment of the data. The output from these yearly meetings are assessmentsof the
population size and the area of occurrence for both wolf and lynx in Germany harmonized
on a national level.
An exception are data collected on federal land (mostly active or former military training
grounds). These federal areas belong to the Federal Ministry of Defence (BMVG) and are
managed by the Federal Office for Real Estate Affairs (BImA). All wolf monitoring data from
these areas are sent to LUPUS for evaluation and archiving ,where they are stored in an SQL‐
database allowing for fast analyses. Once a year, these data are compiled into a nationwide
report for the BImA and the BMVG on the situation regarding the wolf on federal land
Data confirming existing and new packs and pairs, as well as data on mortality cases are
collected by LUPUS all year round to obtain a more up‐to‐date picture of the fast spreading
population of wolves in Germany. To date, these data were provided to the Länder
authorities upon request and in future they will be made available on an own website.
CEWP
Since monitoring will in the long‐term be conducted “to ascertain compliance of a measure
with an expected goal” (see chapter 3.1), all data collected during annual surveys should be
computed and stored in a well‐designed database that allows for easy evaluation and
between‐year comparison. Since the CEWP is already shared by four countries (Poland,
Germany, Czech Republic, Denmark) which use different languages, having different legal
systems regarding environmental data and different monitoring structures, it will be difficult
to run a joint database containing all the raw data for the entire population. However, it is
highly recommended that each country has a national database, where data on the
development of population size (number of packs, pairs and how they were confirmed), the
area of occurrence, mortality cases, etc. is stored. From this, cumulative data could be
generated and shared with other CEWP countries after having jointly assessed the data for
each monitoring year at the annual expert meetings.

35
Acknowledgement
We mainly wish to thank all those people who participated in the workshops held in May
2013. Without their help, and especially without the help of Francesca Marucco, Christoph
Duchamp, Linn Svensson, Olof Liberg and Guillaume Chapron, it would not have been
possible to develop these standards. We would also like to thank Krzysztof Schmidt,
Włodzimierz Jędrzejewski, Katarzyna Bojarska who reviewed an earlier draft of the
monitoring standards and provided suggestions which helped us to better synchronize them.
Petra Kaczensky and Felix Knauer helped very much to improve the text and provided
valuable comments for this report.
We thank the members of the Polish German wolf working group for efforts towards the
future joint management of the Central European wolf population, wherein this report is a
small step for. Special thanks to Harald Martens from the Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation (BfN) for his project support and helpful co‐operation.
Rasso Leinfelder had a
large part in organizing this project and we wish to thank him for that.
The work was financed with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).

