3 ms·
The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat. The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incenti
by beerandt 5y ago
The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat.
The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.
- bumby 5y ago>The incentive is…not necessarily to protect the habit Except many of the incentives explicitly state the goal is to protect habitat. “How does a CCA or CCAA help species? These voluntary agreements reduce or remove identified threats to a species. Examples of beneficial activities include measures for restoring or enhancing habitat, expanding or establishing habitat…” https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CCAs.pdf https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CCAs.pdf
- beerandt 5y agoThe land owner's incentive to be a bad vs good actor. There aren't maps of some universal truth as to what habitat is protected for what species. Many habitats aren't "known" and made protected until the endangered animal is actually discovered, on-site. The land owner has incentive to prevent that discovery from happening, and therefore has incentive to kill the animals before they can be discovered on his property.