Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bangs EE et al (1998) Status of gray wolf restoration in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Wildl Soc Bull 26:785–793

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume L, Rubinfeld B (1984) Compensation for takings: an economic analysis. Calif Leg Rev 569:620–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Breitenmoser U, Angst C (2001) Statistics of damage caused by large carnivores in Europe. Carniv Damage Prev News 4:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruskotter JT et al (2007) Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol Conserv 139:211–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulte EH, Rondeau D (2005) Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. J Wildl Manag 69:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilliers D (2003) South African cheetah compensation fund. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:15–16

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and Internet surveys: the tailored designed method. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:1718–1719

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Heberlein TA, Ericsson G (2005) Ties to the countryside: accounting for urbanites attitudes toward hunting, wolves, and wildlife. Human Dimens Wildl 10:213–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hötte M, Bereznuk S (2001) Compensation for livestock kills by tigers and leopards in Russia. Carniv Damage Prev News 3:6–7

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson CA, Decker DJ (2008) Governance of state wildlife management: reform and revive or resist and retrench? Soc Nat Resour 21:441–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James JM, Bolstein R (1992) Large monetary incentives and their effect on mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q 56:442–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapp K (2006) Socioecological correlates of human–black bear conflict in northern Wisconsin. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. University of Wisconsin, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight J (2003) Waiting for wolves in Japan. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Linnell JDC, Broseth H (2003) Compensation for large carnivore depredation of domestic sheep. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Mech LD (1998) Estimated costs of maintaining a recovered wolf population in agricultural regions of Minnesota. Wildl Soc Bull 26:817–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Montag J (2003) Compensation and predator conservation: limitations of compensation. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:2–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Montag J et al (2003) Political & social viability of predator compensation programs in the west. School of Forestry, University of Montana, Missoula, 138 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemtzov SC (2003) A short-lived wolf depredation compensation program in Israel. Carniv Damage Prev News 6:16–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Nie M (2003) Beyond wolves: the politics of wolf recovery and management. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhus PJ et al (2003) Taking the bite out of wildlife damage: the challenges of wildlife compensation schemes. Conserv Pract 4:37–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwerdtner K, Gruber B (2007) A conceptual framework for damage compensation schemes. Biol Conserv 134:354–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth J et al (2006) Comparing check-all and forced-choice question formats in web surveys. Public Opin Q 70:66–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroup R (1997) The economics of compensating property owners. Contemp Econ Policy XV(4):55–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson BH Jr (1997) The endangered species act: a case study in takings & incentives. Stanf Law Rev 49:305–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres SG et al (1996) Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildl Soc Bull 24:457–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves A (2008) Beyond recovery: Wisconsin’s wolf policy 1980–2008. Human Dimens Wildl 13:329–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves A et al (2002) Wolf depredation on domestic animals: control and compensation in Wisconsin, 1976–2000. Wildl Soc Bull 30:231–241

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner KK et al (1997) Compensation programs for wildlife damage in North America. Wildl Soc Bull 25:312–319

    Google Scholar 

  • WDNR (2005) Wisconsin’s Fish & Wildlife Annual Report 2004–2005. PUB-CE-259 2006. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • WDNR (2007b) Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan 2007 Revision. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MA (1999) Appendix H: public attitudes towards wolves in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zabel A, Holm-Muller K (2008) Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv Biol 22:247–251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, 30A Science Hall, 550 North Park St., Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Adrian Treves

  2. Bureau of Endangered Resources, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI, USA

    Randle L. Jurewicz

  3. Department of Geography, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Lisa Naughton-Treves

  4. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA

    Lisa Naughton-Treves

  5. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    David S. Wilcove

  6. Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA

    David S. Wilcove

Authors
  1. Adrian Treves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Randle L. Jurewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lisa Naughton-Treves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David S. Wilcove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Treves.

Additional information

Co-authors arranged in alphabetical order.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9695-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation