Whether or not political considerations require that ranchers grazing their livestock on public
lands be compensated for animals lost to wolves, does justice require such compensation? Are
losses due to predation from reintroduced wolves different from losses due to other natural
events such as drought and disease?
Since wolves were introduced in 1995 and 1996 to Yellowstone Park, they have caused
many effects on the wildlife, plants, animals, and environment of the park (Dobson, 2014).
However, the ranchers living outside the park solely viewed wolves as potential predators to kill
their livestock (Dobson, 2014). Due to the justice approach, justice does not require such
compensation to the ranchers. I would also state that the ranchers’ losses from predation by these
introduced wolves are no different from natural events such as drought and disease as well. The
effects of the losses from reintroduced wolves are like the effects of losses from natural events,
particularly those present prior to their introduction (Dobson, 2014). However, the effects of the
predation do not cause as many losses to the ranchers when compared to before the wolves’
reintroduction (Dobson, 2014). Therefore, the ranchers seem to cherry pick the potential effects
of the wolves that would be most apparent to them instead of the effects that happen due to their
reintroduction.
The justice approach to ethics asks the basic moral question on if an action treats
everyone the same way or if it shows favoritism or discrimination (Murphee, n.d.).
Discrimination imposes burdens on people who are no different from those on whom burdens are
not imposed, and discrimination would therefore be unjust (Murphee, n.d.). I argue that the
ranchers discriminated against wolves that would cause loss of their livestock due to wolf
predation requiring compensation in comparison to natural events not requiring compensation.
Wildlife biologists in 1995 argued that economic losses that could be caused by wolf predation
would be unlikely due to the abundance of natural prey in the restoration area, but this thought
did not reassure the ranchers (“Yellowstone wolves”, n.d.). Most ranchers were convinced that
the reintroduced wolves would feed exclusively on cattle and sheep, but after the wolves were
reintroduced, the wolves did not feed on the ranchers’ sheep (Dobson, 2014). Instead, the wolves
may have impacted on the numbers of the sheep’s primary predators, coyotes, after the wolves’
introduction (Dobson, 2014). The ranchers chose to turn a blind eye to this positive effect
because it contrasted their discriminatory perspective against the wolves they fought so much to
oppose (Dobson, 2014). The ranchers also may have been embarrassed that their presumptions
about wolves contrasted what occurred after their introduction.
A reason I consider that the ranchers’ losses due to wolf predation are the same as those
from natural causes is the example of the ranchers being faced by a large natural cause of illness
to their cattle by the form of CWD (Dobson, 2014). CWD is an illness carried by ungulates, and
these ungulates would infect the ranchers’ cattle with this illness, killing them (Dobson, 2014).
The introduction of wolves decreased the number of ungulates infected with CWD, and the
ranchers also turned a blind eye to this positive effect (Dobson, 2014). The justice approach
would say that there is an unfair treatment of the wolves in place of the ungulates in this case
since the ranchers would have to be compensated for wolf attacks on their livestock but not the
infection of a “naturally caused” illness carried by ungulates (Dobson, 2014). The “naturally
caused” illness killed the ranchers’ livestock more than wolf attacks, but the ranchers still did not
acknowledge the unfairness to the wolves for being compensated for something that causes much
less harm in comparison to something considered “natural” doing much more harm to their
livestock. This direct comparison between “natural events” and wolf attacks shows that the issue
Works Cited
Dobson, Andy. (2014). Yellowstone wolves and the forces that structure natural systems. PLOS
Biology. https://asu.instructure.com/courses/129890/files/52004195?wrap=1
Murphee, Julie. (n.d.). A framework for ethical decision making. ASU.
https://asu.instructure.com/courses/129890/pages/a-framework-for-ethical-decision-
making-2?module_item_id=8930465
Yellowstone Wolves. (n.d.). ASU. https://asu.instructure.com/courses/129890/pages/case-study-
the-gray-wolf-in-north-america?module_item_id=8930509
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
