The authors acknowledge the support received from the International Research Center on Sustainable AgroEcosystems (ISITE CAP20-25). The authors express their gratitude to the Direction Départementale des Territoires (DDT) of Savoie and to the Direction Départementale des Territoires (DDT) of Haute-Savoie for granting access to the data and for their support.
1Wolf predation on domestic livestock has been an increasing concern across Europe for several decades (Kaczensky, 1999). The coexistence between wolves, Canis lupus, and pastoral systems is widely regarded as a growing challenge, particularly in mountain regions where livestock farming represents both a major economic activity and an essential provider of ecosystem services (Linnel and Boitani, 2011; Reinhardt et al., 2011, Meyer et al., 2024).
2After a sharp decline throughout most of Europe, where wolves had disappeared from large areas including France, populations have been steadily recovering since the 1970s (Chapron et al., 2014; Blanco and Sundseth, 2023; CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019; Wolf Alpine Group, 2023). This growth and geographical expansion are driven by multiple factors, including strengthened protection measures (eg. The 1979 Bern Convention), agricultural abandonment, and increasing wild ungulates populations (CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019).
3As wolf populations recolonize new territories, damage to domestic livestock has increased in many European regions (CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019). France, despite having one of the most comprehensive damage-protection and compensation systems in Europe (MTECT, 2024), is among the countries reporting the highest number of wolf-related livestock losses (CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019).
4While small ruminants remain the main domestic prey (DREAL AURA, 2024; Reinhardt et al., 2011), several countries have reported an intensification of wolf depredation on cattle (CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019; Dalmasso et al., 2011; Faccioni, 2015; Pimenta et al., 2017; Menzano, 2023; Singer et al., 2023). This is particularly the case in Castile and León, Spain, where 85% of wolf-related damage now concerns calves (Velazquez, 2022). Germany and Italy, on the other hand, are facing the emergence of some wolf packs that "specialize" in cattle (CGEDD/CGAAER Report, 2019). In France, the number of cattle victims increased almost fifteen-fold between 2013 and 2023 (DREAL AURA, 2016, 2023; Annex 1) and predation is now recorded in 25 departments, including Savoie and Haute-Savoie, where cattle production is strongly anchored in grass-fed systems and high-value dairy products (DREAL AURA, 2023; Annex 2). In 2023, Savoie was the most affected department nationally in number of cattle victims, with Haute-Savoie ranked 8th (DREAL AURA, 2023). In parallel, the wolf population in the country has increased by a factor of 6 over the same period with a significant reinforcement of the zone of permanent presence in these 25 departments (OFB, 2023; Annex 3). Although cattle victims remain numerically fewer than sheep victims at the national level (435 cattle vs. 11,194 sheep in 2022; DREAL AURA, 2023), wolf depredation on cattle raises growing concern in grass-fed farming areas. Cattle production is economically strategic for these territories, not only for milk, meat and cheese production but also for the ecosystem services provided by extensive grazing systems (Meyer et al., 2024).
5Despite this expansion, cattle depredation remains poorly documented compared with sheep depredation, both in France and internationally. Existing studies focus on national compensation patterns in particularly regarding sheep, whereas little is known about the concrete characteristics of cattle victims, the circumstances of attacks, or the types of injuries and situations that lead to a technical conclusion of “wolf responsibility not excluded.” (considered as potential attacks from an administrative point of view). Furthermore, diagnosing wolf predation on cattle is particularly challenging: the diversity of operating modes, the variability in carcass consumption, and the mobility of cattle herds in mountain pastures can all obscure predation signs and complicate the interpretation of field evidence. These difficulties may contribute to under-reporting, especially among farmers newly exposed to wolf presence. At the same time, farmers’ experience and reporting practices remain a blind spot and caught off guard, farmers find themselves vulnerable (Nicolas and Doré, 2022). Unusual events such as missing calves, carcasses partially or fully consumed, atypical injuries on adult cattle or abnormal herd behaviour may raise questions for farmers who have never previously encountered predation (Nicolas & Doré, 2022; Virapin et al., 2024). Yet only a formal damage assessment conducted by trained technicians can determine whether wolf involvement can be excluded or not, an essential step for both understanding depredation patterns and securing compensation. However, the extent to which cattle farmers understand, use or trust this procedure remains insufficiently explored, despite its central role in documenting wolf depredation at the national scale.
6In this context, the Savoie Departmental Directorate of Territories, in collaboration with the Haute-Savoie Departmental Directorate of Territories, aimed to characterize wolf predation on cattle based on official damage reports and to document how cattle farmers experience predation beyond official declarations. Accordingly, this study relied on two complementary exploratory approaches:
-
An analysis of all official damage assessments classified as “wolf responsibility not excluded”, according to the French national assessment protocol, between 2015 – 2020 in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, focusing on victim profiles, injuries and contextual conditions (e.g., the number and typology of victims, the proportion of deaths and injuries, the age and category of animals involved, the contextual information on pasture and slope, etc.);
These technical assessments constitute the only validated procedure for determining whether wolf involvement can be excluded or not and therefore provide an essential framework for analyzing the characteristics of related-predation events.
