Jack Whiteley, a Fellow and Supervisory Attorney in the Environmental Law & Justice Clinic at the Georgetown University Law Center, has posted Property in Wolves, which is forthcoming in the Cornell Law Review:
–Dan ErnstFrom colonial times until the mid-twentieth century, governments paid bounties to kill wolves, mountain lions, and other wild animals. Clearing the wild was a sustained legislative project. Yet interest in these statutes has remained confined to scholarship on wildlife conservation, and important insights for legal theory have gone unobserved.
"A Wintry Scene" (NYPL)
Based on new research, I argue that these bounty statutes have implications for the history and theory of property. The statutes were, in their intent and effect, land use regulations. For more than three centuries, they encouraged livestock. By removing wild animals, the statutes made livestock-raising a more cost-effective use of land than it otherwise would have been for landowners. And by removing wolves and other ecologically important species, they changed the character of land in ways that diminished the value of wilder uses. The statutes chose winners among land uses, and they operated over a much longer timeframe than conventional accounts, which date land use regulation’s origin to 1916, would suggest.
The statutes also had a deeper consequence. They encouraged private property in land. Predation on livestock is the kind of “large event” that, on a famous theory developed by Robert Ellickson, makes collectively-owned land valuable. By acting to remove the threat of wild animal predation on livestock in settlement communities, governments weighted the scale toward privately-owned, fee-simple land regimes. This discovery raises questions for a popular normative justification for private property in land.
The Article finally offers thoughts as to why animal eradication was such a pronounced public policy. The phenomenon suggests the influence of cultural preferences on property regimes.
