Showing posts sorted by relevance for query WOLF. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query WOLF. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, January 29, 2024

A wolf killed the EU president’s precious pony - then the fight to catch the predator began


Patrick Barkham
Sat, 27 January 2024 

Photograph: Getty Images


LONG READ

It was a mild, windless night, sometime before dawn on 1 September 2022, when a large grey wolf trotted out of the woods beside Beinhorn, a hamlet of old barns and graceful wooden houses in the German state of Lower Saxony. The keen nose of the male wolf almost certainly scented that Dolly, a pretty chestnut pony with a white patch on her face, was vulnerable. The 30-year-old pony, kept in a paddock close to stables and a farmhouse, was not protected by high-voltage electric fencing designed to deter wolves. It was an easy kill. In the morning, Dolly’s body was found in the long grass; her owners spoke of their “horrible distress”.

Unluckily for the wolf, and perhaps for the entire wolf population of western Europe, Dolly was a cherished family pet belonging to the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, one of the most powerful people in the EU. Last September, a year after Dolly’s death, von der Leyen announced plans that to some wolf-defenders looked like revenge: the commission wants to reduce the wolf’s legal protection.

Action had already been taken against Dolly’s killer. DNA evidence harvested from the pony’s carcass revealed that the wolf was an individual known as GW950m. This mature male wolf, which heads a pack (a wolf family usually numbering eight to 10) living around the von der Leyen residence, appears to have developed a taste for livestock. DNA tests on other carcasses implicates him in the deaths of about 70 sheep, horses, cattle and goats. Experts believe younger pack members might have copied his hunting methods. Because GW950m was now classified as a “problem wolf”, a permit was issued to allow hunters to shoot him legally (wolves can only be killed under exceptional circumstances, according to EU law). It was the seventh such licence to be issued in Lower Saxony, a state the size of Denmark with a thriving population of at least 500 wolves – more than are found across the whole of Scandinavia.


Against the odds, more than a year after the licence to kill was first issued, GW950m remains at large, living quietly on a diet of mostly deer in forests east of Hanover. If the survival of this one wolf appears improbable, so is the species’ revival in north-west Europe. Wolves were mostly wiped out in Germany in the 19th century. But since one first trotted back from Poland in 2000, they have reconquered the country, which is now home to more than 180 packs – about 1,500 wolves. Their offspring have recolonised Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark. Wolves are expanding their territory from the Alps too, with the population growing from zero in France in 1992 to 140 packs. In Spain, wolves have bounced back from near extinction in the 1970s to more than 2,000 today.

Wolves have adapted swiftly and surely to human-dominated landscapes. But people are struggling to adjust to the wolves. The concentration of packs, von der Leyen declared when announcing the commission’s review of wolf protection laws, “has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans”. In December, the commission proposed to reduce the wolf’s status under the Bern Convention from “strictly protected” to “protected” in order to introduce “further flexibility” – potentially enabling wolves to be hunted and populations reduced across the EU. Many populist politicians across Europe hope that talking up the threat of the wolf – alongside tough measures to tackle it – will win support ahead of next summer’s elections to the European parliament. It’s a low-cost way of showing rural voters you’re on their side. “Wolves are a subject that might change elections,” says one German conservationist.

* * *

People have woven myths, stories and fears around wolves since human culture began. For wolf-lovers, the animal’s recovery after it was hunted to extinction in much of Europe is a vital sign of hope – that nature can be restored; that humans can peacefully coexist with fellow predators; that the environmental benefits of returning an apex predator will cascade through the landscape. The impact of wolves returning to Yellowstone national park in the US – reducing grazing herbivores and allowing diverse vegetation to flourish – has caught the popular imagination (a YouTube video, How Wolves Change Rivers, has been watched 44m times), although scientists point out that wolf impacts have been overstated. On the other side, wolf-haters claim that this ruthless carnivore’s return has been naively championed by the tofu-munching wokerati who know nothing of the countryside, elevate the welfare of animals above people, and inflict misery upon farmers, hunters and country folk.

The wolf’s revival in western Europe is actually an interesting accumulation of accidents. Before its return, EU member states including Germany pushed to ensure that this disappearing species was given the highest protection under the EU’s habitats directive in 1992. When the cold war ended, many eastern European farms were abandoned, meaning that Russian populations found it easier to pad westwards. When the wolf reached Germany, it found hiding places on disused military bases – and, initially, sympathy.

“If wolves had returned 50 years ago, they wouldn’t have stood a chance, because our view of nature was very different to today,” says Kenny Kenner, a wolf expert who collects sightings and DNA data on wolves for the Lower Saxony government, and leads walks to educate people about this fascinating, complicated animal. “We see ourselves as part of nature and, much more importantly, as dependent on nature. This led to the possibility that a species as difficult for us as the wolf could come back.”

I join one of Kenny and Barbara Kenner’s weekly walks in search of wolves in Göhrde forest, 75 miles north of where Dolly was killed. For all the wolf’s wild symbolism, it is thriving in human-dominated landscapes: the intensively farmed countryside and even suburban areas of eastern Germany with human population densities higher than the city of Newcastle. Wolf packs also live close to cities such as Turin in northern Italy and Brașov in Romania. This 75 sq km forest is much more sparsely populated, however, and the heart of the local wolf pack’s territory of around 300 sq km. Each pack usually numbers around 10: a mother and father alongside their yearlings (young wolves from the previous year’s litter) and their pups.

Kenner knows this pack intimately because he tracks their paw prints and droppings, and has placed camera traps all over. The female, GW432f, is tawny and, unusually, larger than her partner, GW1559m, a pioneering male. Kenner calls him Alpino, because he is one of the first wolves from the Alpine sub-population to trek more than 600 miles to join the burgeoning German subpopulation. Alpino settled here because someone illegally shot the resident male. So when Alpino moved in, he didn’t just mate with GW432f but also with her daughter, producing 15 pups in 2022 rather than a standard single litter. For Kenner, this is a powerful example of why shooting wolves won’t control their population: disrupt a pack, and you may end up with more wolves.



