University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Graduate School Professional Papers 2012 AN INQUIRY INTO ECO-LABELING: THE PROMISE OF PREDATOR FRIENDLY CERTIFICATION (PFC) Melissa Ellen Katherine Early The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Early, Melissa Ellen Katherine, "AN INQUIRY INTO ECO-LABELING: THE PROMISE OF PREDATOR FRIENDLY CERTIFICATION (PFC)" (2012). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers.edu/etd/137 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana.
For more information, please contact scholarworks@mso. AN INQUIRY INTO ECO‐LABELING: THE PROMISE OF PREDATOR FRIENDLY CERTIFICATION (PFC) By Melissa Ellen Katherine Early B. Sewanee: The University of the South, 2007 Environmental Studies: Policy Cum laude Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science In Resource Conservation College of Forestry and Conservation The University of Montana Missoula, MT Spring 2012 Approved by: Dr. Sandy Ross, Associate Dean of the Graduate School Dr.
Dane Scott, Chair College of Forestry and Conservation Dr. Martin Nie Chair, Department of Society and Conservation Dr. Neva Hassanein Environmental Studies Program © COPYRIGHT by Melissa Ellen K. Early 2012 All Rights Reserved ii ABSTRACT Early, Melissa, M.
May 2012 Resource Conservation An Inquiry into Eco‐Labeling: The Promise of Predator Friendly Certification (PFC) Chairperson: Dane Scott, Ph. Agricultural landscapes play key roles in preserving biodiversity through habitat protection while providing ecosystem services necessary for rural livelihoods. There is a small, but growing movement among agricultural producers to live with nature rather than to dominate nature. Within this larger agriculture movement are efforts to live with predators rather than eliminating them through lethal means.
This is reflective of the changing conversation around predators in the New West. Means of co‐existence include livestock guardian animals, electric fencing, fladry, range rider patrols, rotational grazing, and lights etc. One grassroots effort in this area is Predator Friendly Certification (PFC). PFC is a 2nd party verified eco‐label that embraces and merges the notions of agriculture and conservation through the utilization of such innovative strategies.
In theory, eco‐ labels offer the dual promise of price premiums and simultaneous environmental benefits, certifying a commodity’s process of production and unique quality. PFC offered a distinct opportunity to better understand the promise and future advancement of a particular, grassroots eco‐labeling effort. This qualitative research study interviewed 17 PFC producers, 8 potential producers who inquired yet chose not to seek PFC, and 5 members of the PFC founders circle. PFC efforts provided insight into the growing phenomenon of eco‐ labeling as a strategy employed in the alternative foods movement to address process and quality.
Notably, despite the fact that PFC is not generating a price premium, small numbers of dedicated producers utilize these practices because of their philosophical and ethical commitments. According to those interviewed, 3rd party verification is critical for marketplace expansion, institutional accountability, and future price premium generation for values‐based eco‐labels. This research generated suggestions for PFC to increase participation and marketplace expansion as the eco‐label transitions to another eco‐label, Certified Wildlife Friendly (CWF). These findings also indicate that interest in ecosystem health is equally as important as animal welfare for producers.
Facilitating partnerships with the 3rd party verified eco‐label Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) may help expand the values of PFC/CWF to a larger circle of producers and consumers in the marketplace. Lessons learned from PFC’s struggles and evolution are valuable to any grassroots values‐based labeling effort. Keywords Agriculture, Conservation, Native predators, Eco‐labeling, Predator Friendly Certification (PFC), Lack of Price Premium Generation, Sustainability iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my gratitude to several individuals who have been incredible mentors throughout my studies at the University of Montana, and over the course of this research project. I am very grateful to my graduate advisor, Dane Scott, who has provided invaluable patience while continually challenging me to dig deeper into the philosophical underpinnings of agriculture and community.
Committee members Neva Hassanein and Martin Nie have also contributed critical insight and patience to this project and allowed me to grow as a student while nurturing my passions for sustainable agriculture and wildlife. I extend a special thanks to Abigail Breuer from the Keystone Conservation Network for her help in connecting me with Predator Friendly producers. Also, I would like to thank my wonderful western mentors, Julia and Tom, who served elk seared over a roaring fire during summer 2008 and challenged me to think in the Leopoldian sense, about the keystone role of predators amid a landscape. Finally, I wish to extend my deepest gratitude to my parents, Janet and Ed Early, who raised me on the family farm in Virginia and understand the necessity of wild places and freedom to roam.
