you have to go back more than 100 years, but fair.

In those 100 years the rest of the environment changed, it's a bit of an experiment right to reintroduce it without having contingency plan if things go wrong, because shooting them if they are too aggressive is not allowed, unless they're marked as 'problem wolf'.

Dutch version of the WUR page says basically the same thing: "Uit het onderzoeksrapport blijkt dat Nederland juridisch gezien een bijdrage aan de wolvenpopulatie moet leveren van 23 tot 56 roedels. " -> the study concludes that the Netherlands has to contribute to the wolf population from 23 to 56 wolf packs.

Reading further:

https://edepot.wur.nl/690748

It seems that this is part of a european "habitats directive" for managing biodiversity within Europe. This directive (according to the above paper) determined there need to be around 500 wolf packs across Europe to keep wolves at a stable level without too much inbreeding. The Netherlands was found to be able to "contribute" 23 to 56 wolf packs in this sense.

Shame they can't swim, it would be good to see them reintroduced to the UK.

If those were wild sheep, and the wolves came there on their own like the other comments said, isn't that just nature working as intended?

If those were private sheep, shouldn't they be better guarded?

That’s not true. Wolves are incredibly smart animals and will find and exploit weak points in otherwise expensive fencing systems. They also jump surprisingly high. Moreover, once they manage to cross a fence they do not kill to feed. Instead, they slaughter entire herds of sheep for the sport of it. I personally think wolves are incredible animals, but their sudden reintroduction in the Netherlands feels ill thought out.

Hmm. Well, not sure about this. If you put yourself in the shoes of the wolf, sheep are abundant, free, delicious everything- their "economy" is exclusively food-bound. Not sure what kind of fences would keep them out, and how expensive would they be- and how long they would last.

Population control, preventing overgrazing, stuff like that. However, the Netherlands (unlike most countries) is basically a big farm with practically no wild nature, so humans manage that stuff already. Maybe I'm exaggerating a tad, but I don't get what benefit wolves have in the Netherlands specifically.

Its larger animal control.

Wildboars can be quite destructive, as are deers. the wolve was the natural preditor of those animals so the only thing that kept them in check was either hunting, disease or food availability.

In the UK deer over population is a problem for forestry as they eat saplings. So we spend a lot of cash hunting them (good food source, but not widely distributed in shops) Wolves stop that.

For the netherlands sspecifically, where there are deer they eat the trees that provide bank stability (ie willows) Less of a problem now but they also eat the pioneer species that were used to build polders.

Deer carry disease for cattle and sheep as well. although cows in holland are fairly hemmed in, ticks and fleas are less so.

I'm not sure the wolves actually want to live with those people either but no one is suggesting to eradicate those people.

Honestly wolves work with smell and will actively avoid humans. Opposite to domesticated dogs which at the sight of a human will bark at a human and oftentimes attack. Having lived in multiple regions in Europe with statistical presence of wolves I have zero encounters with wolves and dozens of occurrences where domesticated dog was barking at me or chasing me.

Maybe they're saying that there are better ways to coexist with animals that were here before us, before we razed their forests, than, you know, genocide

Its not morals, it cost.

Sheep are a cash animal, and wolves taking them cost money.

sorry but I think you are not considering history and data here... sheep and goats were selectively bred by humans and often cannot survive without us. Modern (domestic) sheep and goats are veeeery different from their wild ancestors (e.g. traits vital for wild survival got removed). The idea that "they survived history, they will survive forever" is a classic logical fallacy. Many species survived for millions of years right up until rapid environmental shifts/new pressures drove them to extinction (e.g. see the pyrenean ibex). Moreso: modern habitats have little resemblance to historical ones. Wild deer/goats/sheeps evolved in vast, connected ecosystems! With human development (highways/agricultural fencing/climate change) today we have severely fragmented habitats: natural migration routes are no longer there. So a lot of these "survived thorughtout history" animals can get easily squared / hunted down

Speaking as a non urban northern Australian .. I'm guessing that's very much a European "we"?

Here we're still surrounded by wild ecosystems and unaligned others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA3SuHtCWo0

Well I guess we differ there then, I do like not having to carry a rifle or sprays when i walk outside (we are not allowed). I also like livestock and kids not having to fear a predator that we drove to the outskirts.

I do wonder where you live in the Netherlands and if you just find it convenient to talk about the rural parts without having to face the consequences.

"safe and boring holiday park" sounds like a sentence for a country.

Oh don't get me wrong, I like the EU for many things, but course correcting is not its strong suit.