5 ms·

Two thoughts: 1. They should've reduced the reward over time. If the effort had been successful, there would've been fewer snakes, and less need to get the sna

Two thoughts: 1. They should've reduced the reward over time. If the effort had been successful, there would've been fewer snakes, and less need to get the snake population under control. This makes economic sense event without considering this effect. If there's a million snakes, you really need someone to do something about it. If there's only 10k, who cares? 2. This is why it's important to focus on the actual goal. The goal was not to kill snakes. The goal was to have fewer snakes. Killing snakes was just a means to an end. Actually, the goal wasn't even fewer snakes, it was to reduce the risk of dying from a snake bite. A successful anti-venom would've been just as much a solution as the eradication of the snakes. Of course it's a lot harder to measure, "Are you doing something which is likely to reduce the risk of me dying from a snake bite?" than "Did you kill a snake?"

CapitalistCartr 15y ago
Breeding another, non-poisonous variety of snake to compete in the same environmental niche with the cobras would have likely been more effective. That's what my family does in Virginia to combat the rattlesnakes.
- aquark 15y ago
  If the other species is indigenous to the area that might work -- though in that case it clearly can't out-compete the undesirable species naturally. Otherwise our species track record with introducing foreign species to control a perceived pest has not been particular stellar and usually causes more problems than it solves.
- bh42222 15y ago
  How would a non-poisonous snake compete? It will have fewer predator defenses, and hunting for its prey will be very different, possibly harder. Wouldn't the poisonous snake out-compete it, unless it ends up in a different niche?
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Pythons and boas have been pretty successful. Realize that venom is not a silver bullet; have you ever noticed venomous animals very often pursue very small prey? Venom has a place and a use, but just because you've got venom doesn't mean you're a superior predator. In fact, it seems to me it is most often used simply to allow a delicate animal to hunt prey that can hurt it- not because the prey is fearsome, but because the animal is vulnerable.
  - Someone 15y ago
    TANSTAAFL. Being poisonous takes effort. You need to have defenses against your own poison, spend energy producing often complex molecules, etc. Not spending energy on being poisonous means that a snake can spend it elsewhere; run a bit harder, lay more eggs, lay eggs earlier, whatever.
pavel_lishin 15y ago
> They should've reduced the reward over time. Wouldn't this result in locals just breeding more and more and more cobras to cope with the decreasing reward?
- DanielStraight 15y ago
  It could if the reward wasn't reduced fast enough. At some point, the reward should go to zero. And everyone should know in advance that it's going to go to zero at some point.
  - VMG 15y ago
    It would be difficult to find the right reduction function. If the reduction is too slow, the snake-breeders become a problem. If the reduction is too fast, there is no effect at all.
  - minikomi 15y ago
    Cobras .. Coming soon to a bitcoin analogy near you.
TylerE 15y ago
Wouldn't it be optimal to make the reward inversely proportional to the number of snakes turned in? That way as the population goes down, snakes become harder to catch, thus more valuable dead than alive. It also makes "farming" a negative pressure, since it decreases the reward per unit.
- protomyth 15y ago
  It seems to me the guy with the hidden snake farm and the "unfortunate fires" his fellow snake farmers had might lead to some problems with that plan.
- Someone 15y ago
  The moment it becomes cheaper to breed snakes than to hunt down one of the last wild ones, the logical thing to do is to breed them, rather than hunt them. That applies even in the case of one person 'competing' (but in that case, that person, of course, would need to turn in only one snake every time period). With multiple farmers, they will compete by producing snakes as cheaply as possible.
billswift 15y ago
A better option is to simply set the reward lower than the marginal cost of raising the snakes or other pest to begin with. So that there is a benefit to killing and turning in one that is encountered but not for a primary enterprise - the real problem is lack of both economic understanding and long term thinking on the part of bureaucrats.

CapitalistCartr 15y ago

Breeding another, non-poisonous variety of snake to compete in the same environmental niche with the cobras would have likely been more effective. That's what my family does in Virginia to combat the rattlesnakes.

aquark 15y ago
If the other species is indigenous to the area that might work -- though in that case it clearly can't out-compete the undesirable species naturally. Otherwise our species track record with introducing foreign species to control a perceived pest has not been particular stellar and usually causes more problems than it solves.
bh42222 15y ago
How would a non-poisonous snake compete? It will have fewer predator defenses, and hunting for its prey will be very different, possibly harder. Wouldn't the poisonous snake out-compete it, unless it ends up in a different niche?
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Pythons and boas have been pretty successful. Realize that venom is not a silver bullet; have you ever noticed venomous animals very often pursue very small prey? Venom has a place and a use, but just because you've got venom doesn't mean you're a superior predator. In fact, it seems to me it is most often used simply to allow a delicate animal to hunt prey that can hurt it- not because the prey is fearsome, but because the animal is vulnerable.
- Someone 15y ago
  TANSTAAFL. Being poisonous takes effort. You need to have defenses against your own poison, spend energy producing often complex molecules, etc. Not spending energy on being poisonous means that a snake can spend it elsewhere; run a bit harder, lay more eggs, lay eggs earlier, whatever.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> They should've reduced the reward over time. Wouldn't this result in locals just breeding more and more and more cobras to cope with the decreasing reward?

DanielStraight 15y ago
It could if the reward wasn't reduced fast enough. At some point, the reward should go to zero. And everyone should know in advance that it's going to go to zero at some point.
- VMG 15y ago
  It would be difficult to find the right reduction function. If the reduction is too slow, the snake-breeders become a problem. If the reduction is too fast, there is no effect at all.
- minikomi 15y ago
  Cobras .. Coming soon to a bitcoin analogy near you.

TylerE 15y ago

Wouldn't it be optimal to make the reward inversely proportional to the number of snakes turned in? That way as the population goes down, snakes become harder to catch, thus more valuable dead than alive. It also makes "farming" a negative pressure, since it decreases the reward per unit.

protomyth 15y ago
It seems to me the guy with the hidden snake farm and the "unfortunate fires" his fellow snake farmers had might lead to some problems with that plan.
Someone 15y ago
The moment it becomes cheaper to breed snakes than to hunt down one of the last wild ones, the logical thing to do is to breed them, rather than hunt them. That applies even in the case of one person 'competing' (but in that case, that person, of course, would need to turn in only one snake every time period). With multiple farmers, they will compete by producing snakes as cheaply as possible.

billswift 15y ago

A better option is to simply set the reward lower than the marginal cost of raising the snakes or other pest to begin with. So that there is a benefit to killing and turning in one that is encountered but not for a primary enterprise - the real problem is lack of both economic understanding and long term thinking on the part of bureaucrats.