“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.” ‐‐‐ Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac iv TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE FARMING WITH THE WILD 1 Research Objectives 6 Thesis Organization 7 CHAPTER 1 ‐ LITERATURE REVIEW VALUES BASED ECO‐LABELING CERTIFICATION Addressing Process, Embracing Quality 9 Polanyi’s Theory of Embeddedness 10 A Situated Understanding of EcoLabeling 12 Theory to Practice: The Need for Certification 14 Meaningful EcoLabel Examples 18 Organic Certification 18 Forest Stewardship Certification (FSC) 22 Marine Stewardship Certification (MSC) 27 Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) 29 Lessons Learned from EcoLabeling Examples 31 CHAPTER 2 CONTESTED VALUES: RECOGNIZING THE ROLE OF PREDATORS Predator Friendly Certification (PFC) History 34 Predator Friendly Production Applications On the Ground 40 Evolution of PFC 43 CHAPTER 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND METHODS The Sample 45 Data Collection 46 Data Analysis 48 Quotes and Excerpts Selection 49 Limitations 50 Geographic limitations 50 Founders’ circle limitations 51 v CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS PREDATOR FRIENDLY CERTIFIED (PFC) PRODUCER PERSPECTIVES Introduction 53 Prior Moral Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture 54 Application of predator friendly practices 57 PFC Certified EcoLabeling Support: Why 61 Educational Goals in Becoming Predator Friendly Certified (PFC) 64 Limits to PFC: Internal 68 External 70 The Future Advancement of PFC 73 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS POTENTIAL PREDATOR FRIENDLY (PFC) PRODUCER PERSPECTIVES Prior Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture 77 Application of predator friendly practices 79 PFC EcoLabeling: Not Perceived as Beneficial 81 Barriers to PFC EcoLabeling: Time, Infrastructure, and Geography 83 Ecological Values of Predator Friendly Practices 85 Marketplace Expansion: Potential Opportunities 87 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary of Findings 90 Lack of Price Premium Generation 92 The Legacy of PFC: Education 94 EcoLabeling Comparison: Lessons Learned from Lack of 3rd Party Verification 95 The Necessity of Consumer and Producer Outreach 98 Predator Friendly Efforts: In and Out of the Marketplace 100 Embedded Within Sustainable Agriculture 101 PFC: Rooted in NonLethal Management but Lacking Accountability 103 Towards Certified Wildlife Friendly (CWF) 106 CWF’s EcoLabeling Evolution 107 Predator Friendly Certification (PFC) Migration Efforts 109 vi WORKS CITED 112 APPENDIX 117 INTERVIEW GUIDES vii PREFACE FARMING WITH THE WILD “Conservation implies self‐expression in the agricultural landscape rather than blind compliance with economic dogma” ‐Aldo Leopold Agricultural activities account for enormous environmental alterations that result in the loss of habitat and biodiversity. The zero sum competition between agriculture and habitat is not necessary. Living with carnivorous predators is a daunting proposition for some farmers and ranchers in terms of economic viability and social acceptance (Muhly and Musiani 2009).
However, an ecosystem devoid of keystone predators such as wolves, grizzly bears, and cougars is a landscape poorer in long‐term ecological integrity (Eisenberg 2010). Throughout the history of United States domestic livestock production, predators have been pursued and eradicated from their native landscape with a vengeance (Ferguson 1983). Predators are really just a “link in the chain,” necessary for a landscape’s ecologically interdependent function, critical elements of the public and private landscape too (Ferguson 1983: 132). With the increasing wolf population in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and across the Rocky Mountain West in recent years, the dynamics of predator‐prey relationships have changed in a landscape increasingly facing the pressures of exurban development and habitat fragmentation across the “New West” (Maestas et al.
The “Old West” mentality of “shoot, shovel, and shut‐up” is in the process of evolvement and transformation to co‐existence and adaptation in the “New West” (Maestas et al. The debate over wolves, for example, is and will continue to always be “about public values, not just economic 1 costs and benefits” (Nie 2003: 219). The question of whether or not to eradicate or live with predators is a question of social values (Nie 2003). Ultimately, living with keystone predators and predation are risks of the livestock business.
In her essay, “The Farmer as Conservationist,” Catherine Badgley (2002: 206) discusses the growing importance of reconciling the goals of agriculture and wildlife conservation. She titled the essay from Aldo Leopold’s ecological principles, which eloquently respect the values of working landscapes as well as preserved wilderness. Badgley’s (2002: 206) essay discusses three themes: “the enduring and essential role of agricultural landscapes for maintaining native biodiversity; the role of farmers as conservationists; and the imperative that society, especially conservationists, support farmers.” According to the Wild Farm Alliance, the adverse environmental impacts of farming and ranching can be minimized by “farming with the wild,” which calls for the perpetuation of uninhibited ecosystem function on our “working landscapes,” critical not only to species but to individuals and communities practicing rural livelihoods (Imhoff, et al. Ranchers have traditionally been opposed to the reintroduction of predators like wolves and grizzly bears (Badgley 2002).
Over 15 years ago, the return of the wolf to Yellowstone National Park and also the privately owned range subsequently occurred in the midst of the livestock industry facing challenges to maintaining economic viability (Muhly and Musiani 2009: 2439). Predators have long been eliminated through lethal means, but there is an expanding conversation about more ecologically and ethically informed interactions with predators (Badgley 2002). Approaches of using non‐lethal methods to deter native predators from 2 livestock conflict are departures from the most common practices utilized by traditional ranchers. Actually, livestock production “may provide indirectly an important benefit for wolf conservation,” as expanses of undeveloped private lands are buffers around public lands and habitat to wide‐ranging wildlife species (Muhly and Musiani 2009: 2439).
This is part of the “Old West” versus “New West” mentality. Maintaining working landscapes and promulgating biodiversity are interdependent goals of the farmer or rancher, for example, and the consumer buying commodities produced in the tradition of sustainable agriculture, products that are typically very high quality. In his essay “The Farmer as a Conservationist,” Leopold stated, “The landscape of any farm is the owner’s portrait of himself,” where conservation “implies self‐expression in that landscape, rather than blind compliance with economic dogma” (Callicott and Freyfogle: 1999). Leopold elaborates in “What is a Weed,” illustrating the false premises that characterize public predator control: because too many cougars or wolves were incompatible with livestock, it was assumed that no wolves or cougars would be ideal for livestock…the scourge of deer and elk which followed their removal on many ranges has simply transformed the role of pest from carnivore to herbivore.
Thus we forget that no species is inherently a pest and any species may become one. Leopold (1949) famously elaborates upon the job of predators in trimming herds to proper sizes to fit the range in his essay “Thinking Like a Mountain,” where he recounts mountainsides defoliated by over zealous deer populations in the face of wolf extirpation. Conservation oriented farming methods are critical for long‐term ecological function, a concession increasingly made by producers and appreciated by 3 consumers. According to farmer and writer Wendell Berry (2002: 239), “Industrialism is an economy before it is a culture,” whereas agrarianism, or traditional family farming, is a two‐pronged culture and economy of rural living.