3.2: Different Types of Value

Wildlife species are valued and used by humans for a wide variety of reasons - for food, for skins and other body parts, for the roles they play in their environment, and for inspiration.  Important questions to consider include: In what kinds of ways do we use wildlife species? Is the organism permanently removed from the habitat, or does the nature of our “use” allow it to remain a functioning part of the ecosystem? Is the species only valuable if it is providing us a “good” or “service”, or does it have value in and of itself? 

Scientific inquiry can answer questions about how the species, and thus ecosystems, respond given different types of use by humans, but cannot really answer the question, “Is this type of use ok?” Wildlife biology relies on both data collected using the scientific method, and agreements between people about what kind of use is ethically acceptable. To understand the connection between these, we need to understand the types of values that humans place on the existence of wildlife species. 

Consumptive vs Non-consumptive Use

When we interact, or use wildlife as a resource, that use can be considered either consumptive or non-consumptive. Consumptive use results in the animal no longer being present in its habitat to meet its role in the community, or reproduce to replace the loss. Activities such as hunting, and fishing (in most cases) are direct examples of consumptive use, but there are others. 

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Juvenile burrowing owls near an abandoned prairie dog burrow. (CC BY 2.0; U.S. Army / Rich Keen, DPRA Inc. via https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsm...rie/4819442652)

Altering habitat in a way that kills species can also be considered consumptive use. For instance, when developing commercial or residential property within a previously undisturbed burrowing owl habitat, the owls may be buried by construction equipment unless precautions are taken. Wildlife managers provide construction permit conditions in which the owls must be “relocated” before construction, which creates its own set of issues. For instance, the property must be surveyed, and the owls extracted from those burrows, which may injure them. The habitat they are relocated to may not be as suitable for the owls, which can affect their survival. Relocating owls to a place where there are already other burrowing species may affect the balance of that habitat. What may seem like very straightforward recommendations may not work in practicality. The result is the consumption of the species, even if they are not targeted directly. 

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): “Wildlife Jam” at Yellowstone National Park. (CC-BY 2.0; Brian Gratwicke via https://www.flickr.com/photos/briang...cke/7847997236)  

Non-consumptive use of a wildlife species means that the animal remains in its habitat as a viable part of its community, despite being used by humans. Non-consumptive use can be completely benign, meaning that the animal is not affected at all, or, it could affect the animal, but not enough to remove it completely. For example, birdwatching is a non-consumptive use of wild bird species that generally does not affect the birds at all. In contrast, catch and release fishing does have the potential to injure the fish, even though the fish survives. Other types of non-consumptive use include ecotourism trips and safaris, wildlife photography, film, and art (provided that the animals are not harmed). Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is a prime example of a location where visitors come specifically to see wildlife such as elk, buffalo, wolves, and grizzly bears. Although this is non-consumptive use in theory, it needs to be managed, as shown in the picture of the “wildlife jam” above. Yellowstone National Park has an extensive visitor education program, but far too many tourists are injured each year by not keeping a safe distance from the resources they’ve come to see. Both humans and wildlife resources need to be protected during these encounters, so that the opportunities are preserved for generations to come.

Intrinsic vs Instrumental Value

Instrumental value is simple - it is the value we receive from the use of the organism. Instrumental value can encompass both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of wildlife. Most obviously, there is value to be gained from the use of animal meat or parts, the sale of live animals for the pet trade, and other consumptive uses.  Non-consumptive uses of wildlife, such as their involvement in ecotourism, can also provide instrumental value. For example, in 2021, Yellowstone National Park saw 4.9 million visitors who added $834 million to the local economy. The presence of wildlife in the park is instrumentally valuable to the area. 