-
An online survey of all cattle farmers in both departments, aimed at capturing their experience of predation, the types of events they encountered (reported or not), the reasons for non-reporting, and their knowledge of the official and national damage-assessment procedure. This approach also helps to better support farmers through preventive measures, compensation schemes, and other management actions.
7This study therefore had two main objectives: (1) to characterize cattle losses recorded in official damage assessments in which wolf responsibility could not be excluded; and (2) to complement this analysis with farmer’s field observations and reporting practices, to better understand how cattle predation is identified and declared in a context of emerging risk. Furthermore, these two mountain departments offer a particularly relevant case study due to rapid wolf recolonization, strong territorial heterogeneity, and the predominance of extensive grass-fed cattle systems.
8In France, wolf damage assessments follow a standardized national protocol coordinated by the Departmental Directorates of Territories (DDT(M)) and the French Biodiversity Office (OFB). When a farmer reports a suspected predation event, an authorized agent (DDT(M), OFB or another designated service) carries out an on-site evaluation within the legally required timeframe. During this assessment, the agent records the circumstances of the event, the condition of the carcass or injured animals, the presence or absence of consumption, the type and location of injuries (bite marks, lacerations, fractures, lameness), and any contextual elements such as terrain characteristics or traces on the site (as described in Annex 4).
9At the end of the evaluation, the event is classified into one of the official categories defined by the protocol:
-
Wolf responsibility excluded: field evidence rules out wolf involvement
-
Wolf responsibility not excluded: field evidence does not allow wolf involvement to be ruled out
10This second category applies the benefit of the doubt principle: it does not confirm predation by a wolf but indicates that the wolf cannot be excluded as a potential cause, which makes the farmer eligible for compensation (Annex 4). Cases involving accidental falls in steep or mountainous terrain may also fall under the “wolf responsibility not excluded” category when field agents cannot determine whether the fall may have resulted from disturbance or pursuit by a predator.
11All cases included in this study fall within this administrative category “wolf responsibility not excluded”. From the protocol’s perspective, these events are considered potential wolf attack situations and were therefore compensated. This category encompasses a wide range of field situations documented by agents during official assessments, including dead, injured, missing or stressed animals. This distinction is essential for interpreting the dataset used in the analysis, as it reflects a precautionary administrative classification rather than a confirmed diagnosis of predation. A blank version of the official damage assessment form is provided in Annex 5.
12Based on criterion, all cattle damage reports recorded between 2015 and 2020 in Savoie and Haute-Savoie were extracted from the DDT(M)’s official damage reporting and management database (Géoprédateur, formerly Géoloup). With the selection criteria applied (species, period, departments), 147 cases were extracted, involving 262 cattle victims (dead or injured) from 109 farms. Among these, only 93 cases involving 190 cattle victims were retained as they were classified as “wolf responsibility not excluded” according to the national protocol. Each report (digital or paper format) was then manually reviewed, allowing the integration of variables available in the official reports but not present in the database export. The final unified dataset included:
-
General information: date and time of field evaluation, location and GPS coordinates, herd size
-
Animal-related variables: number of affected animals, age-category typology (calf, heifer, adult cow), condition at the time of the assessment (dead or injured), presence of injured animals, type and localization of injuries (bite marks, lacerations, fractures, lameness)
-
Carcass condition: presence or absence of consumption, anatomical location of consumption, identification of typical wolf feeding patterns
-
Contextual variables: terrain characteristics, including cases of injured or dead animals found after accidental falls in steep or mountainous terrain
-
Administrative information: classification of the event (predation-related, not predation-related, unknown origin), conclusion on wolf responsibility (excluded or not excluded), prevention measures in place, compensation, and field agent comments
13This structure reflects the fields used in the national protocol and its technical annexes (Annex 4 & 5). To illustrate the type of cases included in the dataset, two anonymized examples of actual damage assessment reports classified as “wolf responsibility not excluded” are provided in Annex 6: one involving an injured heifer and one involving a partially consumed calf.
14To complement the analysis of official assessments and obtain an overview of the situation on the ground regarding this emerging form of predation, an online survey was also carried out among cattle farmers in Savoie and Haute-Savoie using Google Forms. The questionnaire consisted of 11 items (10 closed questions and 1 optional open-ended question) covering several topics, including:
-
perceived wolf presence in grazing areas
-
damage events observed (declared and eventually undeclared)
-
the year and nature of these non-reported losses or events
-
the reasons for non-reporting,
-
farmers’ knowledge of the steps involved in initiating a damage declaration (who to contact, how to report, and the procedure to follow in the event of suspected predation).
15The survey was based on farmers’ self-declarations and is therefore intended to provide an indicative, rather than exhaustive, overview of field experiences and reporting practices.
