5 ms·
I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole
by allannienhuis 6y ago
I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.
- pvaldes 6y agoFarmers receive huge services from wolves, maybe they should pay for them also. Wolves remove wild grazers increasing the amount of pasture available for cattle. Wolves clean scabies in deer, lyme disease, and bovine tuberculosis in wild boars that would otherwise end in the cattle or the farmer. Wolves reduce the coyotes population. Reduce the car accidents against deer crossing the road. Wolves protect trees and allow forests to grow. Without mention that wolves provide huge and easily measurable economical benefits to tourism.
- spiderfarmer 6y agoThere's absolutely no evidence for any of the claims you're making.
- pvaldes 6y ago> There's absolutely no evidence Maybe you didn't search enough https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?AllField=Canis+lupus&SeriesKey=19399170 https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?...
- allannienhuis 6y agoIf the money comes from the public purse, they are paying for them also... Seems fair to me.