Predator Conservation Alliance - September 20, 2004
by Debbie Nelson

     Janelle Holden and David Gaillard from the Predator Conservation Alliance (PCA) kindly met with the Semester in the West crew on September 20 in Bozeman, Montana. We took this great opportunity to hide from the rain and learn more about an environmental conservation group whose main challenge is in "saving a place for America's predators". The PCA, as we learned, deals with a wide variety of predator issues in both the forests and the grasslands. Lynx, black-footed ferrets, grizzly bears, and wolves are just a few of the predators that they are trying to preserve. The PCA works primarily on public lands and often collaborates with the Forest Service and other agencies on issues like road building, recreation, logging and grazing, looking at the negative habitat disturbances and possibilities for new strategies to create new habitat. While the reintroduction of many predators has been successful, it remains a hot topic. Even so, the PCA has moved to a relatively new place in predator conservation...our coexistence with predators.

     Although we walked into their construction site with a general interest in the predators of the West, we had our minds set on one particularly steamy issue. The wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming is a topic that has been ringing from the mouths of all the environmentalists, loggers, and ranchers we have talked to. It was time to get some background information and solid facts about the issue.

     Wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone National Park in 1994 and have been successful in their recovery ever since. In fact, wolves have fully recovered biologically and can now be removed from the endangered species list. But now that they have recovered we must ask ourselves how we can live with them in this ecosystem. As the PCA has discovered this question requires more than knowledge of science, although many of the facts are pretty convincing that coexistence is possible. It is far more of a social, political, and economic issue of the West.

     Wolves are a keystone species in the West. They have a very strong role in the ecological cycle and ecosystem health. They use the land differently than the many grazers already protected in the area and actually manage rapidly growing elk and deer populations. They also have a high unexplainable value of beauty with their presence in this area. This is why the wolves need to be protected not only on public lands and national forests, but everywhere. This can only happen if all states involved comply with the regulations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which means classifying them as a predator rather than a game species. While Idaho and Montana have created acceptable management plans for wolf reintroduction, Wyoming is not on board and is preventing the wolves from being removed from the list. It is because of this hesitance from the people of Wyoming that the PCA has focused specifically on the ability of coexisting with wildlife

     There are a number of programs with the sole intention of easing people into the idea that it is possible to live along-side wolves without fear and death. Some of these programs include creating a trademark for the "predator friendly" ranchers that they can to help the marketing of their meat (much like an "organic" label), construction of wolf-resistant kennels to protect livestock, hiring Range Riders to "baby-sit" the cattle for six months at a time, and livestock compensation options for cattle deaths due to wolf attacks. It is interesting to note that all of these programs are focused towards those who seem to be the main objector of wolf reintroduction, the rancher. And, while maybe not yet successful in Wyoming, it is because of these programs that people were okay with wolf reintroduction in Idaho and Montana.

     Of the aforementioned programs, the one that raised the most debate within the group was livestock compensation. Many questions were raised about the appropriateness and viability of such a program.

     Where does the money come from?

     Money comes from private funds that were raised by the PCA before the program was implemented. Every year they receive money from other environmental and federal agencies to support this fund.

     What are the general reactions from the ranchers about such a program?

     There are mixed feelings about the compensation program throughout the ranching and local community. The money only accounts for the actual price of a cow, how much it eats a month, which can often be debatable, and many ranchers feel that the money is not sufficient compensation for bringing back such a troublesome predator.

     How much does PCA spend on compensations?

     Surprisingly the PCA has only spent about $400,000 on compensations since 1992. This is a relatively low amount considering the fear that everyone had about the expected high number of livestock deaths due to the reintroduction.

     How do ranchers prove that their livestock was killed by a wolf? And is this a fair and non biased determination?

     Identifying a wolf kill can be hard sometimes, as many ranchers have found, because the wolf may eat the entire carcass. In order to get full compensation a rancher must show the dead cattle and have obvious proof that it was attacked, and not just eaten, by a wolf. While this sounds almost impossible there are also opportunities to get partially compensated if there is any doubt of the cause of death. Compensations are often determined by other ranchers and people of the ranching community, so if there is any bias it is to the rancher's advantage.

     Should a non profit organization really have started such a program? What are the negative implications of PCA starting the compensations? And does it change attitudes for the best?

     This was by far the most interesting issue of the day and somewhat problematic in the minds of the Westies. Doesn't this compensation program maintain the negative impression of the wolves that we are fighting? It is almost as if we are 'protecting' the ranchers from an awful predator that we also want them to accept and not fear. By paying ranchers for their livestock you are basically buying out their acceptance to the fact that wolves are sharing the same space with us regardless of the conditions. It also becomes an economic incentive to put more cattle on an area of land that may no longer be suitable for grazing once the wolves are there. Do we want to pay people to keep cattle on the land at all? All of these questions were important to the viability of such a program and while we had issues with some of the technicalities of it, I think, and I am speaking for everyone, that we agree that this is a good way to get wolves back where they belong if need be. After all, we are paying for a situation that doesn't even happen very often. Wolves would take an elk over a cow any day.