The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
More Wolves, Safer Roads
The positive externalities of wolf reintroduction in Wisconsin.
Efforts to conserve and reintroduce wolf populations can be controversial. Such programs can be expensive and ranchers and farmers sometimes fear the potential impact on livestock. (The latter concern has led to programs offering compensation for wolf-induced losses.)
What if the benefits of wolf conservation and reintroduction are greater than we think? What if such programs generate economic gains that far outweigh their costs, including the costs of compensating those who might be adversely affected by increased wolf populations?
I recently came across a paper by Jennifer L. Raynor, Corbett A. Grainger, and Dominic P. Parker suggesting that wolf reintroduction programs generate substantial economic benefits by making highways safer. Here's the abstract:
Recent studies uncover cascading ecological effects resulting from removing and reintroducing predators into a landscape, but little is known about effects on human lives and property. We quantify the effects of restoring wolf populations by evaluating their influence on deer–vehicle collisions (DVCs) in Wisconsin. We show that, for the average county, wolf entry reduced DVCs by 24%, yielding an economic benefit that is 63 times greater than the costs of verified wolf predation on livestock. Most of the reduction is due to a behavioral response of deer to wolves rather than through a deer population decline from wolf predation. This finding supports ecological research emphasizing the role of predators in creating a "landscape of fear." It suggests wolves control economic damages from overabundant deer in ways that human deer hunters cannot.
As to why this is significant, the authors write:
Measuring the economic benefits conveyed by predators is difficult—often, effects are indirect and operate through complex ecological changes. As a result, debates about the expansion of predators have pit salient costs against more speculative estimates of benefits that might be dismissed as unreliable or ideologically motivated. We quantify the indirect benefits of wolves (Canis lupus) to human lives and property through reductions in deer-vehicle collisions. Moreover, we decompose the effect into two components: changes in prey behavior versus prey abundance. This decomposition is important when effective policy depends on whether hunters can replicate the effects of predators. In the case of wolves, we conclude that human deer hunters cannot.
It is often hard to measure the economic benefits of wildlife conservation (and such benefits may not always exist), but this appears to be a case where the benefits are substantial.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Similarly, people hunting deer is very beneficial.
This is true to some degree but not nearly so much as natural predators. Wolves hunt for food and are naturally opportunistic taking the young, old, and weak. Leaving a strong deer population. Humans on the other hand are selective often wanting bucks with big horns. Taking stronger animals leaving the weak and old making the deer population weaker.
Potentially true, but it depends on variables:
What is the state of natural predation;
What has the weather been that year;
What is the local balance of summer range to winter range;
What is the disease situation;
How expertly-managed is the hunt, in terms of bucks vs. does, and detailed variations in season and hunting requirements, to match herd conditions, local-population by local-population—which often means drainage-by-drainage.
"This finding supports ecological research emphasizing the role of predators in creating a "landscape of fear." It suggests wolves control economic damages from overabundant deer in ways that human deer hunters cannot."
I would venture to say that it's more a matter of "in ways that human deer hunters aren't permitted to."; The wolves aren't subject to only eating deer in season, so they affect the behavior of the deer all the time.
I can testify as a former rural inhabitant of Michigan, where deer collisions are the prevailing cause of cars being totaled, that they behave entirely differently during deer season than otherwise, and the behavioral change stars about 5 minutes after the first shot is heard. They know quite well when they are and are not on the menu.
So, less noble: Human hunters, relatively quick kills, 2 weeks a year.
More noble: Wolves, terrified kills, live ripping apart, protracted pain, “landscape of fear”.
It's not about "nobility".
It's about reducing the risk of being "Dick Cheney'd".
I'd think the odds would get better if deer season were year round, because you wouldn't concentrate the hunting in a narrow portion of the year. But maybe just on private property, where the owner nominally controls use. Nominally...
My land there had a public access road the state had put in to illegally log the back of my property. (They said it was for dredging the river, but as soon as they were caught at the logging, they decided they didn't need an access road to continue the dredging.) Leading to some tense situations where I'd go hunting in my backyard, and some idiot who hadn't bothered asking me for permission would be hunting up from the back, and shot in my direction.
But, legally, there shouldn't have been hunters AND hikers back there at the same time.
IT WAS NOT DICK CHENEY'S FAULT!!!
Driving game, which is what they were doing, is illegal in Maine because it is inherently dangerous. They were on a private game preserve where rules are different, and *everyone involved* said that it was the person who got shot who had broken the safety rules.
Yes, Cheney fired the round, but he did so knowing that his field of fire was clear BECAUSE THE OTHER PERSON WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE!
'Noble?' It's a step towards re-establishing a functional eco-system. THAT'S noble.
The "landscape of fear" caught my attention too.
As a hunter, I would never want to cause pain to the animal.
Watching one being eaten alive isn't pretty....