16A total of 1,591 cattle farmers (675 in Savoie and 916 in Haute-Savoie) were contacted through mailing lists provided by the Departmental Directorates of Territories. The contact list corresponded to all reachable cattle farmers registered in the DDT mailing databases, representing approximately 84% of the cattle farming system in these two departments.
17The survey was distributed by email, allowing farmers and remained open for two weeks, during which three reminder emails were sent to encourage participation. Farmers could complete the questionnaire autonomously online.
18Descriptive analyses were conducted on the two datasets: official damage assessments and the online survey responses. The two sources were analyzed independently, as they reflect distinct types of information.
19For the damage assessments, descriptive statistics were used to quantify:
-
the types and categories of cattle involved (adult cow, heifer, calf)
-
their condition at the time of the assessment (dead or injured)
-
the presence and anatomical location of consumption
-
the nature and location of injuries (lacerations, bite marks, fractures, lameness)
-
and contextual elements documented by field agents (e.g., animals found after falls on steep terrain)
20Pivot tables and proportions were produced to characterize the distribution of victim categories and the diversity of field situations.
21For the online survey, descriptive statistics quantified farmers’ responses regarding perceived wolf presence, observed damage events, declared and undeclared losses, reasons for non-reporting, and knowledge of damage-declaration procedures. The analysis aimed to describe the diversity of events experienced by farmers, to identify the proportion of respondents who reported situations that could have warranted an official damage assessment, and to document the reasons they did not initiate a report.
22Among the dead cattle (63% of the animals concerned), the majority are calves (43%), followed by heifers (31%) as well as adults (26%). Injured cattle (37% of the animals concerned) are 68% adults, but also with 25% heifers and 7% calves. Thus, the victims found dead were primarily young animals, whereas injured victims were mostly adults cows. Injured animals showed various lesions such as lacerations, bite marks, or even lameness and fractures. Overall, considering all cattle reported (93 damages reports “wolf responsibility not excluded”, 190 animals involved), predation-related events concerned calves (29%), heifers (29%), and adult cows (42%). In summary, the analysis shows that all cattle categories were affected, with dead victims predominantly consisting of young animals, whereas injured victims were mostly adults. Adult cows, heifers and calves were therefore all represented among the reported events, but in different proportions depending on whether the animals were found dead or injured.
Figure 1: Typology of dead cattle (71 reported animals) and injured (119 reported animals), in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015-2020
23Based on the three main descriptive characteristics identified in the analysis (presence of consumption, lacerations and/or bite marks, and cattle falling), the distribution of damage types shows the following patterns. The victims were totally consumed in 12% of cases, and partially in 30%. Cattle not consumed (58%), found dead or injured, showed lacerations and/or bites (21%). Animals that had not been consumed, lacerated or bitten were characterized by cattle involved in accidental falls (21%), lameness or fractures (8%), dispersal of the herd and disappearance of calves (4%) and cases of mastitis as a result of the attack (4%). Moreover, the stigmata of predation (bites or lacerations) were located in particular on the hindquarters and limbs for 67% of the victims concerned, on the neck for 11% and on other body areas such as the chest, backn head, udder or tail in 22% of cases. These results highlight the frequent consumption of young victims and the predominant location of predation stigmata on the hindquarters and limbs among injured cattle.
Figure 2: General characteristics of cattle involved (190 reported animals), in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015 - 2020
Figure 3: Location of lacerations and bites on cattle involved presenting these stigmata of predation (65 reported animals), in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015-2020
24Marked differences between cattle categories were observed depending on the type of situation described in the damage reports. Among the 74 cattle found dead or injured after accidental falls in steep terrain, adults accounted for 55% and heifers 35% and calves 9%. Among the cattle presenting lacerations and/or bite marks, heifers represented 55% while adults and calves each accounted for 23% and 22% respectively. Conversely, calves represented 57% of the consumed victims (partially and fully), compared with 23% heifers and 20% adults.
25Overall, the patterns observed across the different types of situations indicate that adult cows were predominantly involved in falls in steep terrain, heifers more frequently exhibited lacerations or bite marks, and calves represented most consumed victims. These contrasted profiles suggest that the nature of the damage recorded in official assessments differs markedly according to cattle category.
Figure 4: Typologies of cattle involved in accidental falls (74 reported animals), lacerated and/or bitten cattle (65 reported animals) and consumed cattle (81 reported animals including 58 partially consumed and 23 totally consumed), in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015-2020
26Out of the 1,591 cattle farmers contacted and after only two weeks of collection period, the survey received 673 responses, corresponding to an overall response rate of 42.5%. Respondents represented approximately 35.5% of the cattle farming system in Savoie and Haute-Savoie. This response rate is considered high for an online survey and reflects the strong engagement of cattle farmers with this emerging predation issue.
27According to our survey, only 10% of cattle farmers had ever reported an event to the DDT and therefore already experienced an official damage assessment. In contrast, 43.5% indicated that they had previously faced at least one event that they did not report including 18.2% who stated that such situations had occurred several times.