36
Literature
Assessment, monitoring and reporting under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive: Explanatory
notes and guidelines for the period 2007‐2012. Final Version 2011 and DocHab‐04‐
03/03 rev.3
Boitani, L., Ciucci, P., Mortelliti, A. 2012. Designing carnivore surveys. In: Boitani, L., Powell,
R.A. (Eds.). Carnivore ecology and conservation. A handbook of techniques. Oxford
University Press, Oxford: 8‐30.
Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser‐Würsten, Ch., von Arx, M., Zimmermann, F., Ryser, A.,
Angst, Ch., Molinari‐Jobin, A., Molinari, P., Linnell, J., Siegenthaler, A., Weber, J.‐M.
2006. Guidelines for the Monitoring of Lynx. KORA Bericht Nr. 33 e.
DocHab 04‐03/03‐rev.3: Assessment, monitoring and reporting of conservation status –
Preparing the 2001‐2007 report under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive.
Elgmork, K. Brekke, O., Selboe, R. 1976. Pålitelighet av meldinger om spor og sportegn av
bjørn fra Vassfartraktene. Fauna, 29,45‐50.
Fabbri, E., Miquel, C., Lucchini, V., Santini, A., Caniglia, R., Duchamp, C., Weber, J.‐M.,
Lequette, B., Marucco, F., Boitani, L., Fumagali, L., Taberlet, P., Randi, E. 2007. From
the Apennines to the Alps: colonization genetics of the naturally expanding Italian wolf
(
Canis lupus
) population. Molecular Ecology 16: 1661‐1671.
Fuller, M.R., Fuller, T.K. 2012. Radio‐telemetry equipment and applications for carnivores. In:
Boitani, L., Powell, R.A. (Eds.). Carnivore ecology and conservation. A handbook of
techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 152‐168.
Fuller, T.K., Sampson, B.A. 1988. Evaluation of a simulated howling survey for wolves. Journal
of Wildlife Management 52: 60‐63.
Galaverini, M., Palumbo, D., Fabbri, E., Caniglia, R., Greco, C., Randi, E. 2012. Monitoring
wolves (
Canis lupus
) by non‐invasive genetecs and camera trapping: a small‐scale pilot
study. European Journal of Wildlife Research 58: 47‐58.
Gese, E.M., Cooley, H.S., Knowlton, F.F. 2012. Designing a monitoring plan. In: Boitani, L.,
Powell, R.A. (Eds.). Carnivore ecology and conservation.
A handbook of techniques.
Oxford University Press, Oxford: 353‐361.
Greenwood, J.J.D., Robinson, R.A. 2006. Principles of sampling. In: Sutherland W.J. (Ed.).
Ecological census techniques. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge:
11‐86.
Jędrzejewska, B., Jędrzejewski, W., Bunevich, A.N., Miłkowski, L., Okarma H. 1996.
Population dynamics of Wolves
Canis lupus
in Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland and
Belarus) in relation to hunting by humans, 1847‐1993. Mammal Review 26: 103–126.
Jędrzejewski, W., Nowak, S., Schmidt, K., Jędrzejewska, B. 2002. Wilk i ryś w Polsce – wyniki
inwentaryzacji w 2001 roku. Kosmos 51: 491–499.
Jędrzejewski, W., Borowik, T., Nowak, S. 2010. Wilk
Canis lupus
. In: Makowska‐Juchiewicz,
M. (Eds.). Monitoring gatunków zwierząt. Przewodnik metodyczny. Część I. Główny
Inspektorat Ochrony Środowiska, Warszawa: 297‐318.

37
Kaczensky, P. 1996. Livestock‐carnivore conflicts in Europe. Munich Wildlife Society.
Kaczensky, P., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Wotschikowski, U. 2009.
Monitoring von Großraubtieren in Deutschland. BfN Skripten 251.
Kaczensky, P., Chapron, G., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H.,Linnell, J.D.C. (Eds) 2013.
Status, management and distribution of large carnivores – bear, lynx, wolf & wolverine
in
Europe.
Report
prepared
for
the
European
Commission.
Contract
N°070307/2012/629085/SER/B3.
Llaneza, L., Ordiz, A., Palacios, V., Uzal, A. 2005. Monitoring wolf populations using howling
points combined with sign survey transects. Wildlife Biology in Practice 1 (2): 108‐117.
Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, A. Landa, and T. Kvam. 1998. Methods for monitoring Eu‐
ropean large carnivores ‐ A worldwide review of relevant experience. NINA
Oppdragsmelding, 549: 1‐38.
Linnell, J., Salvatori V.,Boitani, L. 2008. Guidelines for population level management plans for
large carnivores in Europe. A Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe report prepared for
the European Commission (contract 070501 /2005/424162/MAR/B2).
Marboutin, E. 2008. Monitoring of a recolonizing Wolf population: constraints and para‐
doxes. Paper presented at the Monitoring Workshop in Munich 1 7.–1 9.06.2008.
Nowak, S., Mysłajek, R.W. 2011. Wilki na zachód od Wisły. Stowarzyszenie dla Natury "Wilk",
Twardorzeczka.
Nowak, S., Jędrzejewski, W., Schmidt K., Theuerkauf, J., Mysłajek, R.W., Jędrzejewska, B.
2007. Howling activity of free‐ranging wolves (
Canis lupus
) in the Białowieża Primeval
Forest and the Western Beskidy Mountains (Poland). Journal of Ethology 3: 231–237.
Reinhardt, I. ,Kluth, G. 2007. Leben mit Wölfen – Leitfaden für den Umgang mit einer kon‐
fliktträchtigen Tierart. BfN Skripten 201.
Reinhardt, I.,Kluth, G. 2011. Pilotstudie zur Abwanderung und zur Ausbreitung von Wölfen in
Deutschland. Final Report, F+E Vorhaben (FKZ 806 86 080).
Reinhardt, I., Kluth, G., Nowak, S., Mysłajek, R.W. 2012. A review of wolf management in
Poland and Germany with recommendations for future transboundary management.
Final report for the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and
Nuclear safety (BMU) (N I 3 – 45031 POL/0).
Root‐Gutteridge H., Bencsik M., Chebli M., Gentle L. K., Terrell‐Nield C., Bourit A., Yarnell R.
W. 2013. Identifying individual wild Eastern grey wolves (
Canis lupus lycaon
) using
fundamental
frequency
and
amplitude
of
howls.
Bioacoustics:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09524622.2013.817317
Van Dyke, F.G.,Brocke, R.H. 1987a. Searching technique for mountain lion sign at specific
locations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 256‐259.
Van Dyke, F.G.,Brocke, R.H. 1987b. Sighting and track reports as indices
of mountain lion
presence. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 251‐256.
Wolsan, M., Bieniek, M., Buchalczyk, T. 1992. The history of distributional and numerical
changes of the wolf
Canis lupus
L. in Poland. In: Bobek, B., Perzanowski, K., Regelin, W.