The wolf is a predator, he needs to take care, but he has to take risks, too – that’s why he won’t learn from being shot

Twenty minutes from the nearest road, wild boar have been rootling on the forest track and Kenner picks up prints in the sandy earth. Ruler in hand, he measures the pad: 9cm. Big enough to be a wolf, and it is fresh. Wolves are great wanderers and take the easiest routes, explains Kenner, using human-made tracks and roads when they are quiet. He positions camera traps at ride junctions, where wolves scent-mark (urinating like a dog) to declare territory.

When Kenner first began these walks, “there was this excitement about how horrible the wolf was”. People were scared to stroll in the forest with their dogs. But that’s changed over time, he says. “We shouldn’t feel threatened, but we should feel awed. Seeing them is an honour. But I wouldn’t want to cuddle them.”

The tracks are probably from the wolves stalking wild boar at dawn. “They can smell time and space – and health,” says Kenner. “What’s important to know is that we are not prey. If we were prey, we would have a gun to protect us.”

The Kenners are dismayed by what they see as populist and right-wing politicians creating a culture war over the wolf. To conservationists, von der Leyen’s comments about risks to people are inflammatory. During the wolf’s 23-year recolonisation of Germany, there are no documented cases of one even growling at a person; boar pose a much more frequent threat. There are no incidents of wolves killing people in the west of Russia in modern times; historic fatalities are from a bygone era when lone children shepherded animals in the forests. “In our society, the danger to children is nearly zero,” says Kenner. In countries such as Finland, wolves sometimes attack trained hunting dogs in the forests, but pets are rarely victims. And wolves are wary of people. Kenner shows me clips from his camera traps. One detects him walking in front of the trap. A few hours later, a wolf arrives, sniffs his tracks and moves swiftly in the opposite direction. “The wolf is not shy,” says Kenner. “He’s careful. He’s a predator, he needs to take care, but he has to take risks, too – that’s why he won’t learn from being shot.”

Von der Leyen, argues Kenner, is using her position “to start a campaign in favour of shooting wolves because of her personal ideas and experiences”. “This is a misuse of power. But it’s not just Ursula von der Leyen. In Lower Saxony, there are a lot of other politicians saying, ‘This is a catastrophe,’ and a lot of fact-free inducement to change policy.”

* * *

Two hours south, on one of the wealthiest streets in Hanover, is the headquarters of Landesjägerschaft Niedersachsen, Lower Saxony’s hunting association. It is in charge of wolf monitoring: its 58,000 sharp-eyed members are a useful, free resource for spotting wolves. According to Raoul Reding, the association’s biologist who oversees the meticulous recording of populations, we are witnessing an unprecedented experiment: “It’s never happened before, anywhere in the world, that such large carnivores would settle such densely inhabited human areas as we have here in Germany.”

The wolf has thrived, explains Reding, because of plentiful deer, but also because it is adaptable. Its pups have a high survival rate and young wolves can disperse to find new territories up to 1,250 miles from where they are born. Other European carnivores, such as lynx, stick more rigidly to forest and won’t travel such distances. Despite Germany’s 180 wolf packs, there is still a vast swathe of southern Germany to recolonise; studies suggest the country could support 700-1,400 packs.

Humans have been rather slower to adapt – and this is particularly true of livestock farmers. Across the city from Reding’s office is Land Volk Haus, HQ of the Lower Saxony farmers’ union. Vice-president Jörn Ehlers hands me two stickers: one depicts a vicious-looking wolf with a sheep in its mouth barred with a red line; the other reads: IF YOU DON’T LIKE FARMING, STOP EATING. PROBLEM SOLVED!

“We don’t want to be so noisy and make a big thing out of this,” says Ehlers. “The problem for us is that we are running out of time. The problem is getting bigger and bigger. The wolf is much faster than politicians.” Wolves first bred in Lower Saxony in 2011; last year, their packs killed about 1,000 farm animals. “We have to accept some damage from the wolf, but what we’ve got at the moment is really too much,” says Ehlers. He wants Germany to adopt the “Swedish solution”. Despite supposedly having to adhere to the EU law protecting wolves, Sweden controversially keeps its wolf population far lower than that of Germany. “In Sweden, about 300 adults are accepted in the whole country,” says Ehlers. “If it gets much over 300, they shoot them.”

Sweden and Finland also have “wolf-free zones” in vast swathes of the north: any wolves that enter areas of traditional reindeer herding are shot. Ehlers argues that Germany should have a wolf-free zone on the pastures beside its North Sea coast, where cattle and sheep graze on unfenced dykes. Here, Ehlers points out, the livestock play an important role in flood protection, because the dykes need to be grazed to keep them clear of trees. And if society wants high-welfare farm animals who enjoy life outside, he says, it will need to tackle the wolf.

* * *

Like many German conservationists, Kenny and Barbara Kenner hope livestock protection fences will solve wolf conflicts and calm rising populist fury. “Protection of livestock will take the hysteria out of the subject,” says Kenny. “If you went to the mayor and said, ‘The fox killed my hens,’ he would reply, ‘You haven’t taken care of them,’” adds Barbara. “You don’t just say, ‘Well, my dear wolf, I hope you won’t eat my sheep.’”

The Kenners recently visited farmers in northern Italy, where wolves have never been driven to extinction, and there is more acceptance of the predator. In mountainous areas that can’t be fenced, actual shepherding has to return, or protection dogs are stationed to stop wolves predating livestock. “They are really astonished that the Germans feed their wolves on sheep,” says Barbara.

In Germany, not every farmer is fighting against the wolf. Thomas Rebre and his shepherding partner keep 300 sheep and 30 goats in the forests of north-east Saxony. “Here in Germany, it’s like every day is Halloween. For the wolves, it’s just meat for their puppies. Our work is to say ‘no’ to the wolf, ‘This is not your meat.’ All these emotions, all this crying – the wolf is not good or evil, it’s just what the wolf does,” he says.

