3 ms·

That's an unpopular opinion of course, but it's important to understand the attitude of the people living around them. The Outside Online article linked by avem

by Gracana 12y ago

That's an unpopular opinion of course, but it's important to understand the attitude of the people living around them. The Outside Online article linked by avemuri elsewhere in this thread gets into the issue. Wildlife conservation is important, but I can't help but empathize with the people living in the surrounding area. With very little work and very little money to go around, and with tigers killing their livestock and rhinos getting into their crops, what are they supposed to do? It doesn't even have to happen often for it to become quite a contentious issue.

icebraining 12y ago
A simple way is to just pay the farmers for the damage. For example, the group Defenders of Wildlife was faced with a similar situation in Montana, where the wolves were getting shot because they ate the livestock of the area. They raised money and paid for the losses in exchange of the promise that the ranchers wouldn't kill the wolves. This doesn't help if people are attacked, of course. http://perc.org/articles/who-pays-wolves http://perc.org/articles/who-pays-wolves
- brohee 12y ago
  Wolf damage to sheep herds in France is also paid for. There is still opposition to the wolf presence but I guess not being threatened with bankruptcy helps smooth some edges. Also wolves help control the wild boar population, and those can be quite damaging for crops, so the economic impact of the wolf may actually be positive. Eventually, someone is bound to be attacked thought, it will be interesting to see how policy is influenced when it happens. I can see how tigers can be a lot more polarizing.
  - pekk 12y ago
    Wolves essentially never attack humans, particularly by comparison with the frequency of tiger attacks. They are different species, of different sizes, with different diets, with different behaviors. Comparing wolves and tigers is not really sensible. But that doesn't stop people from killing wolves anyway.
- Gracana 12y ago
  That would probably work well, but only if the park has money. In the Outside Online article, a group of poachers were convinced to stop with the promise that they wouldn't be prosecuted and that they would get help to support themselves, but they are struggling to make good on that promise because they just don't have the funds. Maybe there is some way to repel the animals inexpensively and without killing them.

by Gracana 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

A simple way is to just pay the farmers for the damage. For example, the group Defenders of Wildlife was faced with a similar situation in Montana, where the wolves were getting shot because they ate the livestock of the area. They raised money and paid for the losses in exchange of the promise that the ranchers wouldn't kill the wolves. This doesn't help if people are attacked, of course. http://perc.org/articles/who-pays-wolves http://perc.org/articles/who-pays-wolves

brohee 12y ago
Wolf damage to sheep herds in France is also paid for. There is still opposition to the wolf presence but I guess not being threatened with bankruptcy helps smooth some edges. Also wolves help control the wild boar population, and those can be quite damaging for crops, so the economic impact of the wolf may actually be positive. Eventually, someone is bound to be attacked thought, it will be interesting to see how policy is influenced when it happens. I can see how tigers can be a lot more polarizing.
- pekk 12y ago
  Wolves essentially never attack humans, particularly by comparison with the frequency of tiger attacks. They are different species, of different sizes, with different diets, with different behaviors. Comparing wolves and tigers is not really sensible. But that doesn't stop people from killing wolves anyway.
Gracana 12y ago
That would probably work well, but only if the park has money. In the Outside Online article, a group of poachers were convinced to stop with the promise that they wouldn't be prosecuted and that they would get help to support themselves, but they are struggling to make good on that promise because they just don't have the funds. Maybe there is some way to repel the animals inexpensively and without killing them.