38
L. (Eds.). Global trends in wildlife management. Trans. 18th IUGB Congress, Krakow
1987. Wydawnictwo Świat Press, Krakow–Warszawa: 375–380.
Zub, K., Theuerkauf, J., Jędrzejewski, W., Jędrzejewska, B., Schmidt, K., Kowalczyk, R. 2003.
Wolf pack territory marking in the Białowieża Primeval Forest (Poland). Behaviour 140:
635‐648.
Additional references on how to identify and assess wolf signs:
Jędrzejewski, W., Sidarowicz, W. 2010. The art of tracking animals. Mammal Research
Institute Polish Academy of Sciences, Białowieża.
Kaczensky, P. T. Huber, I. Reinhardt & G. Kluth. 2008 (Neuauflage). Wer War Es? Spuren und
Risse
von
großen
Beutegreifern
erkennen
und
dokumentieren.
Bayerischer
Landesjagdverband,
Molinari, P., U. Breitenmoser, A. Molinari‐Jobin, M. Giacometti. 2000. Raubtiere am Werk.
Handbuch zur Bestimmung von Grossraubtierrissen und anderen Nachweisen.
Rotografica Verlag, Limena, Italien.
Nowak S., Mysłajek R. W. 2000. Tropem wilka. Stowarzyszenie dla Natury “Wilk“, Godziszka.

39
Appendix 1. Funding sources and costs of wolf monitoring in
different European countries
As table 1 shows, the cost of monitoring wolves differs greatly between European countries.
As a rule, countries to which wolves have recently returned tend to invest considerably more
money in the monitoring of this species than countries where wolves have always been
present. Populations in new wolf areas are mainly smaller and public interest in the recovery
of this species, both in population size and distribution area, is generally high.
The structure, coverage and quality of wolf monitoring varies considerably from country to
country, sometimes also within countries. It must be pointed out that the monitoring costs
listed in table 1 are difficult to compare. In some countries / regions with precise and
scientifically robust monitoring programmes, a large part of the field work is done by state
employees (i.e. France, Piedmonte). Their salaries do not show up in the calculation (they
are paid regardless of whether a wolf monitoring programme is run or not). It also depends
on what aspect of monitoring the focus lies. For instance, in France, the field network of
trained persons is endeavoured to detect even dispersing and single individuals in order to
map a robust population distribution range (on a yearly basis) including sporadic occurrence.
Thus, the effort put into these single individuals is generally much higher than that for a wolf
pack, which is usually easily detected (Eric Marboutin pers. communication). Sometimes the
amount indicated also covers wolf‐related issues other than monitoring. In Saxony
(Germany), where two professionals are employed part‐time to conduct monitoring surveys,
their tasks also include consulting to conservation authorities, the provision of data for
public relations work, and 24‐ hour standby services to collect dead and handle injured
wolves or individuals showing undesired behavior.
There is no general formula for the costs required per pack, and table 1 cannot be used to
translate the listed finances into cost / pack. It depends on the monitoring structure and the
possibility to use synergistic effects (covering several species; cooperation across
intranational borders, the possibility to use state employees), the desired information
(genetic analyses and telemetry are generally quite costly) and the robustness
of data
considered necessary. The latter two will at least partly be a result of public interest, which is
generally much higher in areas newly colonized by wolves.
In the new wolf countries, financial resources for wolf monitoring activities are usually
provided from state or regional budgets, sometimes in combination
with EU funding. In
traditional wolf countries, monitoring often relies more or less on the commitment of NGOs
and / or scientific institutions, both in form of manpower and finances.

