Eight years ago, on St. George's Day in 2018, everything started off well. Choosing the wolf as a new national symbol was meant to strengthen Estonians' connection with nature and their understanding of how important an ecosystem with apex predators is. Sheep farmers gave their consent to the wolf being chosen as the national animal (great praise to them for this!), but this was on the condition that they would not be left alone with their concerns. Other interest groups understood that the price of wolf conservation was satisfied sheep farmers.

Has this succeeded? Let us first look at the data. Over eight years, the number of sheep in Estonia has fallen by half — from about 80,000 to nearly 40,000 — and this trend continues. The decline is, of course, not the wolf's fault, but some legislative updates related to wolves have unfortunately had a dampening effect on the preconditions for sheep farming.

A top‑down attitude by the state

The choice of the "grey gentleman" as the national animal rested mainly on two pillars: the consent of sheep farmers and, secondly, productive dialogue between interest groups. Let us recall that in most countries sheep farmers — more precisely livestock keepers — are considered the most important interest group when it comes to wolves.

Research also confirms that the success of species conservation is significantly influenced by the interest group at the center of the human–wildlife conflict — that is, the group whose economic livelihood depends on the species in question¹, in this case a predator. For this reason, state policy steps related to predator conservation are increasingly shaped through dialogue with the relevant interest group. By now, it seems to have been forgotten how important a role sheep farmers play in the fate of the wolf.

While international nature conservation organizations urge states to seek long‑term, holistic solutions in species protection, this seems not to be taken into account in Estonia. A month ago, the Ministry of Regional Affairs and Agriculture unexpectedly informed sheep farmers that self‑employed livestock keepers (sole proprietors) are no longer allowed to slaughter animals for their own consumption.

Mirjam Pikkmets, executive director of the Estonian Sheep and Goat Breeders' Association, has pointed out the contradiction: if a sheep farmer has made major investments, built fences to protect the flock, and acquired dogs, it is understandable why there is a desire to feed those dogs from one's own flock. Feeding large livestock guardian dogs requires a considerable amount of meat.

Until now, self‑employed sheep farmers were allowed to slaughter their own animals for personal consumption, and the association wanted the same right extended to limited companies. The opposite happened: they were told that the matter was now "in order," and from now on even sole proprietors may no longer do so.

Thus, although livestock keepers want to be honest, cooperate with the state, and engage in dialogue, they often experience a top‑down attitude and imposed regulations. The worst impact of this ban is on statistics, because animals start to "disappear" from flocks. As private individuals, people are still allowed to slaughter farm animals for personal consumption — there is no ban there.

A patronizing attitude fuels confrontation

Maintaining productive dialogue is also not helped by the rhetoric of some animal rights advocates, which accuses livestock keepers — often without delving into the causes — of insufficient effort, and sometimes even criticizes animal husbandry as such.

According to research, rigid positions from the opposing side trigger a positioning process², meaning that dialogue itself begins to be avoided in return. Of course, every interest group has and must have its own perspective and position, but when do things cross the line and become too sharp? When one side feels it must defend itself and justify its very existence.

A danger arises when an already high‑risk undertaking like sheep farming suddenly feels there is no longer any desire to engage in dialogue. Tasos Hovardas, who studies the interaction between humans and nature conservation, has noted that when interest groups adopt defensive‑offensive positions, productive discussion has ended³, leaving only uncompromising verbal warfare—a phenomenon known as "discursive positioning." Entrenched positions can lead to the tacit acceptance of hostility, vigilantism, and poaching. The wolf is the loser.

Research on human–predator relations often highlights that successful conservation of large carnivores is possible only as a compromise between interest groups, in order to avoid the emergence of latent hostility. The hope that conflict can otherwise be reduced to specific concerns is ruled out for a long time. What peaceful coexistence with predators generally means, however, is part of an ongoing debate, and it is probably impossible for interest groups to reach a fully shared understanding or even a complete desire to do so.⁴

What matters is that no party — including the state and animal rights advocates — forces its beliefs on others. The most effective protection of the wolf is dialogue between interest groups.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!