#WolvesEUBernConvention November 27, Science for the Grey Wolf Today, an article on Euractiv highlights a critical issue we are deeply invested in: the European Commission's proposal to downgrade the grey wolf’s protection. Written entirely by scientists, the piece exposes how this decision lacks a scientific foundation and risks undermining years of conservation efforts. Wolves are vital to our ecosystems, protecting them is not just about safeguarding a species; it’s about fighting for a future where humans and wildlife coexist in harmony. Together with the scientific community we can ensure that wolves remain a symbol of resilience and balance in our shared environment. Read the full article on EURACTIV: https://lnkd.in/eV9KDzPY Jessica Fallon Ian Convery Steve Carver Luisa Colasimone Silvia Guizzardi Marco Lambertini Euractiv Antoinette Vermilye (she/her) Pauline Verheij Gaia Angelini Alessandra Conti Anastasiya Bondar Mikael POUTIERS Council of Europe Grégoire Dubois Zoltan Kun Andrea Vettori Kriton Arsenis Marco Lambertini ClientEarth Antoinette Vermilye (she/her) Patrizia Heidegger Annick Hus
Glad we at EBB supported this initiative which has gained traction in the scientific community.
battle-proven entrepreneur | corporate maverick | R&D guru | GTM'er | engineering geek | startup generalist
5dFYI Lucie Wuethrich Thank you for sharing. As supporter of wildlife, my I humbly suggest we use rethink our messaging. For example, when we say or write "Wolves are vital to our ecosystems...", I honestly believe we undermine our position. I know it sounds critical, nitpicking, borders on the ridiculous but let me explain why: 1. The pun is NOT intentional but à propos: syaing so will be perceived as yet again another bunch of activists sounding the alarm and "crying wolf". I fear that by constantly pressing alarms bells, most become deaf to them. 2. It presumes, unintentionally, that other life forms are NOT. Who are we to prioritise species? And that, is our race's problem. Let me turn the table: "How many species have we lost in 100years? Has the planet collapse? No. Worst off? Maybe, but who cares." So you see, it's a dangerous argument. Wolves deserve to be protected. Period. Let science judge the numbers, not its priority. 3. By creating an hierarchy, we inadvertently condemn others. Politicians & bureaucrats will use this as leverage, even though it's not our intention: "Fine, the wolf stays as-is but the beavers and lynx are coming off then". Compromise is their currency. Let's use another.