Intrinsic value, on the other hand, is the value that an organism has in and of itself, for what it is. It is different from instrumental value because it is not dependent on how we can benefit from its presence - its value is in that it is a living organism that has the right to exist no matter what humans think. While most people can agree about an organism’s instrumental value, human opinions vary on the degree to which any species is intrinsically valuable. When people have fundamentally different opinions about the intrinsic value of a given species, it can make management of the species difficult, particularly if this species does not have a strong instrumental value. For instance, the entire species of the Devil’s Hole pupfish exists in one cavern about 72 ft. long by 11.5 ft. wide in Nevada. In the 1960s and 1970s, agricultural irrigation started lowering the water table in the cavern, putting the fish at risk of extinction. Part of the reason for forming Death Valley National Park was to preserve this fish species, based on its intrinsic value as an endangered species. Other groups who stood to benefit from the irrigation pushed back, and the case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision to allow Death Valley National Park to control the use of the groundwater surrounding the park, thus preserving this little fish on its own merits. 

Figure \(\PageIndex{3}\): Critically Endangered Devil’s Hole Pupfish. (CC BY 2.0; Olin Feuerbacher via https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfws_...csw/8681880192)

 

Types of Wildlife Value

Types of value are also assigned to wildlife species dependent on their relationship with and use by humans. The four types listed below cover a good range of how we value wildlife, but they are not exhaustive. Different, related lists can be found throughout the scientific literature. 

Commercial value

Commercial value refers to the value of something that can be sold or traded for other resources. The best example of commercial value of wildlife can be seen in fisheries. In 2020, 8.4 billion pounds of fisheries species were landed in the United States, worth 4.8 billion dollars. (NOAA, 2021). Worldwide, fisheries remain the most productive way of sourcing protein rich food from hunting and gathering wild stocks. Unfortunately, this has resulted in the crash of a number of fisheries, and the endangerment of species such as whales and sea turtles, who cannot withstand that fishing pressure. The ocean remains a common resource, without property lines, that continues to be used for food and commercial gain worldwide. 

Other commercial uses of wildlife are varied, and can span the range of consumptive to non-consumptive, and instrumental to intrinsic. Fur trapping is definitely consumptive, as it results in the removal of the animal from its environment by death. There are exceptions, though, such as wild musk ox. The musk ox shed the wool and it is gathered and spun into yarn, and the musk ox remains in its environment. However, handspun wild musk ox yarn is a niche market (but as such, is wildly expensive). Many niche uses of wildlife exist, some harvested sustainably (such as the musk ox wool), some harvested illegally (such as elephant tusks). 

Figure \(\PageIndex{4}\): Musk ox shedding wool. (CC-0; Heiko Köhrer-Wagner via https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1637994)

We can also consider the entrance fees, photography equipment, travel costs, and other parts of the economy built around wildlife tourism to be of commercial value. This can be a non-consumptive use, provided that the animal is not harmed as a result of the tourism. It is also, in part, based on intrinsic value, as many people flock to see this wildlife just based on its existence, not based on anything the animal “does” for them instrumentally. 

Game value

Figure \(\PageIndex{5}\): Duck hunter at sunset. (CC-0; Dave Menke, USFWS via https://pixnio.com/sport/fishing-and...ing-at-sunset#)

Humans have a rich history of hunting wildlife and fishing as recreation or sport, which can be far more costly than the money that could be earned from the animal, its hide, or its meat. This is called game value. Many species of animals are hunted by humans, for sustenance, for trophies, or just for the experience of it. Some hunting is an important part of wildlife management. For example, deer and elk might be hunted to control populations in places where native predators have been wiped out. This helps remove populations from urban or suburban areas where they pose a risk to life and property. If done in balance (taking the right number of animals), it keeps herd animals from starving or spreading disease when their populations are too high. Other people hunt to increase their food supply, or simply for the experience of it. Sometimes, hunters and anglers collect trophies and have them mounted for display. For animals whose populations are decreasing, this can be an issue, and needs to be done responsibly so as not to deplete the resource. On the far end of the spectrum, trophy hunting for endangered species may not be in the species’ best interest, and is not an example of good wildlife management. 

To allow hunting for wildlife that are susceptible to population crashes, a fish and wildlife agency will issue a “stamp”, or a permit to allow for the take of a limited number of the organism. these permits will allow for harvesting with certain restrictions such as a certain size class, so that the age structure of the population is controlled. These permits cost a fee, and that fee is used to generate revenue for the state or federal government programs that protect these organisms. These permits typically require reporting of the catch or harvest, so that wildlife biologists can keep track of population trends. Keeping track of data allows them to adjust the conditions of permits in the future to allow for population variations. 