28Although all agricultural sub-regions of Savoie and Haute-Savoie were represented, most respondents reported grazing their cattle in the Maurienne, Tarentaise, Pays de Thônes and Chablais, areas where wolf presence has been officially established. An official schematic map of wolf presence in France in 2021 is provided in Annex 7 for contextual purposes, to illustrate the distribution of wolf territories in the study area. We could also add, only large predators knew in the study area are wolf and lynx (OFB, 2025); dogs have been reported with very few predation events on flocks (Brunschwig et al. 2026).
29Among breeders who did not report their affected animals, 46% mainly mentioned animal disappearances. Animals found dead accounted for 26% whereas cattle involved in accidental falls were reported by 29% of the respondents. Cases of lameness or fractures (17%) and atypical injuries (10%) were also mentioned. These ‘atypical injuries’ referred to wounds perceived by farmers as unusual or unexplained (e.g. superficial tears, skin lesions or marks not attributable to handling or fencing). In addition, 71% of respondents mentioned various stress-related conditions or unusual herd behaviour.
30The survey thus reveals that a wide range of potentially relevant events were not reported, including disappearances, falls, dead animals, lesions and stress-related situations, highlighting the diversity of field events experienced by farmers beyond official declarations.
Figure 5: Type of events not reported by the 292 surveyed breeders concerned, in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015 – 2020
31Several reasons were reported by farmers to explain why potentially relevant events had not been declared. First, 68% indicated that they did not initiate a report because they were unsure whether the damage was due to wolves. This perception suggests that many farmers believed that clear evidence of wolf involvement was required before requesting an assessment, whereas the national procedure aims only to determine whether wolf responsibility can be excluded or not.
32In addition, 28% did not report the event because they did not know how to initiate the procedure. More broadly, farmers appeared to have limited knowledge of the administrative process: only 20% reported knowing who to contact and being familiar with the steps involved in declaring damage, while 40% reported no knowledge and 40% only partial knowledge. This lack of knowledge was not restricted to newly colonized areas, as most respondents grazed their animals in zones where wolf presence was already officially established at the time of the survey.
33Taken together, these results show that non-declaration was mainly associated with uncertainty about wolf involvement and limited knowledge of the reporting procedure.
Figure 6: Reasons for the lack of reporting of damage cited by the 292 cattle breeders concerned, in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015 -2020
Figure 7: Knowledge of breeders surveyed regarding damage reporting procedures, 672 responses, in Savoie and Haute-Savoie, during the period 2015-2020
34The analysis of damage assessments revealed a wide diversity of situations encountered in the field, including fully or partially consumed carcasses, localized injuries (especially on the hindquarters and limbs), atypical lesions, unexplained traumatisms, falls in steep terrain, animal disappearances, and unusual herd behaviour. This heterogeneity reflects the variety of configurations in which cattle may be affected in areas where wolf predation is emerging and contrasts sharply with the more uniform predation signatures typically described in small ruminants (DDT05, 2020).
35These patterns, which cannot be interpreted as direct “methods of predation” since the assessment procedure documents only the post-event situation, nevertheless show that cattle from different age categories tend to present distinct types of injuries or consumption patterns. Adult cattle, larger and more robust, were primarily found injured, often showing lameness or fractures, and were disproportionately involved in falls on steep slopes. Heifers were more frequently affected by lacerations or bite marks, most often located on the hindquarters and limbs. Conversely, calves were more commonly found partially or fully consumed, consistent with their smaller body size.
36Compared to small ruminants, whose predation marks are more consistently documented in the literature, cattle exhibit a broader range of injury types and feeding patterns. Some of the observations in our dataset resemble the predatory behaviour described by Macnulty et al. (2007) in wolves hunting larger ungulates such as moose or bison, including pursuit, harassment, and attempts to isolate individuals. The location of lacerations on heifers and the higher rate of falls and traumatic injuries in adult cattle may reflect such interactions. These elements suggest that wolves adjust their strategies to the size, behaviour and vulnerability of each cattle category (Mech & Peterson, 2003; Meriggi et al., 1996). This diversity complicates also the recognition of predation-related events in cattle systems, especially in regions that have only recently experienced wolf return.
37These elements highlight the diagnostic challenges specific to cattle depredation, particularly in regions that have only recently been confronted with wolf presence. The variability of stigmata, the disappearance of evidence due to consumption, the occurrence of falls or missing animals, and the limited documentation of indirect effects all contribute to the difficulty of recognizing and characterizing wolf-related damage in cattle systems.
38Overall, the variability of stigmata observed in cattle depredation, combined with the size and behaviour of the animals and the potential disappearance of key evidence, highlights the considerable diagnostic complexity associated with these events. Understanding this diversity is essential for interpreting situations in the field and for characterizing the different configurations in which wolf involvement cannot be excluded.
39Uncertainty appears to be a central factor in the decision not to report a damage event. Many farmers explained that they did not initiate a damage assessment because they were not certain of wolf involvement. This hesitation reflects a widespread perception that a declaration would only be legitimate if the farmer already possesses clear evidence, even though the national procedure is not intended to confirm wolf predation but rather to determine whether wolf responsibility can be excluded.