40
Table 1: Funding sources and cost of wolf monitoring in different European countries.
Country
Source of funding
Cost/year (€) Costs include
No. wolf
territories
Comments
Source of
information
Austria
State Governments
35,000
Field work, DNA analyses, personal costs
of LC managers
0 (few
loners)
Georg Rauer
Bulgaria
State budget, Ministry of
Agriculture and Food
(National Forests Agency)
unknown
Year‐round observations collected
together with other game
~170 ‐
200
Dana
Zlatanova
Croatia
Mainly through scientific
programs and some state
budget.
12,000 ‐
16,000
12,000 ‐ 16,000 for telemetry (2
– 3
wolves) and other field work (camera
trapping + snow tracking, year‐round
signs recording, howling sessions) +
mortality monitoring + genetic analyses
of tissue from dead wolves
50
Agencies responsible ask for
data from scientific institutions,
but scientific programs do not
cover the whole wolf range.
Lack of financing from
State
budget which does not cover
field work.
In 2014 , the nationwide wolf
monitoring group was
established, but monitoring has
not started yet.
Djuro Huber
& Josip Kusak
Czech Republic
(lynx + wolf)
Various sources: state
budget + EU funds + NGO
(foreign environmental
funds + donations)
147,000
(roughly 30%
for the wolf)
+ 10,000
NGO' wolf
project
Field work (winter tracking, year round
observations, camera trapping), DNA
analyses
(few
loners)
Miroslav
Kutal
Estonia
State budget:
Estonian Environmental
Agency (Wildlife Monitoring
Department) + Estonian
Environment Investment
Centre
60,000
~ 15,000 field data analyses
45,000 DNA analyses + telemetry
~20
Hunters are obliged to report
wolf observations
Peep Mannil
Finland
Ministry of Agriculture and
Forestry, Finnish Game and
Fisheries Research Institute,
Finnish Wildlife Agency
350,000
GPS‐tracking, DNA‐analyses, snow‐
tracking
20
yearly routine
Ilpo Kojola

41
France
State budget / Ministry of
Environment
300,000
135,000 for 3 fulltime state employees
mainly for management of national field
work net (protocols, data gathering and
evaluation, data base management,
synthesis, training of field staff) +
120,000 for DNA analyses +
field work (incl. snow tracking, howling
sessions in summer)
24
Field
work is done mainly by
state employees
Eric
Marboutin
Germany
(Brandenburg)
Government of Brandenburg 85,000 –
105,000
65,000
– 85,000 for field work of
professionals and allowance of
volunteers +
20,000 for DNA analysis
7 (2013)
Ekkehard
Kluge
Germany
(Mecklenburg
Vorpommern)
Government of
Mecklenburg‐Vorpommern
9,800 (2013)
7,300 coordination, cost of materials &
allowance for volunteers +
2,500 for DNA analysis
2
Kristin
Zscheile
Germany
(Saxony)
Government of Saxony
108,300
(2013)
74,000 for 2 part‐time employees for
field work (sign survey, camera
trapping), data evaluation and
management issues +
34,300 for DNA + scat analysis
12
In the past few years, additional
funds for telemetry has come
partly from the Government of
Saxony, partly from NGOs.
Bernd
Dankert
Greece
In 2014‐2015 State budget,
Hellenic Ministry of
Environment
(in 2009‐2012 Ministry of
Environment+ highway &
railway investors ‐ 220 000
Euro for 4 years)
20,000
(nationwide
monitoring) +
27,000
(Kalmas NP)
Field work (snow tracking, camera
trapping, howling sessions, genetics,
telemetry)
~90‐100
Giorgos
Mertzanis &
Yorgos
Iliopoulos
Italy
(Piedmont)
State budget and Piedmont
Region, until 2012
(in 2013‐2018 Life+)
100,000
field work + DNA analyses
16 ‐ 18
Cost per pack reduced within 10
years in line with the increase in
number of packs;
Field work is done mainly by
state employees (Forestry
Service and Park Service).
Francesca
Marucco

