Wolf Management: Non-lethal Control
6. Compensation
Rational
Wild animals in most countries are not owned by anyone. So by this reckoning no one is legally liable for damage they may cause. What then is the rational for reimbursing farmers for livestock killed by predators, that is for paying farmers compensation?
Governments enact laws protecting certain species and society benefits from protected species. Furthermore, livestock farmers - although quite often those who are not essential and heavily subsidised - shoulder more of a burden for predator conservation than other sectors of society. Therefore governments ought to be liable for damage that protected animals do and society should share the responsibility. Thus livestock farmers should be compensated.
Another reason for paying compensation is that generally it might ease hostility of livestock farmers to the predator species which cause them damage.
Who Pays?
Often it is the state which pays compensation for depredation to livestock farmers. Several European countries pay compensation through national or local government. All states with wolves in the US have compensation schemes (the federal government does not pay directly).
Where the state does not pay, compensation may be paid through other schemes. Compensation is paid by associations of hunters in some countries in central and eastern Europe. In this scheme, carnivores are legally classified as game animals who can be hunted and whoever has the hunting rights on a block of land pays compensation to livestock owners through an insurance scheme.
A notable scheme in the US was started by Defenders of Wildlife, a non-government organisation. Their Wolf Compensation Trust was created in 1987 to pay compensation when wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and the Northern Rockies. The Trust fund of $100,000, started by donations from individuals interested in wolf recovery, pays the market value of livestock verified by federal investigators as killed by wolves. Payments were expanded in 1995 to cover the reintroduction of wolves to Arizona and New Mexico.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, in the 13 years from the Wolf Compensation Trust's inception to 2000, it has paid $136,627 to 129 ranchers for 529 depredation incidents (for at least 167 cattle, 338 sheep and some dozens of other animals including pigs and fowl). This amounts to an average of $235 dollars per animal lost to wolves. The Trust also provides guarding dogs, fences and other depredation prevention measures for livestock ranchers.
Additional Costs
The amount of compensation paid often depends on the real market value of livestock or an approximation to it. However, farmers are not always necessarily fully compensated because, for every verified kill by wolves for which compensation is paid, a number of kills may go undetected and unreported.
Other costs may also be incurred by a farmer, such as potential abortions or decreased milk production by livestock resulting from the emotional shock of an attack. Livestock may also lose their economic value, even though they are alive and therefore not compensated; a horse who cannot be ridden or carry or pull loads or a cow who no longer yields milk are financially dead animals. There is also time spent by a shepherd regrouping his flocks after an attack, veterinary fees for injured animals, and clerical costs. These additional costs may or may not be indemnified depending on the compensation system.
Verification & Award
Before a claim for compensation can be met, it must be verified by independent expert agents to ensure as far as possible that a wolf attack has occurred, to prevent mistaken or fraudulent claims, and to gather data on wolf-livestock conflict.
A compensation claim follows the pattern of 'notification - verification - award' and is much the same in most countries. The plaintiff, the person who suffers livestock loss, notifies the relevant authority as soon as possible. The authority send an agent to investigate the site and surrounds, note the particulars and interview the relevant persons. The agent then reports to the authority and compensation is awarded or not accordingly.
If a claim for compensation is confirmed it can take a couple of weeks to several months for the plaintiff to receive payment depending on the administration of the system. Delayed payment can exacerbate feelings for retaliation against wolves; prompt and timely payment, on the other hand, tends to ease animosity. Defenders of Wildlife say they make a point of sending ranchers a cheque usually within two weeks of notification of a positive verification.
Wolf Or Dog Attack
It is virtually impossible to distinguish depredation by wolves from depredation by large domestic dogs. The signs of attack and consumption are practically indistinguishable. Even when seen in the act, many dogs can be mistaken for wolves.
Since discriminating wolf from dog attack is based on probability, it is expedient to compensate for both animals on grounds of placating livestock owners. Some countries or regions do this and some do not. However, if the requirements for compensation are too easygoing - that doubtful cases are always compensated - it might encourage false claims and give the impression that there is more wolf depredation than is the case, exacerbating the poor reputation of wolves.
Advantages & Disadvantages
Compensation in itself does not prevent depredation. But neither is it just recompense; it can be a useful tool for conservation if payment is dependent on farmers managing their livestock effectively to minimise the risk of wolf depredation. On the other hand, it can degenerate into an ongoing financial burden that subsidises ineffectual livestock and wolf management.
It is often assumed that compensation increases toleration for predators by farming communities and therefore strengthens conservation. But compensation itself is not liked nor necessarily welcomed by farmers; they would rather not lose livestock in the first place. A lot of farmers would probably prefer to choose direct action and shoot the wolves they see around their farms. Compensation is a poor second best.
The effectiveness of compensation is very difficult to measure and has not been proved to benefit conservation. A large proportion of wolves in Italy is still illegally killed every year and wolf-human conflict has not abated, despite the highest total compensation payments in Europe. This would seem to point to the importance of not just paying compensation but of how the process of compensation is carried out.
There are a number of ways to establish a compensation scheme other than a straight payment of money on the loss of livestock. For example, you can pay livestock farmers for allowing wolves on their land; subsidise farmers living in wolf areas to buy good depredation prevention systems of their choice; or provide a subsidy for each livestock animal produced in wolf areas without paying anything extra in the event of depredation. There is no ideal system of compensation because each country or region has its own specific conditions which must be taken into account.
© Wolf Trust 2004. All rights reserved.