40This misunderstanding is reinforced by limited knowledge of the reporting process. Only a minority of farmers reported knowing whom to contact or how to initiate a declaration, while most indicated partial or no knowledge of the procedure. The combination of uncertainty regarding the origin of events and a poor understanding of the role of the assessment therefore constitutes a significant barrier to reporting, even though the official evaluation is precisely intended to provide an objective clarification of the event.
41Overall, these elements show that uncertainty and misunderstandings of the procedure may obscure the identification of events relevant to wolf predation, thereby limiting the collective understanding of this emerging issue.
42Our results thus highlight a substantial discrepancy between the events experienced by farmers and those that are officially reported. Although only a minority have ever initiated a damage assessment procedure, many farmers indicated that they had been confronted with situations that they either chose not to declare or did not know how to report. This suggests that official administrative data may not fully reflect the range of events potentially relevant for damage evaluation.
43The diversity of situations mentioned by farmers, animal disappearances, falls in steep terrain, unexplained mortalities, atypical injuries, or unusual herd behaviour, largely overlaps with the contexts encountered by field agents in cases classified as “wolf responsibility not excluded”. Their frequent non-reporting indicates that a non-negligible proportion of events potentially eligible for assessment remain outside the formal reporting system.
44These elements thus suggest that official data under-represent the diversity and frequency of cattle-related events that could warrant an assessment. In this context, the findings underline the relevance of initiating a damage assessment even when farmers are uncertain about the cause of an event, as the purpose of the official procedure is precisely to provide an objective evaluation of the situation and determine whether wolf involvement can be excluded or not.
45Furthermore, recent trends in damage records suggest potential shifts in wolf predation dynamics in France. While the number of sheep and goat victims has stabilized in recent years, the number of cattle losses has continued to rise (DREAL AURA, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023). This divergence raises questions about the quantity of biomass consumed by wolves and the energetic and behavioral drivers underlying prey selection. Larger prey such as cattle provide substantially higher biomass yields per kill than small ruminants which may influence the feeding strategies of wolf packs, particularly in areas where cattle are abundant or where small ruminants benefit from reinforced protection measures.
46In this context, exploring the diversification of wolf diet, considering both domestic and wild ungulates, and quantifying the biomass intake according to different prey species could help improve our understanding of recent changes in predation patterns. Such an approach would also contribute to interpreting trends in damage records and anticipating the potential evolution of wolf–livestock interactions.
47In historically wolf-affected areas, the reinforcement of protection measures for sheep and goat herds, and their increasing effectiveness, may contribute to a shift in predation pressure toward cattle herds, which are often less protected and more difficult to secure. This emerging pattern highlights the need to better understand cattle vulnerability to predation and to explore potential protection and deterrence strategies adapted to bovine systems.
48In this context, understanding how cattle react to predators and to the return of wolves become essential, particularly regarding anti-predator behaviours and their ability to defend themselves. According to Kluever et al. (2008), predators presence influences the vigilance in domestic herds, a key feature of protection against predation. Laporte et al. (2010) and Flörcke and Grandin (2013) also highlight the role of anti-predator behaviours shaped by artificial selection of cattle. Furthermore, Bradley et al. (2012) show that common management variables (calving location, calving period, breed, or distance to forest edge) are not consistently correlated with depredation risk whereas Steele et al. (2013) confirm the existence of direct and indirect impacts on production.
49Several biological and management variables thus may shape wolf–cattle interactions, including herd size and stability, learnt behaviours, cattle breed, horned vs. polled animals, landscape configuration and the availability of alternative prey. These dimensions remain insufficiently explored in the French context and warrant further investigation (Smit et al., 2024). Nevertheless, all the breed of cattle, horned or polled, involved in this study, could be reported as victims (Virapin et al, 2021).
50Finally, the potential emergence of wolf pack specialization in cattle predation, potentially linked to pack size and to the transmission of hunting strategies among pack members and across generations (Mech and Peterson, 2003; Macnulty et al., 2007; Sand et al., 2012) raises important management questions. Understanding whether such specialization exists, and under which conditions it emerges, would support the identification of appropriate protective measures for cattle systems, including deterrents, adapted herd management practices and, where legally applicable, targeted defense shootings within regulatory frameworks.
51The combined findings of this study highlight several operational implications for the management of cattle depredation in newly and historically colonized wolf areas. The diversity of field situations documented in assessments, together with the diagnostic uncertainties reported by farmers and the under-declaration of potentially relevant events, suggests that the current system would benefit from tools more specifically adapted to the characteristics of cattle systems.
52First, the existing damage-assessment grid was originally designed for multiple livestock species and may not fully reflect the range of situations encountered in cattle herds. Events involving heavy carcass consumption, missing animals, falls in steep terrain or herd dispersion can be difficult to interpret using the present criteria, contributing to the high proportion of cases classified as having an “undetermined origin” in cattle compared with small ruminants. A refinement of the grid, particularly regarding injury typologies, contextual information and indirect effects could strengthen the ability of assessments to recognize situations where wolf responsibility cannot be excluded.
