There are many workable methods that have been applied in order to prevent human-wildlife conflict including wolf-livestock conflict (see, e.g., ‘A Ranchers Guide to Coexistence Among Livestock, People, and Wolves’ by Parr, S. et al., 2017).
However, some (but not all) of these tools can be costly and inaccessible to people who live in relative poverty (e.g., electric fence).
Also, it does not appear that wolves (and other predators) necessarily perceive these objects as deterrents (signals of boundaries the crossing of which could lead to peril).
They work as long as they are novel, ‘dubious’ (from the wolf’s perspective) or slightly painful.
I have been wondering about the potential of natural landscape elements that could benefit the local biodiversity, store carbon and also serve to deter wolves and to potentially create a perception in wolves of a clearly marked boundary beyond which it might be dangerous to wander.
Wolves are able to perceive such boundaries in so that they avoid human infrastructure, e.g., highways, buildings etc.
I believe that in order for the wolf to recognize a landscape element as a type of a boundary or signal, it should be consistent and it should appear natural.
I am aware that highways and buildings are about as unnatural as it gets.
However, from the wolf’s point of view, they might be closer to a natural element in their functionality than fences because they create ‘habitats’.
The fence is simply there (birds can use it to perch on) but it does not interact with the environment greatly, nor it has ‘a life of its own’.
Meanwhile, a highway, for example, creates noise and smell, and vibrations and perhaps even a sense of breeze passing by.
It has a flow of cars and other vehicles ‘inhabiting’ it.
It might resemble a trail in the forest.
Thus, a wolf could be better able to perceive it as a ‘different’ element in the landscape and to assign a certain emotion and evaluation to it (dangerous).
Previously, I have discussed the potential of using hedgerows as native-species-based wolf deterrents with additional benefits (see ‘Hedgerows as preventive anti-predator measures‘).
I believe that a consistent application of hedgerows, that is to say, planned establishment of hedgerow boundaries between human settlements (including pastures) and the wilderness areas (i.e., zones that we wish to maintain wolf-free and zones that we allot to wolves) could assist in the wolf’s education (through experience) regarding landscape elements that signal danger after crossing them.
There could be other elements that are natural and that wolves might also avoid naturally (already).
Most scientific research regarding wolf habitat use aims at determining what type of human infrastructure or imposing geographical barriers bear impact on wolf movement as well as at determining what type of habitats wolves prefer to use (optimal habitats).
There has not been much discussion regarding other natural habitats that wolves do not use often and they might even avoid (on their home ranges or during dispersal) due to factors that affect ease of movement, prey catchability etc.
For example, the study by Mayer, M. et al., 2022 found that the probability of the wolf use of an area increased with increasing natural cover (forest and heathland).
However, heathland is a type of shrubland and often a type of wetland that poses relatively few constraints on a wolf and the wolf could even have advantages on a site that is slightly saturated because the wolf is often lighter than its prey and the prey species (adult individuals) would find it more difficult to pass through the water during wintertime (with thin ice that holds the wolf but not the ungulate).
Similarly, wolves are known to use riparian areas and wetlands close to beaver dams in order to gain access to prey, to travel during winter and to improve hunting success.
Still, water is also used by wolf’s prey to avoid the predator but the water must be deep enough for the wolf to be forced to swim while the prey can possibly still wade and hold ground (not exerting as much energy).
Mires that are deeper or that are more treacherous (with deep pits and pools overgrown with floating moss) could be less suited for the wolf’s travel and/or hunt.
Wetlands have an extremely high biodiversity value and artificial wetlands are often encouraged on landscapes, including farmed landscape.
If it was found, for example, that wolves avoided specific types of wetlands (not heathlands but deeper, more saturared, ‘watery’ mires), such elements could also become a barrier that lowers the risk of wolf encounter.
(This might not work in northern countries where winters are still cold and ice cover can be trusted to hold for most of the cold season.)
Similar elements could be very dense (prickly) shrubs or large clutters of deadwood etc.
It is understandable that avoidance by wolves of natural elements has not been researched in detail.
It would involve studying habitats within the wolf’s range (third-order analysis) or even microhabitats (fourth-order analysis) which can be costly and the priority has always been to determine what is needed by the wolf on its range (den site selection, kill sites etc.) and not – what is avoided by the wolf (unless the wolf avoids the element to the extent that it renders the habitat unsuitable for wolf’s habitance).
Still, if such data could be derived from other studies focusing on wolf’s use of space, it could be useful in assessing whether certain natural elements (or semi-natural elements, or ‘artificial wilderness’) can deter wolves and put them off their intended path.
Many studies (including the aforementioned by Mayer, M. et al., 2022 have demonstrated that the greatest conflict risk is often posed by dispersing wolves who are travelling through unknown territories, who have to rely on themselves and do not have the support of the pack to hunt, and who might stumble upon livestock on their way (accepting it more readily for prey due to the unpredictability of the food acquisition during migration).
Damage caused by dispersers is also more difficult to prevent because it is harder to prognosticate.
Resident packs have relatively stable territories, known den site use, established routines and movement patterns.
It is easier and it makes more sense for livestock farmers near resident packs to introduce preventive measures.
Meanwhile, dispersing wolves can get into trouble very far from residential wolf ranges – unexpectedly, in areas where the humans had not predicted and therefore prevented depredation risk.
Wolves, however, are capable of learning what poses threat and where it is dangerous to cross ‘some line’ if the ‘line’ is perceptible to the wolf as an active landscape element.
Introducing hedgerows or wetlands etc. would benefit the local nature and they might eventually teach the wolves that these are signals by the humans akin to their own scent-marking.
Since medieval times, natural boundaries were frequently applied to indicate ownership among humans (which is why there used to be so many hedgerows in the UK and Ireland).
In our times, such boundaries could be set between wilderness areas (that should be large) and our dwellings.
These boundaries should not be entirely impermeable and they should be nature-friendly and also affordable for people everywhere.
They should not be unwelcoming (harmful) but they should be exclusive which I believe is something that wild species would understand because they also exclude some species (but not all species) in order to ensure safety for their children and resource protection.
Finally, they should be sustainable and what is more sustainable than native species habitats and microhabitats?
Notes by Ieva 