Since wolves arrived, Rebre has invested in electric net fencing which is high voltage – 7,000 volts – but not very tall, 1.05-1.2 metres. Wolves don’t like jumping into an enclosure, says Rebre, but they will dig under fencing, so there are posts every 2 metres, ensuring the fence is tight to the ground. Rebre moves his sheep, and fences, every day, receiving payments for “conservation grazing”. He got financial support from the Lower Saxony government for his fencing, but thinks there should be more funding for wolf-affected farmers. Erecting the fencing takes up to two hours’ additional work each day.

This autumn, Rebre took his sheep into the heart of Göhrde forest to undertake conservation grazing. Kenny Kenner was worried. He feared the wolf would not be deterred by the shepherd’s electric fence, so he fixed 20 camera traps around it. One night, a camera showed the male wolf slink over to the fence to size up the sheep. “It came close, watched them for two minutes, and left,” says Kenner. Rebre’s sheep were unharmed.

“Wolves really, really fear electricity,” says Rebre. In 15 years, he has lost just one animal, a goat, to the wolf. Nevertheless, the farmers’ union insists that fences are not the whole solution. They estimate that it would cost too much – €2.2bn in total – to fence all livestock in Lower Saxony against wolves (conservationists argue it is only essential to fence sheep, calves and foals; wolves are unlikely to kill many adult cows and horses). “We need fences, yes, and that’s our responsibility as farmers,” says Ehlers. “But we also expect to be able to kill problem wolves and keep the population stable, and not see it grow every year and increase the problem.”

* * *

The hunt for von der Leyen’s nemesis, GW950m, has not gone well so far. In Lower Saxony, if DNA evidence proves the same wolf has attacked livestock more than once, a licence can be obtained to allow hunters to kill that “problem” wolf. (This term is disliked by the Kenners: “A wolf who eats sheep may be a problem for us, but it’s just wolf life,” says Kenny. “What’s he supposed to eat? Asparagus?” adds Barbara.) The process is slow, and allows for legal challenges. “This bureaucracy is just not adapted to practical wolf management,” says Raoul Reding of the hunters’ association.

Ironically, a request for a licence to kill GW950m was issued the day before it killed Dolly, the pony, because of other attacks on livestock. Since the licence to kill was approved in October 2022, it has been revoked and reinstated several times after being challenged in court by pro-wolf groups. A fresh permit was issued in October 2023, which was later again blocked by the courts.

Last autumn, hunters thought they’d got their quarry when they shot a mature wolf not far from Beinhorn. It turned out to be his mate, the female. Since wolves returned, licences have been issued to kill seven “problem” animals in Lower Saxony, but killing the “right” wolf is easier said than done. “Under a normal hunting situation, at a distance of more than 100 metres, with bad light, and with the wolf’s dense winter fur, it’s really difficult to identify the age and sex of the animal,” says Reding. “To date, we have shot seven wolves because of huge amounts of livestock depredation, and the ‘right’ wolf has never been killed – the one that has been shown to be responsible.”

For all its 58,000 members, Reding says that many of his association’s hunters can’t be bothered with the hassle of hunting wolves. Wolves are elusive, live at low densities, and most hunters prefer their traditional deer hunt; a wolf kill under licence is usually just “bycatch”. Hunters are also discouraged by the actions of pro-wolf campaigners. Reding says they have sabotaged wolf hunts, putting nails on forest tracks to puncture hunters’ tyres, and even sawing the wooden legs of the “high seats” hunters put in forests. In turn, the head of an illegally killed wolf was dumped on the road outside nature protection charity Nabu’s office in Lower Saxony; wolf conservationists say their vehicle tyres have been slashed too.

And yet, surprisingly perhaps, Nabu agrees that Germany should streamline the process to kill problem wolves, a change that is now even supported by Steffi Lemke, Germany’s federal environment minister (and Green party co-founder). “I think it is possible to make it easier to tackle wolves who make problems,” says Marie Neuwald of Nabu. “It should not take months of bureaucratic processes to get a decision if this wolf should be shot or not.” What Neuwald wants, however, is more transparency to prove a “problem” wolf really is a threat to livestock.

Many hunters and farmers want to go further. Reding thinks “a pragmatic solution” to the difficulties of killing just one wolf could be to shoot the entire pack. But Kenny Kenner insists that shooting wolves to protect livestock “is definitely not going to work. Wolves won’t learn not to eat sheep by being shot.” A study of wolf populations over 25 years in three US states found that livestock losses actually increased after wolf culls because packs were broken up, new pairs formed and the animals appeared to respond by breeding more. In France, where 19% of the population is now shot each year, sheep kills have still risen, from 10,000 to 15,000 each year.

* * *

Wolf debates are dominated by problems, but what of their benefits? A German study found that deer became 1.5kg heavier after wolves returned. “The hunters should be happy. They have 1.5kg more meat per shot,” says Kenner. “The prey is much healthier than before; they are stronger. Diseases that might even spread to humans are prevented because wolves eat the sick.” Forests are healthier and more biodiverse too, he believes, because there are fewer plant-eating deer.

And yet Marie Neuwald at Nabu is careful not to overstate the benefits of wolves. “It is not honest to say wolves will save our ecosystems here, or our forests,” she says. As apex predators in a wild landscape, wolves regulate prey populations. “But in Germany we have a cultural landscape – we don’t have this natural system where wolves are one of the most important puzzle pieces.” Wolves are unlikely to significantly reduce deer numbers because there’s still so much food for the deer.