53Second, the survey revealed substantial gaps in farmers’ knowledge of the procedure and confusion regarding the level of evidence required prior to initiating a report. Improving communication on the purpose of the assessment, namely, determining whether wolf involvement can be excluded, rather than confirming predation, may help reduce under-reporting and improve the representativeness of official data. Clearer guidance on what should be reported and in which circumstances could facilitate earlier and more systematic declarations, especially in newly colonized areas.
54Together, these elements suggest that operational adjustments to both the assessment framework and the communication strategy may be necessary to support an accurate understanding of this emerging predation and to ensure that field information is captured as comprehensively as possible.
55This study provides an initial characterization of wolf-related damage to cattle in France by combining the analysis of official damage reports with a large-scale survey of cattle farmers in Savoie and Haute-Savoie. The results highlight the diversity of situations documented in the field, ranging from heavily consumed carcasses to ambiguous injuries, unexplained traumatisms, animal disappearances or falls, illustrating the heterogeneous ways in which cattle can be affected in areas where wolf predation is emerging. These findings also suggest that predation dynamics on cattle may differ from those described for small ruminants, as the stigmata recorded vary according to age, size, behaviour and the physical characteristics of the victims.
56The survey results underline the central role of uncertainty and limited knowledge of the reporting procedure in farmers’ decision not to request a damage assessment. Many breeders hesitated to initiate a report because they were unsure whether the wolf was involved or believed they needed to provide proof beforehand. This perceived need for “evidence in advance,” combined with poor knowledge of who to contact and how the procedure works, contributed to a form of self-censorship that restricted the flow of information into the official system. Although these undeclared events cannot be attributed to wolves in the absence of a technical inspection, their omission limits the ability of the assessment framework to document, confirm, or exclude wolf involvement. More broadly, it suggests that the information contained in official datasets may be incomplete but because they are not systematically declared.
57This under-reporting must also be interpreted considering the context. The 2015–2020 study period corresponds to a phase in which wolf predation on cattle in France was recent, poorly understood, and still largely unforeseen by many breeders and technicians. The emergence of this phenomenon in newly colonized territories likely contributed to delays in communication efforts, the dissemination of procedural information, and the adaptation of regulatory tools.
58Yet the urgency of the situation is clear: cases where wolf predation could not be excluded have risen sharply in recent years, with cattle victims increasing by a factor of 14.5 between 2013 and 2023, and preliminary data for 2024 indicating almost a doubling of cattle losses compared to 2022. Even though small ruminants remain the main domestic prey at the national scale, the rapid increase in cattle depredation underscores the need for a more precise understanding of the mechanisms underlying these events, and of how wolves interact with large domestic prey.
59More broadly, this work highlights the need to refine the national damage-assessment framework so that it better captures the specificities of cattle systems. The diversity of field situations, the disappearance of evidence through consumption, the difficulty of interpreting certain traumatisms, and the limited consideration of indirect effects (stress, reproductive disturbances) all call for an adaptation of the current assessment grid. Such refinement would help improve the recognition of possible predation stigmata, strengthen the technical robustness of conclusions and align evaluations more closely with conditions observed on the ground.
60Finally, this study invites a broader reflection on public measures and management strategies during the period studied and beyond. Encouraging farmers to systematically report suspicious events, even in the absence of certainty, remains essential for improving the collective understanding of this emerging predation. Additional research, both in historically affected territories and in newly colonized areas, would help consolidate these preliminary results and contribute to a clearer understanding of the predation dynamics at play. As wolf presence continues to expand across cattle-farming regions, adapting protection measures, strengthening communication, and supporting breeders in navigating this evolving risk will be critical to safeguarding grass-based cattle farming systems.
Boisseaux T., Stefanini-Meyrignac O., Conseil Générale de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (CGEDD), Démolis C. et Vallance M., Conseil Général de l’Alimentation, de l’Agriculture et des Espaces Ruraux (CGAAER), 2019. - «Le loup et les activités d’élevage : comparaison européenne dans le cadre du plan national d’actions 2018/2023», Rapport n° 012412, 87 pages, en ligne : https://www.vie-publique.fr/rapport/271785-le-loup-et-les-activites-delevage-comparaison-europeenne-plan-2018-2023
Blanco JC., Sundseth K. - 2023. “The situation of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the European Union – An In-depth Analysis”. A report of the N2K Group for DG Environment, European Commission
Bradley E.H., Pletscher D.H., 2005.– “Assessing factors related to wolf depredation of cattle in fenced pastures in Montana and Idaho.” in Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33(4), pp.1256–1265
Breck S., Clark P., Howery L., Johnson D., Kluever B., Smallidge S., Cibils A., 2012.– “A Perspective on Livestock–Wolf Interactions on Western Rangelands.” in Rangelands, 34(5), pp.6–11,
Brunschwig G., Pinot A., Brosse-Genevet E., Virapin M. and Garde L., 2025, “Predation impacts of dogs on flocks of sheep in wolf-free areas: a synthesis based on surveys conducted in 11 breeding territories in France”, Small Ruminant Research, under review
Chapron G., Kaczensky P., Linnell J.D.C., Von Arx M., Huber D., Andrén H., López-Bao J.V., Adamec M., Álvares F., Anders O., et al., 2014.– “Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes.” in Science, 346(6216), pp.1517–1519,
Dalmasso S., Vesco U., Orlando L., Tropini A., Passalacqua C., 2011.– “An integrated program to prevent, mitigate and compensate wolf (Canis lupus) damage in Piedmont region (northern Italy).” in Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 23(1) visited February 7th 2025, https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-23.1-4560.
