5 ms·

> For example, ranchers who don't want their livestock eaten by wolves that they can't defend against, legally. I recall listening to NPR one day on this topic

> For example, ranchers who don't want their livestock eaten by wolves that they can't defend against, legally. I recall listening to NPR one day on this topic, and they pointed out that ranchers lose several orders of magnitude more livestock due to other preventable causes that are mostly in their control. It's not likely they care that much about their livestock.

tpmoney 3y ago
On the other hand this is sort of like saying, you already spend hundreds of dollars on unnecessary entertainment and other discretionary spending so you shouldn't be complaining when a new mandatory "entertainment tax" is established. Whether a business (or a person) is accepting of any given set of losses does not obligate them to be accepting of further losses.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > further losses Losses that are generally compensated by the government
  - tpmoney 3y ago
    Eminent domain requires the government to compensate you for your losses too, that doesn't usually make people happy about the losses.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      Sheep are generally fungible, land and real estate not so much
- BeetleB 3y ago
  Quite an unrelated point. This isn't asking them to spend more on what they're already spending on. It's about them claiming something that isn't true. The data indicates they really don't care that much about their cattle.