Why doesn't the year round possibility of automobile collisions change their behavior year round? Deer seem inexplicably undisturbed by even fairly noisy cars.
I suppose because not a lot of deer, relatively speaking, die from being hit by cars.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, about 19000 deer killed by automobiles per year, with more than 2 million cars in the state. Hunters kill hundreds of thousands of deer each year, out of a population of . There are only a thousand or so wolves in Wisconsin, according to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which therefore probably kill a number of deer similar to cars. It seems odd that wolves should be a particularly large factor in deer behavior around roads, especially if many of the wolf kills involve wolves and deer that don't actually go near roads. Probably human hunters would have a greater effect if, like wolves, they were able to hunt deer year-round.
A better way to reduce deer accidents would be to reduce the overall population of deer; I'm sure that the state would reject any such plan, as hunters would object and revenue would decrease.
Well, they can always follow the Highwood Illinois pattern. Instead of allowing "evil" bow hunters to selectively thin the herd. The "Woke" board chose to use "birth control". Capturing them with net traps and injecting birth control in the Does.
After 2 years and heaven only knows how many tax $$$ and ruined gardens they finally realized deer herds are mobile and gave up.
I've gone hunting; I'm not objecting to it as a means of reducing deer populations. But having only a short gun season doesn't really achieve that. (I think Wisconsin does have a longer bow hunting season, although many fewer bow hunters.)
Wisconsin was roiled by sportsmen complaining that tribes who agreed to treaties giving them perpetual hunting rights were ruining it for the sportsmen (reducing catch limits after spear fishing, but also complaints about deer harvests). (This was largely mooted when tribes were able to turn to running casinos to improve their economic lot.) So we can expect that if there were enough wolves to impact hunters' chances of getting a deer, they would go to court demanding wolf hunts.
Overall, I am surprised that few wolves have a greater impact on deer behavior than more numerous vehicles, but the result in this paper is good news generally - rescuing an endangered species can be a net economic benefit.
Wolves leave wolf urine which deer fear -- human hunters aren't "marking" every tree & fencepost, and I doubt deer fear the smell anyway.
What a strange story to make up. Is this an effort at creative writing or a dream journal?
"I suppose because not a lot of deer, relatively speaking, die from being hit by cars."
Cars, no -- beat up pickup trucks are another story though.
Particularly in September and early October, when they've been eating the wild apples on overgrown farms, there are an awful lot of collisions -- Maine lets you keep the deer.
EXACTLY....
And it's even worse where hunting is never allowed -- back when you could go up the mountain in Acadia National Park to see the sunrise, the deer were a real problem. Sometimes you had to get out of your car and physically kick them to get them out of the damn road.
And "Bucks Only" laws ensure that the young and such won't be shot.
Rattle snakes are great for keeping the rat population down too.
Black snakes work as well, without keeping the Yorkie population down, too.
Love black snakes. I used to live with one. Usually only saw him in the garage. I'd occasionally see him in the basement. When he disappeared I wound up with a mouse problem.
Sadly my wife is phobic about snakes, (A prank her brothers had played on her as a child...) and any time she spots one I'm forced to go out and kill it. And then, much to my annoyance, not even eat it!
Wolves could probably reduce the juvenile crime problem if released in the appropriate areas of our Major Cities.
Cool beans. Won't matter. The people that send death threats over wolf re-introduction proposals have no interest in science, and haven't for decades.
There's a couple little problems with this account.
1) Just because the gains in terms of reduced car accidents are larger than the losses from predation on livestock, doesn't mean the livestock owners are actually being compensated for their losses.
2) Wolves aren't really that good about distinguishing between deer, livestock, family pets, family members...
Well, if it is just hurting farmers, who cares? As long as the insurance companies have to pay out fewer claims on Mercedes drivers just passing through that are not wise enough to watch out for deer, then the increased wolf population is worth it.
If you increase the speed limit in school zones it reduces the population which can also save on costs.
Seems exceptionally unlikely that wolves are going to kill more people than car accidents with deer. It looks like there's been ~20 fatal wolf attacks on humans in the US ever, and only about one per year worldwide in recent decades. (Most fatal attacks were by rabid wolves, and more in Turkey than anywhere else.)
Wolf attacks on pets seem somewhat more common, and the livestock issue is real if not a particularly large total number. The article summary mentions compensation programs for farmers; that probably makes sense since farmers are taking on new risk for the benefit of the rest of society.
Maybe people will start keeping their cats indoors - benefits all the way down.
Currently the wolf population is artificially reduced, to the benefit of farmers and the detriment of motorists. Should farmers be compensated for undoing that interference when there was no compensation for motorists?
A California judge put the wolves back on the endangered species list, cancelling those artificial population controls.
But there are programs (like American Prairie's Wild Sky program) that reimburse ranchers in Montana when predators are seen on their property.
Does Wile E. Coyote know about this study?
I don't think coyotes are big deer hunters.
