It seems that one of the heavier arguments against reintroduction is that it will hurt regenerative farming efforts - produce a negative effect on positive effe

It seems that one of the heavier arguments against reintroduction is that it will hurt regenerative farming efforts - produce a negative effect on positive effects of regen farming on environment, and negative financial effect on those farmers. So, we have: - a greatly positive option on the environment from a variety of perspectives - reintroduction of wolves - its negative effect on one activity/group of people And so those people vote against the greatly positive thing, because they care for the environment and themselves. Wouldn't the obvious option be to vote for the positive option, and press the government to help alleviate the negative effect, instead? Could the existing compensation schemes for livestock loss not be amended/expanded/adapted? Could the government not financially support different available/new methods of protecting regen farm livestock from wolves? Why is the obvious option instead to nuke the positive initiative to protect themselves?