Wolf Bram had lost his shyness and may be shot, the judge does not go along in objections from animal organizations

The judge bent on a provincial permit on Wednesday to shoot Wolf GW3237, known as Wolf Bram. De Wolf, who lives with a pack on the Utrechtse Heuvelrug, bit a runner twice in her leg on 19 May at Landgoed den Treek.

The shitty permit was provided on July 9 on the basis of the advice of, among others, the Mammal Association, and a report from consultancy firm Econatura. These parties both advised to shoot the wolf, based on the so -called National Wolven Plan. Animal rights organizations appealed.

On Wednesday afternoon the judge rejected the suspension request: Wolf Bram can be shot under permit.

Bite incidents

Wolf Bram grew up among the people and has been causing unrest among residents and visitors to the Utrechtse Heuvelrug since last year. Dogs and runners were attacked and visual materials of innovative wolves appeared that people approached.

In three incidents, DNA material points out that it was actually Wolf GW3237. The most recent case is the bitten runner in Den Treek. But DNA research also showed that Wolf Bram bit a five-year-old girl on the Den Treek estate in July 2024, and at the end of that month a different child on the Utrechtse Heuvelrug wounded a different child. The mammal association was based on ‘crab wounds’, but the researchers of Econatura pointed to bite wounds.

Shyness

Wolf Bram had lost his shyness; An important reason for granting the shielding permit. The judge did not go along with the argument of animal rights organizations that his deviating behavior could also be the defensiveness of his pack, other than habituing, getting used to people.

It is the second case of a wolf shooting case where animal rights organizations are not right. In May the nature movements already lost a matter about shooting a wolf in Gelderland. That wolf, whom they baptized ‘Hubertus de Martelaar’, bit a runner in the Veluwe in April. Previous permits to shoot the wolf with paintball guns died, the judge found its effectiveness insufficiently proven.

Zoom in

The province of Utrecht was also planning Wolf Bram in September 2024 to stick a channel on and to scare the animal with paintball guns. After objection from the same nature movements, that idea was killed that also insisted on this lawsuit – which now regrets that the province did not continue on that tactic, they said in court. Since the incidents with the children last year, the province of Utrecht has already made plans to shoot Wolf Bram, since then the permit has been waiting. The province now also has a permit application for catching, sendering and making the entire wolven rods again.

Shut up

According to the animal rights groups, there was one more measure that did not consider the province, in addition to dogs, informing people, informing people and not let children walk loose: completely close the field of the Utrechtse Heuvelrug for people. The cubs and wolf Bram could therefore again get rid of humans.

A “sham solution,” the steward of the private estate Den Treek, Wilbert Nijlant, shouted from the public. Landgoed den Treek would have been closed earlier, and the incidents with the children would have taken place at that time.

The judge went with it. Closing the area would also be unworkable. Whether the wolven rod would survive or behave better after the death of fatherwolf Bram remains “theoretical.”

The courtroom was filled with visitors: local residents of the nature reserves where the pack lives, the supervisors of the estates, members of Extinction Rebellion. A local department of this protested at the beginning of this week against shooting De Wolf.

Because of that dynamic, the hearing was somewhat like a proxy war: under the legal conflict between animal rights organizations and the province, there was a struggle for the mandate of knowledge between people who are involved in the wolf. In Utrecht, that battle has been playing around Wolf Bram for some time: ecologist Erwin van Maanen, who performed on behalf of Econatura during the session, last summer told the NOS that experts at the mammal association in Utrecht were too one -sided in the ‘mild’ advice they then gave to sender and deter the wolves.

The Mammal Association and Econatura provided unambiguous advice during the shielding permit. The judge did not participate in the argument that the province would be too unilaterally informed by those two parties. “The fact that the conclusions of the WolvenExperts are unambiguous does not mean that they are one -sided.”

The rejection of the court means that the permit is no longer suspended. The fauna protection still goes in objection, her lawyer says after the decision, “if the wolf is not already shot.” How and when that will happen is a second question: co-problem wolf Hubertus in Gelderland may be shot since 16 May, but has not yet been found.

To share





Mail the editors