The Kenners say American friends laugh at “the German angst” over the wolf when North Americans live alongside five big mammalian carnivores (wolf, mountain lion, grizzly bear, black bear, coyote). “The problem in Germany is we have a very emotional outlook on the subject,” says Kenner. For all the usual extremes on social media, I’m struck by the moderation on both sides of the debate in Germany. Frank Fass, a former aeronautical engineer who opened the Wolf Center to educate Germans about wolves in 2010, believes Germany’s wolf population will grow and eventually be considered stable enough to allow an annual cull. “A farmer will say for hundreds of years we had no wolves in Germany and we don’t need them,” says Fass. “I can see their point of view. We don’t need them really, but it is a creature from the universe – as is a bird, a cow, a horse. Coexistence is possible and to live in coexistence with the wolf, it is not a straight road.”

* * *

I head to Burgdorf, a neat little town surrounded by pasture and woods where GW950m is still living free. “I take walks regularly in the forest around Burgdorf,” says local resident Lorenz Reinhard. “The papers are full of wolves, but I haven’t seen any yet.” Can people and wolves get along? “The hunters can’t really kill them all,” he says. “There are two sides to everything – to the wolf as well.”

Will GW950m evade capture? At the scene of Dolly’s killing, horses continue to graze in Ursula von der Leyen’s paddocks, apparently unprotected by anything more intimidating than a couple of strands of electric fence. There is no trace of GW950m in the woods. The scariest thing by far that I encounter in this landscape is the armed police officer striding along the quiet lane, tasked with protecting the European Commission president’s country home.

Friday, September 03, 2021

 

Indian wolf among world’s most endangered and distinct wolves


Scientists sequence Indian wolf genome for 1st time

Peer-Reviewed Publication

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS

Gray wolf illustration 

IMAGE: THIS ILLUSTRATION INDICATES THE RANGES OF HOLARCTIC, TIBETAN AND INDIAN WOLF POPULATIONS ACROSS THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. view more 

CREDIT: LLLUSTRATION BY LAUREN HENNELLY, UC DAVIS

The Indian wolf could be far more endangered than previously recognized, according to a study from the University of California, Davis, and the scientists who sequenced the Indian wolf’s genome for the first time. 

The findings, published in the journal Molecular Ecology, reveal the Indian wolf to be one of the world’s most endangered and evolutionarily distinct gray wolf populations. The study indicates that Indian wolves could represent the most ancient surviving lineage of wolves.

The Indian wolf is restricted to lowland India and Pakistan, where its grassland habitat is threatened primarily by human encroachment and land conversion.

“Wolves are one of the last remaining large carnivores in Pakistan, and many of India’s large carnivores are endangered,” said lead author Lauren Hennelly, a doctoral student with the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine’s Mammalian Ecology Conservation Unit. “I hope that knowing they are so unique and found only there will inspire local people and scientists to learn more about conserving these wolves and grassland habitats.” 


CAPTION

Stemming from an ancient lineage, Indian wolves are one of the most evolutionarily distinct and endangered gray wolf populations.

CREDIT

Mihir Godbole/The Grasslands Trust

‘A game-changer’

The authors sequenced genomes of four Indian and two Tibetan wolves and included 31 additional canid genomes to resolve their evolutionary and phylogenomic history. They found that Tibetan and Indian wolves are distinct from each other and from other wolf populations.

The study recommends that Indian and Tibetan wolf populations be recognized as evolutionarily significant units, an interim designation that would help prioritize their conservation while their taxonomic classification is reevaluated.

“This paper may be a game-changer for the species to persist in these landscapes,” said co-author Bilal Habib, a conservation biologist with the Wildlife Institute of India. “People may realize that the species with whom we have been sharing the landscape is the most distantly divergent wolf alive today.”

Indian and western Asian wolf populations are currently considered as one population. The study’s finding that Indian wolves are distinct from western Asian wolves indicates their distribution is much smaller than previously thought.

An ancient lineage

Gray wolves are one of the most widely distributed land mammals in the world, found in snow, forests, deserts and grasslands of the Northern Hemisphere. Wolves may have survived the ice ages in isolated regions called refugia, potentially diverging into distinct evolutionarily lineages.

Recent genomic studies confirmed that the Tibetan wolf is an ancient and distinct evolutionary lineage. However, until this study, what was known about the evolutionary history of Indian wolves was based on mitochondrial DNA evidence, which is inherited only from the mother. That evidence suggested that the Indian wolf diverged more recently than the Tibetan wolf.

In contrast, this study used the entire genome — the nuclear DNA containing nearly all of the genes reflecting the wolf’s evolutionary history. It showed that the Indian wolf was likely even more divergent than the Tibetan wolf.

“Mitochondrial sequencing alone was not sufficient to make a case,” said senior author Ben Sacks, director of the Mammalian and Ecology Conservation Unit at UC Davis. “Nuclear DNA is the big picture, and it changes the picture. You might assume most genetic diversity of gray wolves is in the northern region, where most wolves are found today. But these southern populations harbor most of the evolutionary diversity and are also the most endangered.”

Both Tibetan and Indian wolves stem from an ancient lineage that predates the rise of Holarctic wolves, found in North America and Eurasia. Sacks said this study indicates Indian wolves could represent the most ancient surviving lineage.

Indian wolf map (IMAGE)

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - DAVIS


Charismatic competition

Attention for gray wolves in India is often eclipsed by animals considered more charismatic, such as tigers, lions and leopards. Hennelly, who dreamed of being a wolf biologist in fifth grade, was not aware there were wolves in the region until she conducted field work on birds in the Himalayas. When the opportunity to study wolf howls and behavior in India arose as a Fulbright scholar, she jumped at the chance and began the work and collaborations that led to her team becoming the first to sequence the Indian wolf’s genome. 

“I knew that if we sequenced the wolves and the results indicated a divergent lineage, answering that question could really help their conservation at a policy scale that could trickle down and bolster local efforts to help protect these wolves,” Hennelly said.

