6 ms·

The use of economics is less about exploiting the wolves, or deer, and more about countering the widely held, and very personal belief (if you are a rancher), t

The use of economics is less about exploiting the wolves, or deer, and more about countering the widely held, and very personal belief (if you are a rancher), that wolves introduction has high costs from livestock predation. A rancher losing a steer has experienced a substantial economic loss.

pfdietz 5y ago
Put another way: if wolves are reintroduced and ranchers are compensated generously for lost animals, the rest of society still comes out ahead. I sometimes think many environmental issues could be resolved with sufficient bribery. And if the benefit of the policy is really that large, the bribes are affordable.
- scatters 5y ago
  The economic term for this is Coasean bargaining. The Coase theorem is that this can in principle be solved privately; in practice, transaction costs and imperfect information usually make government involvement necessary.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Indeed! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29222420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29222420
- BurningFrog 5y ago
  I think there is still an emotional cost of raising animals and having them murdered by wolves, even if you come out even economically. On some level, this system tells you the wolf is more important to society than you. I speak from absolutely no experience, imagining how I might feel.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    While this is very true and we should absolutely consider the emotional cost others bear from our actions. I wonder how much we should really be valuing the emotional cost of industrial barons which is the modern farmer. Especially as we consider that other humans also have emotional attachments to wildlife. When we see a healthy ecosystem we are happy, and when we hear about a wolf that was killed we are sad.
  - sertsa 5y ago
    > emotional cost of raising animals and having them murdered by wolves As opposed to when they goto slaughter?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pvaldes 5y ago
Not being killed in a car accident and not losing your car should compensate for any economic damage. Ranchers have -one- job, and is to watch and care for their cattle. If they do it well they earn money. If not, they lose money, exactly as any other. Paying them a lot of public money for not doing their job well, would be like Apple having a bad year an asking Microsoft to cover for their loses. Ranchers are private companies.
- progre 5y ago
  Devils advocate: the ranchers did their job a century ago when they exerminated the wolves. They are now again asked to accept wolves near their cattle, but this time they can't shoot at them. To make this a fair deal for them we should compensate them for any cattle lost to wolves.
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    Times change. What was seen as "correct" a thousand years ago, may be unacceptable with the technology and knowledge of today. We have some terrific new tools in nature management that weren't available at that time. After the new data coming day, after day, after day... it seems that people commit a few really suicidal moves a century ago. We still are trying to fix the industrial revolution effects. Paying some people a bribe with money from other people, so they agree to respect the laws... it never ends well. Is blackmail. The concept is stupid and a magnet for troubles.
    - progre 5y ago
      Bribe and blackmail, quite harsh words I would say. The government is essetially making use of the ranchers land to the general good of the overall ecosystem by (re)introducing wolves. Fair compensation for lost income is not a bribe.
      - pvaldes 5y ago
        If we remove Russia (that is huge and a special case), Spain is the European country with a highest wolf population. We have much more wolves than countries like Norway or Sweden. The Spanish government pays around 1.5 million euro each year to farmers for covering damages With sexy results. Lets see some curious discoveries in the biology of Spanish wolves: 1) Wolves start eating its preys by the most delicious part of the cattle: the livestock ear tag. A plastic piece that grants that the animal has been legally breed and registered, (and is often missing in the corpses). Having in mind that tag remains don't appear in the wolf scats, It seems that wolves love to collect them for the cubs. 2) Some cows were killed by wolves three times in three different places. The cow remains teleport mysteriously each time to another location. 3) Some farmers act as black holes for cattle. There is a strong suspicion that their entire business model consist into buying cheap foals and decrepit old goats in another province, let them alone and unprotected in the national park and wait for the corpse to be found. Some of this professionals of producing meat haven't sold a single animal or put a single sausage in the market... in decades. 4) It is suspected that scabies killing the endangered Pyrenean Chamois in the national park was introduced with those diseased goats. 5) Statistics about cattle dying by natural causes drop when government start paying wolf damages. Suddenly there is not more cows dying after giving birth, or from old age, or falling from a cliff. Is a well known secret that when you have an animal that needs an expensive veterinary procedure, borrowing a mastiff from a friend will fix the problem... and then you cry wolf, of course. 6) After introducing saliva analysis in Pyrenees looking for wolf DNA in the attacked cattle, the number of wolf attacks dropped from 100 to 7 in the next year. The analysis found that shepherd dogs owned by farmers were the real culprits in practically all attacks. Shepherd dogs had being videotaped feasting on cows and sheep. They respect its own herd, but will attack other herds. Everybody knows this. 7) Some farmers manage somehow to lost 600 sheep year after year without a trace, by the attack of magical wolves driving a van. We pay them up to 24.000 euro/year with tax money so they can be happy again. But they aren't, and ask for more. And well, "You know how flammable is the forest, do you?, Everything could start burning some of those days if you don't allow us to put cattle here..."