Direction départementale des territoires des Hautes-Alpes (DDT05) – Service Agriculture et Espaces Ruraux, Unité Agricole et Faune Sauvage, L’expertise des dommages constatés sur les bovins, diaporama interne, 12 diapositives, novembre 2020.
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), 2016, Comparatif des dommages 2013/2014/2015 par catégorie de victimes, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/donnees-sur-les-dommages-a3854.html#H_Bilan-2013-2014-et-2015
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), 2020, Bilan des victimes par espèces – 2019, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/donnees-sur-les-dommages-a3854.html#H_Bilan-2019
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), Unité Loup, 2020, Guide technique d’indemnisation, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/200423_guide_technique_indemnisation_signe.pdf
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), 2021, Bilan des victimes par espèces – 2020, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/donnees-sur-les-dommages-a3854.html#H_Bilan-2020
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), 2022, Bilan des victimes par espèces – 2021, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/donnees-sur-les-dommages-a3854.html#H_Bilan-2021
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), 2023, Bilan des victimes par espèces – 2022, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/donnees-sur-les-dommages-a3854.html#H_Bilan-2022
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), Unité Loup, 2023, Note sur la prédation lupine sur bovins, https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/note-sur-la-predation-lupine-sur-bovins-a19787.html
Direction Régionale de l’Environnement, de l’Aménagement et du Logement Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (DREAL), Unité Loup, 2024, Cas particulier de la prédation lupine sur bovins, diaporama présenté dans le cadre de la réunion de travail du Groupe National Loup du 16 décembre 2024, 8p
Faccioni G., Sturaro E., Calderola S., Ramanzin M., 2015.– “Wolf (Canis lupus) predation on dairy cattle in eastern Italian Alps.” in Poljoprivreda/Agriculture, 21(1 Supplement), pp.138–141,
Flörcke C., Grandin T., 2013.– “Loss of anti-predator behaviors in cattle and the increased predation losses by wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains.” in Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 03(03), pp.248–253,
Hebblewhite M., Pletscher D.H., 2002.– “Effects of elk group size on predation by wolves.” in Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80(5), pp.800–809,
Imbert C., Caniglia R., Fabbri E., Milanesi P., Randi E., Serafini M., Torretta E., Meriggi A., 2016.– “Why do wolves eat livestock?” in Biological Conservation, 195, pp.156–168,
Kaczensky P., 1999.– “Large Carnivore Depredation on Livestock in Europe.” in Ursus, 11, pp.59–71,
Kluever B.M., Breck S.W., Howery L.D., Krausman P.R., Bergman D.L., 2008.– “Vigilance in Cattle: The Influence of Predation, Social Interactions, and Environmental Factors.” in Rangeland Ecology & Management, 61(3), pp.321–328,
Laporte I., Muhly T.B., Pitt J.A., Alexander M., Musiani M., 2010.– “Effects of Wolves on Elk and Cattle Behaviors: Implications for Livestock Production and Wolf Conservation” Somers M. (ed.),. in PLoS ONE, 5(8), p.e11954,
Linnell J.D.C., Boitani L., 2011.– “Building biological realism into wolf management policy: the development of the population approach in Europe.” in Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 23(1) visited February 7th 2025, https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-23.1-4676.
MacNulty D.R., Mech L.D., Smith D.W., 2007.– “A Proposed Ethogram of Large-Carnivore Predatory Behavior, Exemplified by the Wolf.” in Journal of Mammalogy, 88(3), pp.595–605,
Mech L.D., Peterson R.O., “Wolf-Prey Relations.” Published in Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation, edited by L. David Mech and Luigi Boitani (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press, 2003),
Menzano A., Cerneb R., Gotarb T., Oražemb V.M., Berceb T., “Protecting cattle from wolves in the Alps.”
Meriggi A., Brangi A., Matteucci C., Sacchi O., 1996.– “The feeding habits of wolves in relation to large prey availability in northern Italy.” in Ecography, 19(3), pp.287–295,
Meyer M., Contzen S., Michael F., Pauler C.M., Probo M., Röösli A., Schmidt R.S., Schneider M.K., 2024.– “Resilience of Swiss Summer Farms: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Key Challenges and Adaptations.” visited November 1st, 2025, https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=5064748.