A separate study led by Sacks about endangered red wolves appears on the cover of the same Molecular Ecology issue in September. Addressing a 30-year-long controversy, that study shows that red wolves are not a colonial-era hybrid between gray wolves and coyotes, as some have argued, but the descendant of a pre-historic North American wolf that diverged from coyotes over 20,000 years ago. Both studies have substantial implications for wolf conservation.

###

The Indian wolf study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology of India, the Wildlife Institute of India, UK Wolf Conservation Trust and UC Davis. Hennelly was also supported by fellowship grants from National Science Foundation and UC Davis.​​ The red wolf study was funded by a variety of sources, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Monday, November 24, 2025

 

From shiloh shepherds to chihuahuas, study finds that the majority of modern dogs have detectable wolf ancestry


Newly discovered post-domestication gene flow from wolves has shaped the characteristics and evolution of dogs


American Museum of Natural History



New research led by scientists at the American Museum of Natural History and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History reveals that the majority of dogs living today have low but detectable levels of post-domestication wolf ancestry that has likely shaped characteristics including body size, sense of smell, and personality traits. The study, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that this newly uncovered gene flow may help give unique advantages to dogs’ survival in diverse human environments. Among their findings: post-domestication wolf ancestry exists in a wide range of dog breeds, from large Shiloh shepherds to the tiny chihuahua.

“Modern dogs, especially pet dogs, can seem so removed from wolves, which are often demonized,” said the study’s lead author Audrey Lin, a Gerstner Postdoctoral Scholar in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the American Museum of Natural History. “But there are some characteristics that may have come from wolves that we greatly value in dogs today and that we choose to keep in their lineage. This is a study about dogs, but in a lot of ways, it’s telling us about wolves.”

Dogs evolved from an extinct population of gray wolves under human influences during the late Pleistocene, about 20,000 years ago. Although wolves and dogs live in the same geographic regions and can produce fertile offspring, hybridization is rare. And with few exceptions of intentionally crossbred wolves and dogs, there is little evidence of gene flow between the groups after dog domestication separated their gene pools.

“Prior to this study, the leading science seemed to suggest that in order for a dog to be a dog, there can’t be very much wolf DNA present, if any,” Lin said. “But we found if you look very closely in modern dog genomes, wolf is there. This suggests that dog genomes can “tolerate” wolf DNA up to an unknown level and still remain the dogs we know and love.”

The researchers explored historical dog-wolf gene flow using more than 2,700 published genomes from the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the European Nucleotide Archive of wolves, breed dogs, village dogs, and other canids spanning the late Pleistocene to the present. They found that almost two-thirds of breed dogs have wolf ancestry within their nuclear genome from crossbreeding that occurred around 1,000 generations ago. In addition, all of the genomes analyzed from village dogs—free-roaming dogs that live in or near human settlements—carry detectable wolf ancestry.

Czechoslovakian and Saarloos wolfdogs, which were purposefully bred through hybridization with wolves, had the highest levels of wolf ancestry, between 23-40 percent of their genomes. Among breed dogs, the most “wolfy” were the great Anglo-French tricolour hound (between 4.7 and 5.7 percent wolf ancestry) and the Shiloh shepherd (2.7 percent wolf ancestry). While the Shiloh shepherd originated from breeding efforts with wolfdogs or other recent dog–wolf hybrids to create healthier, more family-friendly shepherd dogs in the US, the origin of the extensive wolf ancestry in Great Anglo-French tricolour hounds—the most common hound in modern France—is unknown and unexpected. The Tamaskan, a “wolfalike” breed that originated in the UK in the 1980s from selecting huskies, malamutes, and other breeds with the goal of producing a wolf-like appearance, has about 3.7 percent wolf ancestry.

The researchers found several patterns among the data: wolf ancestry is higher among larger dogs and in those bred for certain types of work, including Arctic sled dogs, “pariah” breeds, and hunting dogs. Terriers, gundogs, and scent hounds have the least wolf ancestry, on average. While some large guardian dogs have high wolf ancestry, others, like the Neapolitan mastiff, bullmastiff, and the St. Bernard, have no detectable wolf ancestry. Wolf ancestry is also found in a wide range of dog breeds outside of these correlations, including in the tiny chihuahua, which has about 0.2 percent wolf ancestry.  

“This completely makes sense to anyone who owns a chihuahua,” Lin said. “And what we’ve found is that this is the norm—most dogs are a little bit wolfy.”

The research team also compared how often personality terms are used by kennel clubs to describe dog breeds with the highest and lowest levels of wolf ancestry. The descriptor most associated with low wolf-ancestry breeds was “friendly,” followed by “eager to please,” “easy to train,” “courageous,” “lively,” and “affectionate.” In contrast, high wolf-ancestry dogs are more often described as “suspicious of strangers,” as well as “independent,” “dignified,” “alert,” “loyal,” “reserved,” and “territorial.” Other descriptors, including “intelligent,” “obedient,” “good with children,” “dedicated,” “calm,” and “cheerful” occurred with similar frequency in both groups of dogs. The team stressed that these traits are biased assessments of breeds’ behaviors, and it is not known if wolf genes are directly responsible for these characteristics, but this finding opens paths for future research in dog behavioral science.

In addition, the study uncovered important adaptations that dogs have accessed through wolves, including: enriched wolf ancestry at olfactory receptor genes in village dogs, who depend on the ability to sniff out human food waste; and the distribution of a Tibetan wolf-like gene that helps Tibetan mastiffs tolerate low oxygen conditions in the Tibetan Plateau and the Himalayas.

“Dogs are our buddies, but apparently wolves have been a big part of shaping them into the companions we know and love today,” said study co-author Logan Kistler, curator of archaeobotany and archaeogenomics at the National Museum of Natural History. “Through the years, dogs have had to solve all kinds of evolutionary problems that come with living with humans, whether it’s surviving at high altitude, searching for their next meal as they freely roam a village, or protecting the herd, and it seems like they use wolf genes as part of a toolkit to continue their evolutionary success story.”