pfdietz 5y ago

Put another way: if wolves are reintroduced and ranchers are compensated generously for lost animals, the rest of society still comes out ahead. I sometimes think many environmental issues could be resolved with sufficient bribery. And if the benefit of the policy is really that large, the bribes are affordable.

scatters 5y ago
The economic term for this is Coasean bargaining. The Coase theorem is that this can in principle be solved privately; in practice, transaction costs and imperfect information usually make government involvement necessary.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Indeed! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29222420 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29222420
BurningFrog 5y ago
I think there is still an emotional cost of raising animals and having them murdered by wolves, even if you come out even economically. On some level, this system tells you the wolf is more important to society than you. I speak from absolutely no experience, imagining how I might feel.
- runarberg 5y ago
  While this is very true and we should absolutely consider the emotional cost others bear from our actions. I wonder how much we should really be valuing the emotional cost of industrial barons which is the modern farmer. Especially as we consider that other humans also have emotional attachments to wildlife. When we see a healthy ecosystem we are happy, and when we hear about a wolf that was killed we are sad.
- sertsa 5y ago
  > emotional cost of raising animals and having them murdered by wolves As opposed to when they goto slaughter?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pvaldes 5y ago

Not being killed in a car accident and not losing your car should compensate for any economic damage. Ranchers have -one- job, and is to watch and care for their cattle. If they do it well they earn money. If not, they lose money, exactly as any other. Paying them a lot of public money for not doing their job well, would be like Apple having a bad year an asking Microsoft to cover for their loses. Ranchers are private companies.

progre 5y ago
Devils advocate: the ranchers did their job a century ago when they exerminated the wolves. They are now again asked to accept wolves near their cattle, but this time they can't shoot at them. To make this a fair deal for them we should compensate them for any cattle lost to wolves.
- pvaldes 5y ago
  Times change. What was seen as "correct" a thousand years ago, may be unacceptable with the technology and knowledge of today. We have some terrific new tools in nature management that weren't available at that time. After the new data coming day, after day, after day... it seems that people commit a few really suicidal moves a century ago. We still are trying to fix the industrial revolution effects. Paying some people a bribe with money from other people, so they agree to respect the laws... it never ends well. Is blackmail. The concept is stupid and a magnet for troubles.
  - progre 5y ago
    Bribe and blackmail, quite harsh words I would say. The government is essetially making use of the ranchers land to the general good of the overall ecosystem by (re)introducing wolves. Fair compensation for lost income is not a bribe.
    - pvaldes 5y ago
      If we remove Russia (that is huge and a special case), Spain is the European country with a highest wolf population. We have much more wolves than countries like Norway or Sweden. The Spanish government pays around 1.5 million euro each year to farmers for covering damages With sexy results. Lets see some curious discoveries in the biology of Spanish wolves: 1) Wolves start eating its preys by the most delicious part of the cattle: the livestock ear tag. A plastic piece that grants that the animal has been legally breed and registered, (and is often missing in the corpses). Having in mind that tag remains don't appear in the wolf scats, It seems that wolves love to collect them for the cubs. 2) Some cows were killed by wolves three times in three different places. The cow remains teleport mysteriously each time to another location. 3) Some farmers act as black holes for cattle. There is a strong suspicion that their entire business model consist into buying cheap foals and decrepit old goats in another province, let them alone and unprotected in the national park and wait for the corpse to be found. Some of this professionals of producing meat haven't sold a single animal or put a single sausage in the market... in decades. 4) It is suspected that scabies killing the endangered Pyrenean Chamois in the national park was introduced with those diseased goats. 5) Statistics about cattle dying by natural causes drop when government start paying wolf damages. Suddenly there is not more cows dying after giving birth, or from old age, or falling from a cliff. Is a well known secret that when you have an animal that needs an expensive veterinary procedure, borrowing a mastiff from a friend will fix the problem... and then you cry wolf, of course. 6) After introducing saliva analysis in Pyrenees looking for wolf DNA in the attacked cattle, the number of wolf attacks dropped from 100 to 7 in the next year. The analysis found that shepherd dogs owned by farmers were the real culprits in practically all attacks. Shepherd dogs had being videotaped feasting on cows and sheep. They respect its own herd, but will attack other herds. Everybody knows this. 7) Some farmers manage somehow to lost 600 sheep year after year without a trace, by the attack of magical wolves driving a van. We pay them up to 24.000 euro/year with tax money so they can be happy again. But they aren't, and ask for more. And well, "You know how flammable is the forest, do you?, Everything could start burning some of those days if you don't allow us to put cattle here..."