3 ms·

There is actually a name for this. The cobra effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect At the time of Brit

by Puts 10y ago

There is actually a name for this. The cobra effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect At the time of British rule of colonial India, cobras where a huge problem and rewards for catching cobras resulted in the locals breeding them instead.

Houshalter 10y ago
This is weird. Humans hunt animals to extinction all the time when have economic value. Look what's happening to elephants or rhinos in Africa. Yet creating an artificial value to killing them isn't enough? Suddenly humans come up with creative ways of breeding them artificially? Perhaps these aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe the bounty program worked to reduce the population to the point that farming was more viable. Maybe the bounty was too high, and if they reduced it farming wouldn't be economical anymore. Perhaps a solution would be to have the bounty in short random bursts. The bounty program only lasts for 1 year, so no one has time to start farms and breed them. Or just investigate the people bringing in lots of cobras, and see if they have a big cobra pit next to their house. I am very curious about these systems because it seems like a very effective method of eliminating invasive species. Australia is being overrun with cane toads, and my local state is complaining about Asian carp and zebra mussels. Yet no one is willing to put up money to see if the market can find an efficient solution to cull the population. Partially because of the infamous stories posted above about how these programs create bad incentives. But I believe they could be minimized. And I can't imagine anyone breeding asian carp or cane toads given how prevalent they are in the wild now.
- cheepin 10y ago
  > artificial value to killing them Another way to think about it is an artificial value to keeping the population going. All the animals will eventually die yielding a reward, but if you can keep a population going, the reward will keep coming. The "solution" for countries who wanted to remove invasive species is to embrace pretty heavy handed comprehensive enforcement. (See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canada-declares-war-on-rats/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canada-declares-wa...)
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    My point is that only applies once the bounty has already worked to reduce the population to a low enough level. After that you can end the bounty and try other things.
- im3w1l 10y ago
  Consider the cost ch of hunting an animal vs the cost of breeding it cb. If ch >> cb then it will be hunted to extinction. If cb >> ch, then it will be breeded. If ch ~ cb then people will pick the option best for the community.

by Puts 10y ago

Houshalter 10y ago

This is weird. Humans hunt animals to extinction all the time when have economic value. Look what's happening to elephants or rhinos in Africa. Yet creating an artificial value to killing them isn't enough? Suddenly humans come up with creative ways of breeding them artificially? Perhaps these aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe the bounty program worked to reduce the population to the point that farming was more viable. Maybe the bounty was too high, and if they reduced it farming wouldn't be economical anymore. Perhaps a solution would be to have the bounty in short random bursts. The bounty program only lasts for 1 year, so no one has time to start farms and breed them. Or just investigate the people bringing in lots of cobras, and see if they have a big cobra pit next to their house. I am very curious about these systems because it seems like a very effective method of eliminating invasive species. Australia is being overrun with cane toads, and my local state is complaining about Asian carp and zebra mussels. Yet no one is willing to put up money to see if the market can find an efficient solution to cull the population. Partially because of the infamous stories posted above about how these programs create bad incentives. But I believe they could be minimized. And I can't imagine anyone breeding asian carp or cane toads given how prevalent they are in the wild now.

cheepin 10y ago
> artificial value to killing them Another way to think about it is an artificial value to keeping the population going. All the animals will eventually die yielding a reward, but if you can keep a population going, the reward will keep coming. The "solution" for countries who wanted to remove invasive species is to embrace pretty heavy handed comprehensive enforcement. (See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canada-declares-war-on-rats/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/canada-declares-wa...)
- Houshalter 10y ago
  My point is that only applies once the bounty has already worked to reduce the population to a low enough level. After that you can end the bounty and try other things.
im3w1l 10y ago
Consider the cost ch of hunting an animal vs the cost of breeding it cb. If ch >> cb then it will be hunted to extinction. If cb >> ch, then it will be breeded. If ch ~ cb then people will pick the option best for the community.