Other study authors include Regina Fairbanks, from the University of California, Davis; Jose Barba-Montoya, from the American Museum of Natural History; and Hsiao-Lei Liu, from the National Museum of Natural History and University of Stockholm.

 

ABOUT THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY (AMNH)

The American Museum of Natural History in New York City, founded in 1869 with a dual mission of scientific research and science education, is one of the world’s preeminent scientific, educational, and cultural institutions. The Museum encompasses more than 40 permanent exhibition halls, galleries for temporary exhibitions, the Rose Center for Earth and Space including the Hayden Planetarium, and the Richard Gilder Center for Science, Education, and Innovation. The Museum’s scientists draw on a world-class permanent collection of more than 30 million specimens and objects, some of which are billions of years old, and on one of the largest natural history libraries in the world. Through its Richard Gilder Graduate School, the Museum offers two of the only free-standing, degree-granting programs of their kind at any U.S. museum: the Ph.D. program in Comparative Biology and the Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) Earth Science residency program. Visit amnh.org for more information.

Tuesday, April 18, 2023

Martin Wolf Knows That Capitalism Is in Crisis, but He Can’t Explain Why

Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, recognizes that the neoliberal model he once celebrated is in deep crisis. But Wolf can’t get to the heart of the problems with contemporary capitalism or offer a meaningful solution for them.

Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, speaking in Washington, DC
(Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

04.15.2023
Jacobin 

Review of The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism by Martin Wolf (Penguin Random House, 2023).

The front cover of Martin Wolf’s new book, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, is emblazoned with a red flying wedge straight out of an early Soviet-era constructivist poster. However, the book’s author is more interested in saving capitalism than burying it.

Wolf, the chief commentator of the Financial Times on economics, is arguably one of the most influential media defenders of the neoliberal order, and certainly the most nuanced. He sets out his case in an intellectual doorstop — nearly five hundred pages long — of the kind made popular by Thomas Piketty.

Yet verbosity is not always proof of a sound argument, and that proves to be the case here. Wolf is a brilliant journalist and commentator, but his attempt at outlining a blueprint for a Neoliberalism 2.0 gets lost in its own labyrinthine contradictions.

Fruits of Neoliberalism


To give Wolf his due, he knows something has gone very wrong with the global order. Instead of delivering “prosperity and steady progress,” the democratic capitalism he defends has generated “soaring inequality, dead-end jobs, and macroeconomic instability.”

As someone whose Jewish parents barely escaped the Holocaust, with many family members who did not, Wolf is genuinely worried that this economic failure may be fermenting a dangerous populist reaction against liberal democracy:

People expect the economy to deliver reasonable levels of prosperity and opportunity to themselves and their children. When it does not . . . they become frustrated and resentful. . . . Predictably, they frequently blame this disappointment on outsiders — minorities at home and foreigners.

As a good liberal, Wolf spends time undermining many of the standard populist tropes, deploying a mass of empirical data. Although this aspect of the book sometimes offers more quantity than quality, he does see off the Trumpian–Brexiteer lie that immigration is the principal destroyer of Western blue-collar jobs.Martin Wolf’s attempt at outlining a blueprint for a Neoliberalism 2.0 gets lost in its own labyrinthine contradictions.

Wolf shows that there is in fact scant evidence of immigrants reducing wage levels — largely because they play the role of complements rather than substitutes in metropolitan labor markets. Studies also indicate that the net fiscal contribution of immigrants tends to be positive because they come to find work.

Wolf is willing to countenance the possibility that mass immigration, when confined to already densely populated areas, can produce “congestion costs.” However, the reality is that the decay of urban centers in the United States and UK has nothing to do with mass immigration and everything to do with the flight of the middle class to the suburbs. The resulting contraction of the local fiscal base leads to the underfunding of education and infrastructure.

Populism and Class Power

There is a clue here to the weakness in Wolf’s overall thesis. Basically, he is blaming the threat to liberal democracy jointly on the rage of the dispossessed traditional working class and on the ideological “wokeism” of young professionals whose standard of living has flatlined in the era after the 2008 financial crisis.

According to Wolf, enraged blue-collar workers have turned to Donald Trump and Nigel Farage while the naive youth have turned to Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. Both sides are united in wanting to see off liberal democracy and free trade in favor of demagogic nationalism, authoritarianism, and economic protectionism. To save the liberal order, he argues, we need to reinvigorate democratic institutions and reboot economic growth, giving everyone a share in the capitalist pie.If the system failed to deliver, which it did, that was the result of conscious choices by the ruling elite.

Yet instead of blaming the old working class for their political stupidity — which is actually what Wolf is implying — or the youth for their left-wing naivety, we need to restore class and class power as the key component of the present crisis. This, of course, is the ingredient that is absent from Wolf’s approach.

The missing actors in Wolf’s worldview are the strata of middle-class professionals in Western society who have appropriated the massive economic gains generated in the globalist expansion of the period between roughly 1990 to 2008. These are the beneficiaries of neoliberalism and its intellectual exponents, of whom Martin Wolf is ideologue in chief. If the system failed to deliver, which it did, that was the result of conscious choices by the ruling elite.

Winners and Losers

Globalization has profoundly altered the structure and nature of this Western ruling elite. The process has resulted in a massive excess of surplus value beyond what can be productively invested and valorized. This excess has underwritten the emergence of a superlayer of unnecessary functionaries, pseudomanagers, financial-service employees, influencers, academic ideologues, luxury-consumption providers, and pampered cultural workers.

The members of this layer are collectively referred to as the New Petty Bourgeois (following Nicos Poulantzas) or the New Professional Middle Class. At one end (for example, computer programmers and IT engineers), this social layer clearly merges into the scientific proletariat. At the upper end, however, among financial executives, hedge fund managers, and so on, it is clearly bourgeois.Wolf’s analysis lacks the deeper sociopolitical apparatus required to explain the rise and emergent crisis of the Western neoliberal order.

