Abstract
The costs of wildlife conservation distribute unequally across society. Compensation can potentially redress inequities and raise local tolerance for endangered wildlife that damage property. However, the rules for payments generate controversy, particularly as costs mount and species recover. In Wisconsin (USA), gray wolf damage payments grew notably over 28 years and eventually undermined budgets for conserving other endangered species. We measured attitudes to compensation among 1,364 state residents, including those who voluntarily contributed funds and those likely to receive compensation, and we interviewed elected officials about the politics of payment rules. Most respondents endorsed compensation for wolf damages to livestock—even when wolves are no longer endangered—but opposed payments for wolf damage to hunting dogs on public land. Most donors opposed killing wolves and over one-fourth unconditionally rejected a wolf hunt. We predict the latter donors would stop contributing funds for compensation if the state were to implement a proposed wolf hunt. Controversy over payment rules reveals clashing values regarding wildlife between those receiving and those paying for compensation. Moreover, the costs of compensation ratchet up as endangered species recover and claims of entitlement expand. Hence we recommend conservationists use sunset clauses and an adaptive management of compensation programs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Bangs EE et al (1998) Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Wildl Soc Bull 26:785–793
Blume L, Rubinfeld B (1984) Compensation for takings: an economic analysis. Calif Leg Rev 569:620–621
Breitenmoser U, Angst C (2001) Statistics of damage caused by large carnivores in Europe. Carniv Damage Prev News 4:11–13
Brown JS (1995) Restoration ecology: living with the prime directive. In: Bowles ML, Whelan CJ (eds) Restoration of endangered species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 355–380
Bruskotter JT et al (2007) Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol Conserv 139:211–218
Bulte EH, Rondeau D (2005) Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. J Wildl Manag 69:14–19
Cilliers D (2003) South African cheetah compensation fund. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:15–16
Decker DJ et al (2006) Situation-specific “impact dependency” as a determinant of management acceptability: insights from wolf and grizzly bear management in Alaska. Wildl Soc Bull 34:426–432
Dillman DA (2007) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored designed method. John Wiley & Sons, New York
Doremus H (1999) Restoring endangered species: the importance of being wild. The Harvard Environmental Law Review 23
Ericsson G et al (2004) Support for hunting as a means of wolf Canis lupus population control in Sweden. Wildl Biol 10:269–276
Ericsson G et al (2007) Wolves as a symbol of people’s willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Soc Nat Resour 21:294–309
Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:1718–1719
Finance JCo (2005) Endangered resources funding, Paper #507. Legislative Fiscal Bureau, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison
Fritts SH et al (1992) Trends and management of wolf-livestock conflicts in Minnesota. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 181, Washington, DC
Gill RB (1996) The wildlife professional subculture: the case of the crazy aunt. Human Dimens Wildl 1:60–69
Hazzah L (2006) Living among lions (panthera leo): coexistence or killing? Community attitudes towards conservation initiatives and the motivations behind lion killing in Kenyan Maasailand. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. University of Wisconsin, Madison
Heberlein TA (2000) The gun, the dog and the thermos: culture and hunting in Sweden and the United States. Swed Am Fall 2000:24–29
Heberlein TA, Ericsson G (2005) Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimens Wildl 10:213–227
Hötte M, Bereznuk S (2001) Compensation for livestock kills by tigers and leopards in Russia. Carniv Damage Prev News 3:6–7
Jackson R, Wangchuk R (2001) Linking snow leopard conservation and people-wildlife conflict resolution: grassroots measures to protect the endangered snow leopard from herder retribution. Endanger Species Updat 18:138–141
Jacobson CA, Decker DJ (2008) Governance of state wildlife management: reform and revive or resist and retrench? Soc Nat Resour 21:441–448
James JM, Bolstein R (1992) Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 56:442–453
Kapp K (2006) Socioecological correlates of human–black bear conflict in northern Wisconsin. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. University of Wisconsin, Madison
Karanth KU, Madhusudan MD (2002) Mitigating human–wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In: Terborgh J et al (eds) Making parks work: identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics. Island Press, Covelo, pp 250–264
Karlsson J (2007) Management of wolf and lynx conflicts with human interests. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Ecology, SLU. Acta Universitatis agriculturae Sueciae vol 2007:59
Karlsson K, Sjostrom M (2007) Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol Conserv 137:610–616
Knight J (2003) Waiting for wolves in Japan. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Linnell JDC, Broseth H (2003) Compensation for large carnivore depredation of domestic sheep. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:11–13