Yes, but he's a super-genius. I am sure he can order something from ACME that hunts deer.
I like this paper. I have looked at too many traffic "safety" studies that distort the data to find at a .1% change at the fringe of a noisy distribution and declare that the treatment was effective.
"...In the case of wolves, we conclude that human deer hunters cannot...."
What is a human deer? And do I need a special hunter's permit to legally shoot them? 🙂
I support the reintroduction of wolves and think it has broad benefits beyond just reduced car deer accidents. Deer are also hard on the tree population and reducing deer numbers improve forest health. Also beneficial is removal of sick deer with CWD, a prion disease. Wolves don't care if their prey has a disease.
I do support reimbursing farmers for lost livestock. I object to the fact that bear hunters can be reimbursed for dogs lost to wolves. If you are a bear hunter and your training dogs in a known wolf area during the time wolf pups are present than you are a fool and the government should not be required to pay for your foolishness.
Is a toddler dismembered and eaten by wolves a cost or a benefit, and at what value?
And how frequently does this happen?
Never?
Basically. There's been something like twenty fatal wolf attacks in the US in history. I'm not sure any of the victims were toddlers. Pet dogs kill way more children than wolves ever will.
just think of it as a really late term abortion
Another helpful wolf fact. When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone, after being extirpated for decades there, wildlife managers were surprised within a few years to see unlooked-for increases in trout populations. When it was studied, they discovered that a third species accounted for the change.
Elk, in the absence of wolves, had come off the hillsides, which had been their accustomed habitat, and begun to browse willows along stream banks, often wading in the streams to do it. That reduced shade over the streams, warming them, and muddied the water, silting up beds of clean gravel which the trout required for spawning success.
So without anyone noticing while the wolves had been gradually removed, the trout had declined. After the wolves came back, the elk spent less time in the streams, and more time back on the hillsides—probably reverting to a previously accustomed distribution in response to wolf predation. The trout rebounded to previous levels of health and abundance in response.
Stories of that sort about complicated and unexpected changes in ecosystems abound. Nobody knows enough to predict what will happen when top predators are removed.
The same applies up and down the food chain, actually. Nothing in nature confines changes to particular kinds of organisms. Removing a mammalian predator can result in the loss of a key plant species, or a superabundance of some previously unnoticed fungus. The next creature affected might be a snake or a bat. Without the bat insect predators of trees might transform forests. Without the snake rodent populations can explode and spread diseases to humans.
Left alone, wild ecosystems evolve toward stability, by sorting out inter-species interactions which damage the overall health of the system. But that does not mean ecosystems stop changing. It is a dynamic stability.
An aspect which both amplifies the tendency to change, and confines it within boundaries, is genetic diversity. Among all species, and among all individual examples of each species, there is a steadily-accumulating storehouse of variability, delivered by random mutations. The more species, the more mutations get stored. The more individuals within a species, the more mutations get stored.
That storehouse of genetically mediated variety, distributed at random among individual examples of each species, stands ready by sexual cross fertilization to re-sort a species' genes, and thus its functional characteristics, by adaptive evolution in response to changed conditions. Thus, adaptive evolution can accommodate environmental challenges far faster and more responsively than otherwise. If to change an organism's adaptive characteristics had to await beneficial mutations after environmental challenge, the mutations needed might not occur, or might happen too slowly to alleviate the pressure against survival of the species. That might also happen after some human-created alteration in species interactions, like changed predator–prey relationships.
All of those changes occur in a ceaseless, mutually interacting cascade, which humans are both utterly powerless to predict or manage, and incapable to reverse or correct. The only reason we can have confidence that such dynamic systems will not inadvertently veer toward mutual extinctions is that the evidence of millions of years proves the opposite, at least most of the time.
So into the midst of all that indispensable-to-human-well-being complexity, based on natural systems so interactive and detailed that we cannot even begin to describe them, let alone manage or predict what they will do, human genius has introduced GMO technology. GMO technology delivers the ecologically disruptive equivalent of millions of local wolf extirpations world-wide, renewable year-after-year.
GMO technology works by inflicting local mass extinctions, targeting with previously unheard-of efficiency practically every naturally-occurring plant in a field, and wiping out as collateral damage every other organism which depends on those plants. Or, in alternative cases, targeting especially the insect organisms directly. Or with both methods together.
In the U.S. that ongoing natural catastrophe now blankets crop land equivalent to the entire geographic extent of at least California, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Tennessee, combined. That occurrence has been a free-market imposition, done very rapidly, without ecological reflection.
Imagine instead that it had been presented as a policy proposal: in exchange for increased food growing capacity, to inflict over an area that extensive an annual extinction of almost every plant and animal species except food crops. Who in their right mind would have voted for it?
OK, but what about the super-pigs?
Do they wear a red cape and fly around Metropolis?
Thanks for reading, Toad. Gives me a chance to mention that I omitted Iowa, which also belongs on that list of states.