In the mass, this parasitical group has all the unstable characteristics of any middle social layer: individualistic, narcissistic, and politically vacillating. Its direct interests lie with maintaining the neoliberal order.

Unfortunately, Wolf’s analysis lacks the deeper sociopolitical apparatus required to explain the rise and emergent crisis of the Western neoliberal order, particularly the power structure and vested interests that sustain it. He substitutes a rather long-in-the-tooth Anglo-Saxon empiricism for his lack of theory. But his facts end up marooned.

Rentier Capitalism


For instance, Wolf happily quotes a McKinsey Global Institute report, which shows that between 2005 and 2008, around 70 percent of all households in the high-income economies had a flat or falling real income (before any redistribution through state transfers). In other words, the neoliberal order at its height produced zero improvement for most people’s lives. On the other hand, the share of pre-tax national income going to the top 10 percent of the population in America increased by a whole nine percentage points between 1981 and 2008, to a staggering 44 percent of the total.

This is, of course, devastating evidence of a rapacious Western elite strata plundering the gains of technology and free trade to amass wealth on a scale not seen in previous capitalist cycles. But Wolf is more concerned — threatened perhaps? — by the populist, plebeian reaction to this development than he is interested in pursuing an investigation of its cause.The neoliberal order at its height produced zero improvement for most people’s lives.

True, he devotes a chapter to the rise of what he calls “rentier capitalism.” Wolf explains that rising global savings have combined with the concentration in incomes to produce a glut of cash seeking risky investment outlets in the financial sector. As Wolf ruefully notes:

This explosion of financial activity has not done much for productivity growth . . . much of the most highly rewarded activity of the sector consists of what are likely to be . . . zero-sum activities: hedging against volatility created by financial activity itself; invention of complex derivatives that conceal embedded risks; and outright gambling.

He concludes by arguing that the financial sector “wastes both human and real resources” and is “in large part a rent-extraction machine.” Karl Marx could not have put it so succinctly (and Wolf is fond of quoting Marx and even Leon Trotsky).


At no point, however, does Wolf suggest that this parasitical financial edifice has directly given rise to vested interests that are determined to ensure their own survival and that of the system itself, no matter how dysfunctional. Indeed, after the recent collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), Wolf could still write disingenuously in the Financial Times that it “may be amusing that those shrieking for a rescue this time have been the libertarians of Silicon Valley.” Yet he backed the extension of US deposit insurance to every SVB depositor, no matter how large. The system protects itself.

Myths of Free Trade

This myopia leaves Wolf in the position of implicitly criticizing anyone who opposes the system. He sees no future in “populist” economics that eschew free trade and free movement of capital and spends a lot of time bashing Trump’s protectionism, suggesting it will lead the US toward a sort of Latin American–style banana republic.

If that is the case, then why has Joe Biden kept most of the Trump-era prohibitions on trade with China and even extended them? Why has a supposedly orthodox American president introduced the biggest peacetime industrial subsidies, in a bid to repatriate offshore microprocessor production back to the continental United States? Could it possibly be that the high-tech liberals who fund the Democratic Party are just as interested in protecting their markets and supply chains as a folksy populist? (And that includes those SVB depositors.)Wolf’s section on ‘what went wrong’ is devoid of any reference to the bank-saving austerity policies which fell most heavily on the poor.

The problem with Wolf’s vision of Liberal Goodies and Populist Baddies is laid bare when it comes to the role that government austerity policies since 2008 have played in depressing living standards and household incomes. Indeed, you can search in vain through Wolf’s voluminous index for the very word “austerity.”

His section on “what went wrong” is devoid of any reference to the bank-saving austerity policies which fell most heavily on the poor. Nor does he mention the quantitative easing by central banks which effectively printed money to subsidize shareholder wealth. The loss of prosperity — or even hope for prosperity — that Wolf blames for the rise of authoritarian populism was no accident. It was the result of austerity and quantitative easing policies that were employed after 2008 to cope with the aftermath of the speculative bubble.

Busking While Rome Burns

Since he avoids discussing the class causes of the failure of neoliberalism, making populism a scapegoat instead, we should not be surprised that Wolf’s solutions to the “crisis of democratic capitalism” are misdirected as well as banal. In fact, he spends rather more effort on criticizing left or leftish solutions than in putting forward his own.

For example, he offers a long, ill-tempered critique of the notion of a universal basic income (UBI) as an antidote to poverty and social insecurity. According to Wolf, a UBI would be “inescapably wasteful” and “unaffordable” (unlike bank bailouts). At best, Wolf offers a reheated and half-hearted form of Keynesianism as a way to shore up aggregate demand, although he delivers some characteristic rants against Modern Monetary Theory or the idea of printing our way out of poverty.

Of course, none of this confronts the central weakness of a system based on endless capital accumulation: What do you do when you run out of ways to invest that return the average or better rate of profit? For Wolf, the word “planning” is anathema.Wolf spends rather more effort on criticizing left or leftish solutions than in putting forward his own.

When it comes to political reform, Wolf pays homage to the usual suspects like better civic education, devolution to local government, and rooting out corruption. He is on more interesting ground when he suggests replacing the present Western representative model with a hybrid electoral system.

According to Wolf, this would involve three chambers: a directly elected, freely contested legislature; an appointed chamber (“House of Merit”) that advises and has the power of delay, like the House of Lords in the UK; and a “House of the People” chosen by lot (like a jury) with a power of delay and the right to initiate binding, popular referendums on any subject. The idea would be to reduce the influence of special interests and revive popular engagement with politics.

Yet one can’t help thinking that Wolf is being disingenuous. The possibility of anything this complicated or radical being introduced anywhere is zero. He is busking intellectually because he has no real practical alternative to the present situation.

