The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery

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 Co-authors arranged in alphabetical order.A. Treves (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.

Human–wildlife conflicts at pond fisheries in eastern Poland: perceptions and management of wildlife damage

“…Also, outright elimination of intruders does not necessarily help to reduce the attractiveness of cultured resources for the targeted species in the long term (van Vessem et al 1985;Berger 2006). Compensation schemes paid from government funds can mitigate the economic motivation of resource owners to cull nuisance wildlife (Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007;Treves et al 2009), but they routinely face criticism for fraud, inadequacy, and continuously mounting costs (Saberwal et al 1994;Bulte and Rondeau 2005). Between 2003 and 2009, the number of compensation payments for beaver damage in the Lublin voivodship has increased fourfold (Lublin Regional Directorate for Environmental Protection files); hence, sustainability of the compensation mechanisms over the long term is questionable.…”

“…Barrows et al 2005). Management of such conflicts should rely on locally feasible options and on a more equitable distribution of public funds (also see Treves et al 2009). For instance, there is no compelling reason to favor the successfully reintroduced beavers as a single species included in the damage compensation schemes at fisheries in Poland, as its population is no less stable than that of other species involved in economic losses at fish farms (Halley and Rosell 2002).…”

Environmental attitudes associated with large-scale cultural differences, not local environmental conflicts

“…Situations where the human-wildlife conflict depends on large carnivores are well suited to investigating society's environmental value orientation because carnivore presence varies spatially (for example between communities or countries) and attitudes towards large carnivores are generally extreme. As conflicts mount due to the recovery of carnivores, wildlife managers have to consider a range of stakeholders' interests including carnivore conservation, predation on livestock, predation of game species, killing of hunting dogs, and the fear of human injuries and fatalities (Naughton- Treves et al 2003;Manning et al 2009;Treves et al 2009;BarnoweMeyer et al 2010;Marucco & McIntire 2010).…”

Payments for Improved Ecostructure (PIE): Funding for the Coexistence of Humans and Wolves in Finland

“…Damage compensation mechanisms are widely used around the world to mitigate conflicts between humans and large carnivores (Nyhus et al 2003;Bulte and Rondeau 2005;Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007;Zabel and Holm-Müller 2008;Treves et al 2009;Skogen 2015). The purpose of a damage compensation scheme is to distribute the costs and benefits of large carnivore conservation more equally because local people usually suffer the negative effects of such efforts, while the wider society gains the benefits.…”

“…It should be noted that administrative work, such as the acquisition of information to determine damage costs and various estimates, requires financial resources; therefore, the total cost of a compensation scheme is not solely based on the market value of the lost domestic stock (Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007). When damages vary over time and space, ex-post compensation schemes are the most viable option for restitution, even though such schemes may not offer incentives to prevent the damages in the first place (Bulte and Rondeau 2005;Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007;Treves et al 2009). To a certain degree, this problem can be addressed by requiring certain prevention measures as a condition for compensation.…”