The Montana chapter of Defenders of Wildlife has announced a new program to encourage wolf re-introduction. This is noteworthy because it seeks to do so with the help of ranchers, until now some of the wolves' staunchest opponents. This approach could hold the key to fostering the recovery of endangered species nationwide and have implications for the Northwest's debate over the spotted owl.

While the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires species preservation, it does little to address the means of such preservation. The Defenders of Wildlife program pledges to pay $5000 to any landowner in the Northern Rockies who has wild wolves successfully reproduce on their private land.

"Our fondest dream is to give away a lot of money," says Hank Fischer of Defenders of Wildlife. The wolf program will supplement the ESA and its mandates, utilizing the power of economic incentives, which until now have worked against the wolf.

There are many reasons why the carrot of economic incentives may be more effective than the stick of the ESA. It turns opponents of preserving specific species into proponents by offering to pay for their assistance. Hundreds of individuals will now seek ways to directly improve wolf habitat instead of being indifferent at best, hostile and destructive at worst. Individuals who are being paid to harbor wolves are unlikely to sue over land-use restrictions. And it is a first step toward recognizing the real economic importance of endangered species.

While conservationists argue that species are "priceless," that does not change the reality and incentives facing those who are most directly affected by recovery efforts. The decision to foster species recovery is ecological, but the impacts are economic and political. Those impacts must be addressed before successful recovery can take place.

The prime rule of ecology - that everything in an ecosystem is linked - explains why "indicator species" that measure the quality of habitat (such as the spotted owl) are important. A threat to them indicates the system is awry.

Such interdependence is also found in political and economic systems. There, too, it is impossible to do only one thing. We take one action and see unintended consequences as the spontaneous order adjusts. Mandates that seem simple from Washington, D.C., have unexpected consequences when implemented in the West.

Under the current system, no federal agency has an incentive to consider economic efficiency. Once a recovery plan is written, the only incentive for public and private land managers to follow the plan is the threat of a lawsuit, the stick, if they do not. The Defenders of Wildlife have tried to change that by offering the carrot.

Since 1987, the Defenders of Wildlife have run a program that compensated ranchers for cattle killed by wolves. It has paid over $12,000 to 10 Montana ranchers who have lost cattle. However, this program, while reducing the risk to ranchers, gave them little incentive to actually facilitate wolf re-introduction. Indeed, many still believe that the associated hassle is not worth the benefits of wolf re-introduction.

Ranchers risk losing control of their property when a wolf pack chooses their land as its territory. The long arm of the federal Endangered Species Act could force them to alter long-established land-use practices if they threatened the viability of a resurgent wolf population. An endangered species takes precedence over private property rights. Not only could ranchers lose control over their property, but they risked their cattle as well. Even if they would be compensated for predator loss, was it worth the hassle?

This is the central problem of the Endangered Species Act: It imposes the costs of species survival not widely upon those who like the animals, but narrowly upon those who own the habitat. This is the preservationists version of the NIMBY problem: Many people like wolves, but Not In My Barn Yard. Just as few people wish to live next to a waste incinerator, few ranchers with horses and other livestock want the worries of wolf predation.

This is where the Defenders of Wildlife has entered. By pledging to pay ranchers who have wolf dens on their lands, they have changed the entire incentive structure. Now if a rancher has habitat that attracts a pack of wolves, he has incentives to encourage their success. Instead of seeking to hide the wolves presence - "shoot, shovel and shut-up" - he would inform scientists and wildlife officials so that he might be compensated. Instead of discouraging continued habitation through various, possibly illegal, means, he might choose to improve habitat to ensure future payments. More could be spent studying growing populations and less spent turning ecologists into law-enforcement officers.

No longer will those who have the most reason to oppose wolves be charged with their upkeep. The costs would be spread among those who most strongly desire healthy wolf populations. It is likely that this will result in more rapid population expansion, to the benefit of both those who love wolves and those who harbor them.

The issue of wolves in Montana can teach us much about our own debates over the spotted owl. The Defenders of Wildlife have shown us how the right incentives can change landowners from victims to supporters of endangered species.