Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 255 posts

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#71

Post by jacurtis »

gbrown wrote: post #11
Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

Why should we even pay? There's no constitutional right to be able to leave your livestock basically unprotected on vast tracts of land where they're vulnerable to predators. I mean, if it makes it more palatable it's probably worth it to pay farmers... but I viscerally dislike the idea that any industry has the right to: 1. Destroy the environment for their convenience 2. Be indemnified by the government for their i…

The argument is that farmers (or anyone else) actually do have a right to protect/defend their property (livestock are property). So when the government says that you can't protect your property if the thing killing it is a wolf, then farmers get very frustrated because they feel like their freedom/rights have been controlled or taken away from the government.

To put the farmer's perspective another way:

Everyone has a right to self-defense if you are being harmed. But imagine if the government says "actually, if the person harming you has blonde hair, then you can't defend yourself because we are protecting people with blonde hair right now. But don't worry we will make it worth your while if you just let the blonde person hurt you."

I know this sounds like a crazy example, but if you have ever spent time around farmers who deal with this issue, it feels exactly as crazy to them.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#72

Post by wbl »

jacurtis wrote: post #71
gbrown wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we even pay? There's no constitutional right to be able to leave your livestock basically unprotected on vast tracts of land where they're vulnerable to predators. I mean, if it makes it more palatable it's probably worth it to pay farmers... but I viscerally dislike the idea that any industry has the right to: 1. Destroy the environment for their convenience 2. Be indemnified by the government for their i…

The argument is that farmers (or anyone else) actually do have a right to protect/defend their property (livestock are property). So when the government says that you can't protect your property if the thing killing it is a wolf, then farmers get very frustrated because they feel like their freedom/rights have been controlled or taken away from the government. To put the farmer's perspective another way: Everyone has…

That's what fences are for

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#73

Post by pvaldes »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

> why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed

This path has been explored in Europe and is a mistake.

1) Killing a few wolves increases, not decreases damages (by altering the social structure of the pack). More paradoxical, killing all wolves in an area increases the attacks to small cattle in that area (even if there is not a single alive wolf anymore).

Because wolf attacks are a very special case. There is not a single wolf in UK. Despite that, they still suffer 40.000 attacks to small cattle each year. By abandoned pet dogs, the same species as gray wolf. When government starts paying wolf attacks, suddenly, each stray dog attack (non paid) will be automatically assigned to wolves (paid) and will appear in the newspapers. This creates 'ghost wolves' and panic in the population, and increases the pressure against the environment (that is exactly the opposite that you are paying for).

2) Is an incentive for local corruption. People learn that if they cry wolf receive free money. They became insatiable and will try to game the system again and again. We had documented cases of the same cow "dying" two times, four times in four different places in Europe. By wolves that for some reason always start "eating the cattle tags". We had documented cases of cows dying by a natural accident and being blamed to scavenger wolves visiting the area four days later.

3) Is bad for the real farmers. Losing a cow is not a problem, destroying the cow market with a flood of easy money is. Meat prices are disbalanced by outsiders that release old or diseased cattle in a ranch to die at zero cost and then bill the state for wolf damages. At the end the real farmers figure out that letting the cows die is more efficient than producing meat. Or their activity is destroyed by the spread of new cattle diseases, and are replaced by fake farmers living in a big city.

4) It quickly turns into a sort of acquired right also. People gets upset if you try to stop it (and poison appears).

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#74

Post by mynegation »

Fezzik wrote: post #37
gbrown wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we even pay? There's no constitutional right to be able to leave your livestock basically unprotected on vast tracts of land where they're vulnerable to predators. I mean, if it makes it more palatable it's probably worth it to pay farmers... but I viscerally dislike the idea that any industry has the right to: 1. Destroy the environment for their convenience 2. Be indemnified by the government for their i…

We should pay... the price of cows killed by wolves should be priced in to the sales price of beef, which is way too cheap right now as it is. This is a super simple calculation.

