Economic Development and the Conservation of Large Carnivores RAYMOND RASKER* AND ARLIN HACKMANt *Northern Rockies Regional Office, The Wilderness Society, 105 West Main, Suite E, Bozeman, MT 59715, U.S.A. l-Arlin Hackman, World Wildlife Fund Canada, 90 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 504, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2Z7, Canada Abstract: Conserving large carnivores in North America hinges on protecting vast wildlands, a strategy often assumed to carry significant economic costs in terms of jobs and income foregone. Using case studies, we tested whether there is enough evidence to support the assertion that the protection of wildlands is detrimen- tal to economic development in the northern U.S. Rocky Mountains and the Rocky Mountains of southern British Columbia and Alberta. We analyzed employment and income trends in northwestern Montana (U.S.A.) for counties with a high degree of wildland protection versus counties with high levels of resource ex- traction and little wildland protection. Employment and personal income levels in "wilderness" counties grew faster than in "resource-extraction" counties. Wilderness counties also showed higher degrees of economic di- versification and lower unemployment rates. No direct cause-and-effect relationship was established between wildlands protection and economic development, but to the assertion that protecting wildland habitat for large carnivores is detrimental to a region's economy, enough counterevidence is presented to suggest an al- ternative hypothesis." the protection of wilderness habitat that sustains wild carnivores such as grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and wolves (Canis lupus) does not have a detrimental effect on local or regional econ- omies. Evidence presented suggests that economic growth is stimulated by environmental amenities. Further, case studies in southern British Columbia and Alberta in Canada and the Greater Yellowstone region, in the U.S., where environmental protection has been explicitly recognized as an economic development strategy, suggest that environmental protection and economic development are complementary goals. In some areas, however, "ameni,y-based" economic growth is rapidly leading to urban sprawl and subsequent loss of wild- life habitat, and there is a need for growth management. Desarrollo Econ6mico y la Conservaci6n de Camivoros Mayores Resumen: La conservaci6n de carnivoros mayores en Norte Amdrica requiere de la conservaci6n de extensas dreas silvestres, estrategia que a menudo se asume que conileva costos econ6micos significativos en t6rminos de empleos e ingresos no obtenidos. Usando estudios de caso, probamos si hay suficiente evidencia para sopo- rtar la aserveraci6n de que la protecci6n de ~reas naturales va en detrimento del desarroilo econ6mico en las Monta~as Rocallosas en el norte de Estados Unidos y de Columbia Britt~nica y Alberta en el sur de Canadd. Analizamos las tendencias de empleos y de ingresos en condados del noroeste de Montana, E. U., con un alto grado de protecci6n de ~reas naturales versus condados con altos niveles de extracci6n de recursos y escasa protecci6n de dreas naturales. Los niveles de empleo e ingresos personales en los condados "silvestres" cre- cieron m,~s rdtpido queen los condados "extractores de recursos. " Los condados silvestres tambidn mostraron mayores niveles de diversificaci6n econ6mica y menores tasas de desempleo. Aunque no se estableci6 una rei- aci6n entre la protecci6n de ~reas naturales y el desarrollo econ6mico, se presentan suficientes evidencias para refutar la aseveraci6n de que la protecci6n de hd~bitats silvestres para carnivoros mayores va en detri- mento del desarrollo econ6mico y para sugerir una hip6tesis alternativa: ia protecci6n del hdbitat silvestre que sostiene a carnivoros silvestres como oso pardos (U~us arctos horribilis) y lobos (Canis lupus), no tiene efectos negativos en la economia local o regional. Las evidencias presentadas sugieren que el crecimiento econ6mico es estimulado por los tratos agradables ambientales. Mds at~n, estudios de ca~o en el sur de Co- lumbia Brit~nica y Alberta en Canadd~ yen la regi6n de Yellowstone en los Estados UnidOs, en donde la pro- Paper submitted February 2, 1995; revised manuscript accepted July 28, 1995. 991 Conservation Biology, Pages 991-1002 Volume 10, No. 4, August 1996