Ministère de la transition écologique et de la cohésion des territoires (MTECT), 2024, Plan National d’Actions 2024 – 2029 Loup et activités d’élevages, 43p, https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/documents/PNA%20Loup.pdf
Nicolas F., Doré A., 2022. – “Face aux loups. Étude socio-anthropologique des effets de la présence des loups sur la santé des éleveurs et bergers.”
Oakleaf J.K., Mack C., Murray D.L., 2003.– “Effects of Wolves on Livestock Calf Survival and Movements in Central Idaho.” in The Journal of Wildlife Management, 67(2), p.299,
Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB), 2022, Réseau Loup-Lynx. 2022. Bilan estival 2021, 38 pages.
Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB), 2023, Evolution démographique de la population de loups, https://www.loupfrance.fr/suivi-du-loup/situation-du-loup-en-france/, consulté le 22/01/25
Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB), 2023, Évolution du nombre estimé de loups en France entre 2010 et 2022, https://fr.statista.com/statistiques/1419049/nombre-de-loups-france/, consulté le 10/02/25
Office Français de la Biodiversité (OFB), 2025, Données cartographiques de suivi de la répartition des espèces (Carmen), https://professionnels.ofb.fr/fr/node/1089, consulté le 01/12/2025
Petridou M., Benson J.F., Gimenez O., Iliopoulos Y., Kati V., 2023. – “Do husbandry practices reduce depredation of free-ranging livestock? A case study with wolves in Greece.” in Biological Conservation, 283, p.110097,
Pimenta V., Barroso I., Boitani L., Beja P., 2017.– “Wolf predation on cattle in Portugal: Assessing the effects of husbandry systems.” in Biological Conservation, 207, pp.17–26,
Reinhardt I., Rauer G., Kluth G., Kaczensky P., Knauer F., Wotschikowsky U., 2011.– “Livestock protection methods applicable for Germany – a Country newly recolonized by wolves.” in Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy, 23(1) visited February 7th 2025, https://doi.org/10.4404/hystrix-23.1-4555.
Sand H., Vucetich J.A., Zimmermann B., Wabakken P., Wikenros C., Pedersen H.C., Peterson R.O., Liberg O., 2012.– “Assessing the influence of prey–predator ratio, prey age structure and packs size on wolf kill rates.” in Oikos, 121(9), pp.1454–1463,
Singer L., Wietlisbach X., Hickisch R., Schoell E.M., Leuenberger C., Van Den Broek A., Désalme M., Driesen K., Lyly M., Marucco F., et al., 2023.– “The spatial distribution and temporal trends of livestock damages caused by wolves in Europe.” in Biological Conservation, 282, p.110039,
Smit C., Kuijper D.P.J., 2024.– “Free‐ranging cattle and the return of the wolf: behavioral responses and implications for conservation management.” in Wildlife Biology, 2024(6), p.e01237,
Steele J.R., Rashford B.S., Foulke T.K., Tanaka J.A., Taylor D.T., 2013.– “Wolf (Canis lupus) Predation Impacts on Livestock Production: Direct Effects, Indirect Effects, and Implications for Compensation Ratios.” in Rangeland Ecology & Management, 66(5), pp.539–544,
Tallian A., Smith D.W., Stahler D.R., Metz M.C., Wallen R.L., Geremia C., Ruprecht J., Wyman C.T., MacNulty D.R., 2017.– “Predator foraging response to a resurgent dangerous prey” Costa D. (ed.),. in Functional Ecology, 31(7), pp.1418–1429,
Velázquez J., Dios A., Gülçin D., Özcan A., Hernando A., Santamaría T., Salas-López A., 2022.– “A Model for Iberian Wolf (Canis lupus signatus, Cabrera 1907) Predation Risk Assessment on Cattle in the Central System (Spain).” in Land, 11(9), p.1389,
Virapin M., 2021. “Analyse des impacts de la prédation due au loup sur la filière bovine et définition d’un plan de communication et d’accompagnement des différents acteurs à l’échelle des deux Savoie“, rapport ENSAIA, 231p
Virapin M., Jabouille S., Sturaro E., Brunschwig G., 2024., “Characteristics of wolf predation on cattle in high-value-added breeding territories”, Book of Abstracts of the 3rd Mountain Livestock Farming System Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, n°32, 5-7 June 2024, Clermont-Ferrand, France, p30
Virapin M., Jabouille S., Brunschwig G., Sturaro E., 2024., “Predation on cattle: between the wolf's responsibility and the absence of damage reports”, Book of Abstracts of the 75th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, n°34, 1-5 September 2024, Florence, Italy, p816
Virapin M., Jabouille S., Sturaro E., Brunschwig G., 2024. “Analyse de la prédation de loups sur des bovins : le cas des 2 Savoie“, In Actes des Rencontres Recherches Ruminants (3R), 2024, 27ᵉ édition.
Wolf Alpine Group, 2023. – “The wolf Alpine population in 2020-2022 over 7 countries”, Technical report for LIFE WolfAlps EU project LIFE18 NAT/IT/000972, Action C4.