I've wondered if a reimbursement programme would placate interests. Basically, state insurance on livestock lost to wolves, with a requirement of a wildlife official confirming it was a wolf responsible. Throw in a pre-requirement of suitable fencing, with a tax incentive for the installation costs. My guess is that a given state or province would seldom need to ever actually payout to ranchers.
They do get reimbursed. Ranchers are notorious for defrauding the government for cows "killed by predators". Ranchers are some of the worst scum on earth. Their industry is only viable due to massive government subsidy. They brutalize the environment. They dominate politics in many parts of the west and they're the worst reactionary scum you can imagine. I do not mean "Feed the ranchers to the wolves" metaphorically.
I've wondered if a reimbursement programme would placate interests. Basically, state insurance on livestock lost to wolves, with a requirement of a wildlife official confirming it was a wolf responsible. Throw in a pre-requirement of suitable fencing, with a tax incentive for the installation costs. My guess is that a given state or province would seldom need to ever actually payout to ranchers.
They do get reimbursed. Ranchers are notorious for defrauding the government for cows "killed by predators". Ranchers are some of the worst scum on earth. Their industry is only viable due to massive government subsidy. They brutalize the environment. They dominate politics in many parts of the west and they're the worst reactionary scum you can imagine. I do not mean "Feed the ranchers to the wolves" metaphorically.
fair enough, but do we want to give the wolves a penchant for eating people?
Shouldn't be a problem with ranchers.