42
Latvia
State budget & EU Funds:
Ministry of Agriculture +
Ministry of Science and
Education (European Social
fund)
8,300 +
120,000
8,300 for field work
120,000 for DNA analyses,
~50
360 game wardens (state
employees) involved in livestock
damage investigation.
Janis Ozolins
Lithuania
State budget, National
Forests Agency
unknown
2 x ½ day of winter tracking per year, +
analyses / estimates
~60 ‐ 70
Vaidas Balys
Norway
(all LCs)
State budget
1,000,000
6 fulltime employees:
A unit at NINA (independent research
institute) is funded to coordinate the
design, analysis and publication of
monitoring – consists of six full time
positions – a coordinator, a geneticist, a
communicator, a database person, a
scientist full time and part of
a lab
person for autopsies and another
genetics lab person
5 ‐ 6?
Field work is either conducted
by rangers from the State
Nature Inspectorate, or under
subcontracts with the Hunters
Association (lynx transects),
Hedmark College (for wolves)
and Svanhovd Environmental
Center (bear genetics). In
addition, the public provide
many observations.
John
Linnell
Poland
In W‐Poland: NGOs (foreign
environmental funds, NGO's
sources) + General
Directorate of National
Roads and Motorways; in
whole of Poland: National
Fund for Environmental
Protection and Water
Management ‐ monitoring in
10 Natura 2000 sites
20,000 (West
Poland) +
6,000 for 10
Natura 2000
sites (whole
Poland)
West Poland: 2
part‐time employees,
field work (winter tracking, year round
signs recording, camera trapping,
howling sessions) + DNA analyses.
30 (W‐
Poland)
Regular surveys only in W‐
Poland.
In whole of Poland monitoring
only in 10 Natura 2000 sites, the
nationwide monitoring system
is currently under discussion.
Sabina
Nowak
Portugal
Motorway investors (to
prepare EIA for dams, wind
farms and motorways on
local wolf populations)
unknown
Costs of employees and field work
(detection of breeding packs by sign and
howling surveys, camera‐trapping
~60
Currently only regional
monitoring.
Last nation‐wide survey in
2002/2003.
Francisco
Alvares
Romania
State budget (Forest
Research Institute + Forest
Faculty of Brasov and
Carpathian Foundation)
100,000
100,000 + unpaid work by staff of
environmental agencies, national parks,
foresters, hunting organisations, NGOs
~500
Every 6 years an additional
survey is done to prepare the
report for EC (art.17 of HD).
Ovidiu
Ionescu

43
Slovakia
State budget (Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural
Development, National
Forestry Centre in Zvolen) &
some national parks)
NGOs
unknown
Data assessment + in some protected
areas field work including camera
trapping
~40
No state monitoring;
hunters report their estimations
to the National Forestry Centre
Robin Rigg
Slovenia
EU funds (LIFE+) until 2014
since 2014 ‐ State budget
85,000
Field work (incl. regular howling
sessions) + DNA analyses
10
Aleksandra
Majić
Spain
Regional Governments
unknown
Census coordination by experts
260?
No coordination between the
regions; in some regions, census
is done every year or every
second year, in others, every
ten years. Field work is usually
done by state employees
(forestry / wildlife service).
Juan Carlos
Blanco
Sweden
State budget
500,000
(3.8 million
Euro for wolf,
lynx and
wolverine in
2014)
Fulltime employees, field work, DNA
analyses
70
Olof Liberg &
Guillaume
Chapron
Switzerland
State budget (Federal Office
for the Environment)
70,000
Field work, DNA analyses
1
(+ 12 ‐ 15
loners)
Field work is mainly done by the
game wardens (paid by the
cantons).
Urs
Breitenmoser
Ukraine
No funds for wolf monitoring
Maryna
Shkvyrya