Wolf in Hoge Veluwe May Not Be Killed

This case concerns one specific (problem) wolf that is located in National Park De Hoge Veluwe. The province granted a permit to kill the wolf following a biting incident involving a runner on April 13, 2025. According to the province, research showed that this wolf was involved in multiple so-called wolf-human incidents. On May 16 of this year, the preliminary relief judge ruled that the province of Gelderland had sufficiently demonstrated that this wolf caused problems in the park and that it was necessary to shoot the wolf due to public safety concerns. The wolf has not yet been shot. Now – eight months later – the province has again granted permission with a so-called customized regulation to kill the wolf. The permission is valid until July 1, 2026.

The presence of the wolf in the Netherlands - and particularly in the province of Gelderland - led to great social unrest. Especially after an incident in April 2025 in which a visitor to National Park De Hoge Veluwe - who was running there - was attacked. The preliminary relief judge is fully aware of this. Because the wolf is a protected species, the legislator has set strict rules and regulations that must be met when intervention is allowed. The college must comply with these rules. The preliminary relief judge assesses whether the colleges decision complies with the rules.

One of the conditions for granting permission to kill a wolf is that killing the animal is truly necessary and that there are no other options. Since April 2025, there have been no further incidents with this wolf. The wolf has not approached people anymore. Recently, he spends the daytime in an area where few people can come, and at night he hunts in the Hoge Veluwe.

The eight-month period without any approach by the wolf to people presents a dilemma for the preliminary relief judge. To assess the consequences of this period, expert substantiation in this case is of great importance. If experts explain that despite this, the danger of problem behavior has not disappeared, the necessity of shooting this wolf could still be sufficiently substantiated by the province. However, the preliminary relief judge rules that what the province has presented is insufficient. This is because the expert advice is partly outdated and partly insufficiently clear and substantiated.

Therefore, the preliminary relief judge now concludes that the province has insufficiently substantiated that killing this wolf is still necessary (eight months later). Therefore, she determines that the Fauna Management Unit may not (have) kill(ed) the wolf.