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Two generations fishing for salmon. (CC BY 2.0; CDFW file photo via https://www.flickr.com/photos/califo...fg/21245227772)

The value in hunting and fishing also comes from the myriad of equipment and travel costs incurred as a result of participating in the sport. According to the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation 2020 Special Report on Fishing,, roughly 50.1 million people in the United States collectively spend $51 billion annually on equipment, licenses, trips and other fishing-related items or events. Fishing tournaments are huge events, with expensive prizes (ex. boats)  given away for the largest catch. Not all fishing tournaments are consumptive use, either. Catch and release fisheries allow for the sport, but require that the fish be returned alive to its native habitat after being caught. 

Hunters and anglers support many different non-profit organizations to help ensure that the species they are hunting is protected for the future. When considering the value of game, it is in the hunter’s best interest that the resource is present for future generations.  This can be in contrast to commercial value, in which the goal can be to capture as many organisms as possible to sell them. Recreational anglers and commercial fisherman have been at odds in the past about what kind of fishing equipment to use, and how many fish they should be allowed to take, because what each group values is different. Additionally, not everyone agrees that hunting for sport is an ethical activity, and this can create tension when different values collide around a species that is being hunted. The role of a wildlife manager is to manage these differing values, and look for compromise situations that are biologically sound and based on data. 

Aesthetic value

A trip to any art museum will demonstrate the meaning of the aesthetic value of wildlife. Humans started depicting wildlife in art on cave walls tens of thousands of years ago, and continue to revere wildlife art today. Our media have changed through the millenia, from chalk to paint to photography, but the subjects remain the same. 

Figure \(\PageIndex{6}\): Ruffled Grouse. Plate 41 in Birds of America (Public Domain; John J. Audubon via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...fed_Grouse.jpg)

Aesthetic value is not only measured as works of art, however. Aesthetically valuing wildlife can merely mean traveling to see it. Divers spend thousands of dollars on equipment and training to spend hours watching animals on coral reefs, or in the kelp forest. Birdwatchers are particularly drawn to wetland areas during annual migrations. Some keep “life lists” - a list of all of the species they have ever seen. Watching wildlife in its native habitat is a pastime that many people share. In fact, entire magazines and television networks are devoted to allowing us to observe wildlife in nature documentaries and films.

While most aesthetic value is non-consumptive, there are times where animals are gathered from the wild to provide aesthetic value as well. One reason a person may keep a desert tortoise, axolotl, or other wild animal as a pet is because they want to keep it close enough to watch and admire. The tropical aquarium industry is another example. Most of the fish and corals that people purchase to set up their home tanks are harvested directly from natural coral reefs, which destabilizes the reef.  Unfortunately, this type of use has caused populations of these animals to plummet, as more people want them.  

Figure \(\PageIndex{7}\): Pinkie Pie the Axolotl. (CC-BY 3.0; Adrien Cretté via https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...42386856).jpeg)

 

Ethical value

The idea of ethical value is closely tied to intrinsic value. It includes appreciating that wildlife species have the right to exist whether or not they have any instrumental value to humans. This basic respect for life is found in many different belief systems, although there can be variations in how far that respect goes. Some cultures value animal life by not killing it for food. Other cultures do use animals as food, but have a long-standing practice of ceremonially honoring the life of the animal before consuming it. Some cultures consider themselves stewards of the Earth, and work to protect the living things that are there, but also believe that using animals as a resource for food, shelter, and clothing is acceptable. An ethical viewpoint cannot be “tested” to be right or wrong by the scientific method. Ethical decisions are cultural values that a group of people agree to follow, and not all cultures are the same. These different ethical viewpoints can cause conflict when two groups using the same resource don’t agree on how it should be used. 

References Cited

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2022. Fisheries in the United States, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resou...ed-states-2020.