Crossposted at Homeland Stupidity, where I’ll be publishing more on the theme of libertarian conservation efforts as time goes on. Probably healthcare as well.

Environmental conservation and libertarianism aren’t words frequently heard in the same sentence, unfortunately. Instead when we think conservation, we think hippies. Hippies and annoying rangers and officials telling us we aren’t allowed to play in the park anymore, build a house on our own property, or drive that gas guzzling sports car.

I say this is unfortunate because capitalist ideas, where they’ve been tried, have been more effective than anyone could have dreamed. It’s pretty easy to see why, when you think about it. One method makes the process of conservation antagonistic whereas in the other people actually profit from it. I’ve heard it said that the way to succeed in life is to make everyone think they’ve gained in a deal. That’s the beauty of capitalistic strategies; everyone leaves happy.
To an economist, life can be seen as a series of ‘games’. These are decisions that create winners or losers. Now, there are two kinds of outcomes: Zero-Sum and Non-Zero-Sum games. The difference between the two is that in the former, there is no new wealth created. The winner ‘wins’ because he takes wealth from the loser. In the latter there is new wealth created. So both parties can win, although one might make out on the deal better than the other.

Typical conservation efforts use the zero-sum model. Man against nature. Which is slightly ironic considering our stereotype of your typical environmentalist. It’s easy to see why people will be perpetually unhappy with that:

“You want to take my land to give to that endangered newt?!?!? A newt, who the heck cares about a newt, for crying out loud?”

Conservation programs that have been popular with the locals and haven’t hemorrhaged money on the other hand are based around the non-zero-sum model. I’d like to claim that libertarians were the ones who spearheaded these programs, although largely they weren’t, just conservationists who were willing to give evil capitalism a try. The way these programs work by and large is to tie the identity and the prosperity of a local community into the natural habitat that the overbearing white people are trying to preserve.

For us to turn conservation into something that profits everyone (non-zero-sum), we have to give value to the protected area and animals within. This can be done in two ways: Giving them intrinsic or extrinsic value. Extrinsic value is what the pricetag says. Intrinsic value is why you could never sell it, at any price.

Hippies try to appeal to conservation efforts based on the intrinsic value of the natural world. As a Hindu and an outdoor kinda guy, I wish it could work that way. Hindus and buddhists, and to a lesser degree Tao and Shinto, are the best target population for this kind of entreaty, their religions being based to a large degree on interaction with the natural world. And, well, if you’ve seen the changes that have occurred in India and Southeast Asia in my lifetime alone, you’d understand the futility of that.

No, our best chance is to appeal to the extrinsic value of that which we would protect. Money. I don’t like that it has to be that way, but I’m mature enough to admit it. One of the most spectacular conservation successes has been the Karisoke Wildlife Reserve, a mountain gorilla habitat in Rwanda. This is the camp that Diane Fossey setup, where she went slightly native as she studied and yes, possibly engaged in fornical activities with, gorillas. It wasn’t her efforts, but the work of her successors Bill Weber and Amy Vedder, that I’m going to mention in passing.

(great read, great animals, great people. Their passion is just amazing, I was lucky enough to see a talk they gave over their conservation efforts. Very good stuff.)

The couple decided to try a more local-friendly approach than is traditional (usually the locals are treated like the enemy). They paid the wardens well, hired local trackers, camp workers, and publicizers. They went to the schools in the area to educate kids about the intelligence and beauty of gorillas. And, in a coup-de-grace, they set up a tourist program in which rich Americans and Europeans funnel thousands of dollars per head into the local and national economy just to point and laugh at the gorilla scratching himself funny. The result was that when the Rwanda/Uganda civil war of the 1980s erupted, only 2 gorillas were killed by underfed soldiers turned to poaching…on the Rwanda side anyway. Just across the imaginary line where Karisoke stops and the Ugandan part of the Virunga mountains start, close to 100 times that number exist.

Here, we’re not quite as impoverished as Africa, the same kind of economic incentives don’t necessarily work to the same degree. But we are a nation of hunters. And that’s a vastly under-utilized resource. Sure, there are yahoos out there that will shoot at anything that moves, but most hunters are responsible, ethical, intelligent individuals. As such they understand that if there’s no more pristine habitat, there is no more good hunting. If we better tapped them as a resource, the national park system would be a good deal more robust, and conservatives would be much happier with conservation efforts.

Kim Du Toit brings us an example that has to do with culling an elk population in Rocky Mountain Forest. The government plan will of course cost 18 million dollars and take 20 years…to kill 1500 elk. Which, as Kim points out, is something that hunters pay to do. His modest proposal would resultin a 1.5 million dollar profit based on hunting permits alone. Throw in the money spent on travel, lodging, food, guides, and we’re talking a fair amount of money injected into the economy here.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that with capitalism, not only can we make conservation less painful, we can even make it a substantial new growth sector in the economy. As Weber and Vedder showed us, it’s at least worth a shot.