Challenging Old Fears and Myths: A Reflection on Science and Conservation

In a few days, Italy will officially downgrade the wolf’s protection status, raising significant concerns and prompting deep reflection on our approach to wildlife conservation. Once near extinction, the wolf population has rebounded to an estimated 3,300 individuals thanks to dedicated efforts. However, poaching and road accidents remain serious threats. The decision to reduce protections contradicts scientific consensus and risks harming both wolves and farmers by failing to address the root causes of human-wildlife conflict. This complex situation raises important questions about how we make conservation decisions for the coexistence with wildlife,? and the role of science in shaping policies.

One of the most striking reflections is how deeply rooted fears and misconceptions continue to shape our perceptions and policies. The idea of wolves as a threat—whether to humans or livestock—persists despite a lack of supporting evidence. In Italy, the last documented wolf attack on a human occurred nearly 200 years ago. So why do we continue making decisions based on centuries-old fears rather than scientific research, prioritizing real and science-based information? Wolves, like bears, sharks, and bats, suffer from outdated beliefs that vilify them without justification. These animals are often labeled "evil" out of ignorance, still paying a high price for a negative reputation that has little basis in reality. Clinging to these misconceptions prevents us from fostering a more balanced relationship with wildlife.

Another critical issue is the disregard for expert knowledge in conservation. Scientists who dedicate their lives to studying wildlife and ecosystems are consistently sidelined in key decisions. It is deeply perplexing and paradoxical that in 2025, after decades of investment in scientific research, we still choose to follow opinions lacking scientific foundation while disregarding ecologists and wildlife specialists. In fields like law or economics, we trust professionals, yet when it comes to ecology, we often turn a blind eye to scientific expertise. The common claim that "scientists do not know how to communicate effectively to general public" raises an important question: is the real issue communication, or do we simply not want to hear inconvenient truths?

This debate underscores the importance of science-based solutions over fear-driven policies. Studies show that culling wolves does little to resolve conflicts; in fact, disrupting packs can increase predation on unprotected livestock and weaken their ability to regulate wild ungulate populations. Instead of outdated methods like hunting, investing in preventative measures—such as electrified fences and guardian dogs—offers a far more effective and sustainable solution. The real challenge remains coexistence between wildlifeand nature, and human activities—in this case, between wolves and farmers. This reflects a broader need to rethink how we approach human-wildlife interactions. It is not enough to protect animals; we must also understand how they interact with their environments and how we can adapt to share those spaces.

It is time to stop making political decisions driven by fear and misinformation and start following science, shifting away from reactive policiesand embracing a proactive, science-driven approach.If we truly want to ensure the long-term survival of wolves and other species, we must move beyond outdated prejudices, change the narrative, understand ecosystem dynamics, and recognize the essential role these animals play.Wolves, like many other misunderstood animals, play a vital role in maintaining healthy ecosystems. We must stop letting fear dictate our actions and instead listen to those who study and understand these species and dynamics. Only by relying on science can we raise awareness, change perceptions, and build a future where humans and wildlife coexist in abalanced and sustainable way.