Mech LD (1998) Estimated costs of maintaining a recovered wolf population in agricultural regions of Minnesota. Wildl Soc Bull 26:817–822
Montag J (2003) Compensation and predator conservation: limitations of compensation. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:2–6
Montag J et al (2003) Political & social viability of predator compensation programs in the west. School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, 138 pp
Naughton-Treves L et al (2003) Paying for tolerance: the impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conserv Biol 17:1500–1511
Nemtzov SC (2003) A short-lived wolf depredation compensation program in Israel. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:16–17
Nie M (2003) Beyond wolves: the politics of wolf recovery and management. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis
Nyhus PJ et al (2003) Taking the bite out of wildlife damage: the challenges of wildlife compensation schemes. Conserv Pract 4:37–40
Phillips MK, Smith DW (1998) Gray wolves and private landowners in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Trans N Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 63:443–450
Refsnider R (2009) The role of the endangered species act in midwest wolf recovery. In: Wydeven AP et al (eds) Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story, Chap 20. Springer, New York
Roberts DH (1986) Determination of predators responsible for killing small livestock. S Afr J Wildl Res 16:150–152
Rodriguez SL (2008) Perceptions and attitudes of a Maasai community regarding wildlife-damage compensation, conservation, and the predators that prey on their livestock. Human Dimens Wildl 13:205–206
Schanning K (2009) Human dimensions: public opinion research concerning wolves in the Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In: Wydeven AP et al (eds) Recovery of gray wolves in the great Lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer, New York
Schwerdtner K, Gruber B (2007) A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biol Conserv 134:354–360
Smyth J et al (2006) Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opin Q 70:66–77
Stroup R (1997) The economics of compensating property owners. Contemp Econ Policy XV(4):55–57
Thompson JG (1993) Addressing the human dimensions of wolf reintroduction: an example using estimates of livestock depredation and costs of compensation. Soc Nat Resour 6:165–179
Thompson BH Jr (1997) The endangered species act: a case study in takings & incentives. Stanf Law Rev 49:305–380
Torres SG et al (1996) Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildl Soc Bull 24:457–460
Treves A (2008) Beyond recovery: Wisconsin’s wolf policy 1980–2008. Human Dimens Wildl 13:329–338
Treves A et al (2002) Wolf depredation on domestic animals: control and compensation in Wisconsin, 1976–2000. Wildl Soc Bull 30:231–241
Treves A et al (2004) Predicting human-carnivore conflict: a spatial model based on 25 years of wolf predation on livestock. Conserv Biol 18:114–125
USDA-WS (2005) Wildlife services annual tables. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services
USFWS (2009) Final rule to identify the western great lakes populations of gray wolves as a distinct population segment; final rule to identify the northern Rocky Mountain population of gray wolf as a distinct population segment; and to revise the list of endangered and Federal Register Notice: threatened wildlife. Fed Regist 74:15070–15123
Wagner KK et al (1997) Compensation programs for wildlife damage in North America. Wildl Soc Bull 25:312–319
WDNR (2005) Wisconsin’s Fish & Wildlife Annual Report 2004–2005. PUB-CE-259 2006. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison
WDNR (2007a) Guidelines for conducting depredation control on wolves in Wisconsin following federal delisting: guidelines for 2007–2008. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Park Falls
WDNR (2007b) Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 2007 Revision. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison
Wildlife Do (2008) The Bailey wildlife foundation wolf compensation trust, Washington, DC
Williams CK et al (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildl Soc Bull 30:575–584
Wilson MA (1999) Appendix H: public attitudes towards wolves in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison
Wydeven AP et al (eds) (2009) Recovery of gray wolves in the great Lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer, New York
Zabel A, Holm-Muller K (2008) Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv Biol 22:247–251
Acknowledgments
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Wildlife Conservation Society supported this research. We thank A. Wydeven, K. Martin, R. Grossberg Harvey, V. Julius, and anonymous reviewers. The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Institutional Review Board allowed Human Subjects Research under protocol 109905.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Co-authors arranged in alphabetical order.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R.L., Naughton-Treves, L. et al. The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodivers Conserv 18, 4003–4021 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9695-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9695-2