The FOX News site for Tucson, AZ featured an interesting article yesterday on the conflict between ranchers and Mexican gray wolves recently reintroduced into the wild by the federal government. This particular breed of wolf had been completely eliminated in the wild (thanks largely to government sponsored eradication efforts from last century) and the new population has suffered twenty illegal shootings since reintroduction began in 1998. That may seem like a small number, but considering that the program’s goal for 2008 is a mere 100 wild wolves, it’s a significant obstacle to success.

The problem is that ranchers along the Blue River suffer from having their livestock preyed upon by the reintroduced wolves. Faced with the choice of losing a valuable animal or killing a predator that confers no economic benefit, the ranchers unsurprisingly side with the livestock despite the risk of punishment. It’s a classic case of poorly structured incentives undermining a well-intended environmental effort.

The situation bears a striking resemblance to that of many other predator conservation attempts, as documented in conservationist David Quammen’s recent book Monster of God (which I reviewed a few weeks ago for aBetterEarth). Similar circumstances hamper efforts of the Indian government to preserve its tiny remaining lion population as the realities of ranch life make killing the beasts an attractive option. A comparable story held for the Australian crocodile until the UN allowed trade in skins and the population rebounded. The problem is so ubiquitous that Quammen coined a brand new term, “the muskrat conundrum,” to describe it.

The term is derived from population studies of muskrats that revealed how the least fit members of a population were picked off as prey. It’s an apt metaphor for how top-down conservation efforts often impose costs on the less influential people who must live among the predators. In India, it’s native Maldaharis who suffer losses of life and livestock to the lions. In Arizona, it’s ranchers who lose their cattle to the wolves. The FOX article captures the local sentiment well:

No one is accusing residents along the Blue of shooting wolves, but the nuisance created by a newly released pack has stiffened local opposition. The idea of wolves howling may give urban residents a warm and fuzzy feeling. Along the Blue, it leaves some in a cold sweat and asking why wolves aren’t put in Phoenix and Tucson if people there love them so much.

“When the wolves come down, I don’t sleep the rest of the night,” said Jean Hutchison, a native Tucsonan who moved to the area in 1987.

Hutchison said the wolves have increased her labor and costs because she must keep her livestock indoors at night and buy feed because it’s too risky to let them graze in the open.

“They impact our economy, our lifestyle and our very basic right to feel safe and secure,” she said. “Isn’t man supposed to be the top dog?”

The government’s attempts to help inspire laughable imagery. Residents are given complimentary bullhorns that blast the sound of gunfire while biologists stationed on the river’s edge scare wolves away with firecrackers and shouting. A conservation group’s compensation program does a better job of covering actual damages, but ranchers complain that it’s hard to get paid.

Fortunately, a market-driven solution to the local muskrat conundrum is emerging: “predator friendly” beef. A small group of ranchers across the country has begun marketing under a certified “predator friendly” label to let consumers know that no predators were killed in their meat’s production. The price is higher, but everyone benefits from the exchange. Conservation-minded customers eat their beef guilt-free, ranchers cover the costs of predation, and the wolves dodge a literal bullet.

Admittedly, predator friendly products are probably too much of a niche market to completely overcome the conflict between ranchers and wolves. The government could help it develop by lifting restrictions that allow the label to only be advertised on shelves and menus and not directly on meat packaging. In the meantime, they present an excellent example of how markets can be embraced by conservationists.

The labeling is certified by the Predator Conservation Alliance; a look at the techniques used by predator friendly ranchers is available here.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 29th, 2004 at 5:40 pm by Mystery Man and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.