The Wessely report: Legal clarity in livestock protection

This post is also available in: Deutsch Italiano

The return of large carnivores such as wolves and bears to the Alps has been a concern not only for farmers, but also for politicians and the authorities. In Austria, Bavaria and South Tyrol in particular, the practice of classifying alpine pastures or grazing areas as “unprotectable” has become established. The reason given for this is that no effective herd protection measures are possible there – for example because fences are difficult to erect on steep high alpine pastures or because the effort involved seems disproportionate. However, these classifications led to uncertainty: does “not protectable” automatically mean that livestock owners do not have to take any protective measures? And when exactly do the authorities consider a danger to grazing animals to be so real that they have to intervene?

These are precisely the questions addressed by lawyer Wolfgang Wessely, Chairman of the Senate at the Provincial Administrative Court and lecturer at the University of Vienna. In 2025, he wrote a detailed legal opinion on the Austrian Animal Welfare Act (Section 19 TSchG). This expert opinion reorganizes the legal situation and answers key uncertainties.

Wessely comes to the clear conclusion that animal owners are obliged to protect their animals even if a mountain pasture is officially classified as “non-protectable”. The Animal Protection Act does not recognize a blanket exception: each individual case must be examined and, where protective measures are possible and reasonable, they must be taken. At the same time, he notes that the authorities play an active role: If animal owners do not fulfill their obligations, the district administration is legally obliged to intervene – by imposing conditions, ordering a night pen or, in extreme cases, by partially or completely removing the animals.

It is particularly important that the expert opinion also clarifies when there is a concrete danger to grazing animals. Previous practice often gave the impression that action was only required after several cracks. Wessely clarifies that a danger is already legally relevant if certain indications are present. These include crack reports that clearly document a risk, as well as culling or action orders by which the authorities themselves recognize that a concrete danger exists. This is supplemented by monitoring data, such as genetic evidence, telemetry or observations that prove the presence of wolves or bears in an area over a longer period of time.

Monitoring is particularly important because there are areas in Austria where a permanent wolf presence has been documented for years – for example in Tyrol and Carinthia. A consistently high number of livestock kills has been recorded there over several years. According to the logic of the report, this long-term data situation is sufficient for the responsible authorities to take action. This means that they cannot simply wait until new incidents occur before reacting, but are obliged to initiate measures to protect animals on the basis of existing data.

The Wessely report thus provides legal clarity on an issue that has been controversial for years: livestock protection is not just a reaction to losses that have occurred, but a preventative duty in terms of animal welfare. The authorities must also implement the Animal Welfare Act in cases where data and evidence clearly indicate a risk. In practice, this means that measures such as night pens, culls or the use of protection systems are legally required in known wolf hotspots.

The significance of the report extends beyond Austria. As comparable regulations on “non-protectable” alpine pastures also exist in Bavaria and South Tyrol, it is likely to revive the debate there too. It shows: The protection of grazing animals must not only begin once the damage has already occurred, but must start at an early stage – where the danger can be proven by data and official decisions.