Out of Ideas

From Israel to Hungary and from the United States to the UK, populists are using voter-suppression tactics to strengthen their electoral position. Meanwhile, the ruling neoliberal elite is exploiting its media control, access to personal data, and lobbying power to make democracy a controlled game in which the political agenda and potential solutions are circumscribed to the “reality” of capitalism and its needs. Capitalist democracy has become a hollow shell while the populists are bent on knocking down the remnants.

Wolf is right to worry about the possible return of the jackboot and the concentration camp. But he cannot recognize that popular disenchantment with capitalist democracy will not be cured by introducing more such democracy, which will by definition exclude the interests of the mass of the population. If we are going to think the unthinkable, then we should remember that we now possess the social media tools to revive the stalled Marxist project of abolishing the state itself and introducing direct democracy.Capitalist democracy has become a hollow shell while the populists are bent on knocking down the remnants.

In his forgotten past, Wolf was a member of the youth section of the British Labour Party, the Labour Party Young Socialists, which was then under the influence of an assortment of Trotskyist groups. Today he dismisses the idea of “socialist democracy” as a chimera: “Such a combination of economic and political power will end up, sooner or later, like the Venezuela of Hugo Chávez and Nicolas Maduro.”

For Wolf, the only possible world system is the neoliberal model he has preached for and defended in the pages of the Financial Times. Twenty years ago, Wolf wrote a book entitled Why Globalization Works. This latest work is his mea culpa. But far from being an intellectual tour de force, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism reveals that Martin Wolf has run out of ideas.

CONTRIBUTOR
George Kerevan is a former member of the British parliament who served on its oversight committee for banking and bank regulation. He is on the board of the Scottish antiestablishment website CONTER.

Monday, October 10, 2022

Early data indicates Idaho wolf population is holding steady

By KEITH RIDLER
October 6, 2022

 A wolf is shown in Yellowstone National Park, Wyo., in this file photo provided by the National Park Service, Nov. 7, 2017. Idaho's wolf population appears to be holding steady despite recent changes by lawmakers that allow expanded methods and seasons for killing wolves, the state’s top wildlife official said Thursday, Oct. 6, 2022. (
Jacob W. Frank/National Park Service via AP, File)


BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Idaho’s wolf population appears to be holding steady despite recent changes by lawmakers that allow expanded methods and seasons for killing wolves, the state’s top wildlife official said Thursday.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game Director Ed Schriever told lawmakers on the Natural Resources Interim Committee that preliminary data on human-caused and natural wolf mortality looks similar to three previous years.

He also said the agency is using changes in wolf hunting laws that could lead to killing more wolves in areas with livestock conflicts or where elk herds are below population goals, potentially through a wolf-killing reimbursement program for skilled trappers and hunters.

“I think the best way to describe Idaho’s population right now is that it’s fairly stable, and it’s fluctuating around 1,250,” he told lawmakers. “Part of the year it’s below that; part of the year it’s above that. But the population is fluctuating around 1,250.”

Schriever, in a graph presented to lawmakers, showed the state’s wolf population from 2019 to 2021 fluctuating with a high of more than 1,600 in May when wolf pups are born down to a low of about 800 in April as wolves die through natural mortality, hunting or trapping.

Schriever said that the same pattern with potentially similar numbers could be repeated this year. But the agency won’t have a solid estimate for the 2022 wolf population until January when it analyzes additional information and millions of photos taken by remote cameras.

The agency in previous years picked August as the date to set the wolf population, putting it at about 1,500. The 1,250 estimate is a snapshot of the wolf population in November, at about the midpoint of the annual population fluctuation.

Idaho lawmakers in 2021 approved a law backed by ranchers that greatly expanded wolf killing in what some lawmakers stated could reduce the wolf population by 90%. Backers said it would reduce the wolf population and attacks on livestock while also boosting deer and elk herds.

Idaho wildlife officials also last year announced the state would make available $200,000 to be divided into payments to hunters and trappers who kill wolves in the state.

However, there has been concern the new rules could overshoot the mark because if the state’s wolf population were to fall below 150, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could take over management of wolves from the state.

“If you go below that (150), that’s bad news,” Schriever told lawmakers.

Schriever cited a 2009 Fish and Wildlife Service rule delisting northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves. The rule was blocked by a federal court but took effect when approved by Congress in 2011. Schriever noted the rule has a wolf population for Idaho fluctuating around 500, with a potential high of about 650 and a low of about 350.

“I think there are a whole bunch of us that would be happy if we could get to what’s described in the federal delisting rule as a population fluctuating around 500,” Schriever said.

Getting there could be challenging because wolves, Schriever noted, get wary when hunted.

He gave a breakdown of 389 wolves killed last year by some 50,000 hunters and trappers, noting only 72 hunters and trappers killed more than one wolf, accounting for 236 wolves in all that year.

“Those people are very important in the concept of managing the wolf population,” Schriever said, suggesting the reimbursement program could be a key component to target wolves in specific areas of the state.

“The reimbursement program may, in fact, be very important in keeping some of these highly skilled people engaged in this for a longer period of time,” he said.

Besides setting up the reimbursement program, the law passed in 2021 also expanded wolf killing methods to include trapping and snaring wolves on a single hunting tag, no restriction on hunting hours, using night-vision equipment with a permit, using bait and dogs and allowing hunting from motor vehicles. It also authorized year-round wolf trapping on private property.

Montana lawmakers also changed their laws to expand wolf killing. That prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service late last year, at the request of environmental groups, to announce a yearlong review to see if wolves in the western U.S. should be relisted and again receive federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. Such a move would take away Idaho’s management of the species.

On another front, a U.S. District Court judge in August rejected a request by conservation groups to temporarily block Idaho’s expanded wolf trapping and snaring rules. Environmental groups said Idaho’s expanded wolf-killing regulations violate the Endangered Species Act because they will lead to the illegal killing of federally protected grizzly bears and Canada lynx. Schriever said Thursday that no grizzlies have so far been caught in a wolf trap.

It’s not clear when the court will make a ruling on the merits in that case.