Where is the averaging component in that? If some ranchers affected more by wolves and raise their prices accordingly, they become less competitive.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#75

Post by chrisco255 »

dboreham wrote: post #16
Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

> why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed Ah ha. A HN thread close to home (I live within earshot of wolves in Montana). So...we do [1], [2]. Ranchers (generalizing, of course) just don't like wolves. It's a really deep cultural thing. So if you as president want to take some step that will cause a bunch of folks in ranching areas to high five, you'd delist wolves. That they may not in fact be impacte…

From my talks with Montanans, the main reason some of them don't like the wolves is because the Elk population went down after their reintroduction.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#76

Post by yupyup54133 »

undersuit wrote: post #64
yupyup54133 wrote: post #50

Here in Wisconsin the wolf argument is a wealthy vs poor issue. Specifically, it is mostly the southern wealthy urbanites and suburbanites dictating to the poorer northern half of the state that they must put up with the re-introduction of wolves. It would be much less of an issue if the wolves were also introduced into the county forests and state parks in the southern half of the state where the wealthy urbanites a…

The wolves are naturally moving into open territory as their numbers grow in Wisconsin at least. Why do you think this is a class issue?

False, they are being introduced into forests in the northern half of the state but are not being introduced into the forests in the southern half of the state. Also, when wolves are found close to the suburbs they are relocated to the north.

This is a class issue because most of the state's wealth is located in the southern half of the state and it is mostly the southern half of the state that is forcing an unwanted wolf population on the northern half of the state.

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#77

Post by jolux »

shadowgovt wrote: post #4
Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

That would be wealth redistribution, which a critical mass of Americans are pathologically opposed to.

This is actually not true, most Americans support higher taxes on corporations and people with high incomes, and a more even wealth distribution: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#78

Post by corty »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #2

Yeah this is a bit premature. I dunno why we don't just pay the ranchers for livestock killed (it's pretty rare) and everyone goes home happy? Apex predator reintroduction is a good litmus test for how much conservation we can stomach, so I think it's important that we get this right.

Simply paying for cattle that wolves have eaten isn't enough. Wolves induce panic in herds, causing them to go over cliffs or trample down fences and cross busy roads, causing accidents. In Germany this isn't currently paid for by the state, because the law doesn't say so, the causality is hard to prove (basically you need a piece of flesh with a wolve's dental pattern) and the farmer is often first in line and goes bancrupt, because damage to the vehicles was done by his sheep/cows/whatever, not the wolves directly.

Also, grazing cattle outside is desirable for better land use (usually grassland isn't good for much else) and keeping the current state of ecosystems (without grazing, bushes and trees will take over). Also, regions where cattle is grazed are typically also tourist hotspots, but cattle frequently scared by wolves is much more aggresive towards hikers. So basically, wolves screw over a lot more than just the few cows they eat...

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#79

Post by pcmaffey »

falcolas wrote: post #38
pcmaffey wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't fathom how people enjoy killing for sport (for food, sure, but solely for pleasure?). That must be some kind of pathology?

Hunting is a practice as old as mankind itself. And in many parts of the world, it's a tradition that's been handed down from from parents to children even today. It also helps keep the various wild herds/packs from exploding in size, reducing the number of wild animals that die from starvation. (Bias disclaimer: I don't hunt, but I live in a state where I'm a minority)

The purpose of hunting is to acquire food. Wolves are not food animals, nor are they any longer competition for us.

There's no evidence that wolf populations would explode if not managed by humans, so controlling them seems premature. There is plenty of evidence though that wolves help manage ruminant populations which do explode out of control without their natural predator, which just so happens to do a better job at it than us (see deer populations in eastern US).

Re: Gray Wolves to Be Removed from Endangered Species List

#80

Post by pfisch »

jacurtis wrote: post #71
gbrown wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we even pay? There's no constitutional right to be able to leave your livestock basically unprotected on vast tracts of land where they're vulnerable to predators. I mean, if it makes it more palatable it's probably worth it to pay farmers... but I viscerally dislike the idea that any industry has the right to: 1. Destroy the environment for their convenience 2. Be indemnified by the government for their i…

The argument is that farmers (or anyone else) actually do have a right to protect/defend their property (livestock are property). So when the government says that you can't protect your property if the thing killing it is a wolf, then farmers get very frustrated because they feel like their freedom/rights have been controlled or taken away from the government. To put the farmer's perspective another way: Everyone has…

Now replace blonde person with the police.
Post reply on HN