Hacker News Reader

Comment by monkeybutton | Hacker News Reader

If it's such a rare occurrence, is there an opportunity for insurance companies to provide solutions instead of the government?

View on HN

I don't think so - because the ranchers would still bear all of the costs of the problem of having wolves exist. Insurance doesn't transfer costs to the whole group that benefits from the existence of wolves. Having the costs come from the public purse seems like a good way to do that fairly. Although in the case of wolves, it seems like politics seem to play as much or more of a role than fairness.

Farmers receive huge services from wolves, maybe they should pay for them also.

Wolves remove wild grazers increasing the amount of pasture available for cattle. Wolves clean scabies in deer, lyme disease, and bovine tuberculosis in wild boars that would otherwise end in the cattle or the farmer. Wolves reduce the coyotes population. Reduce the car accidents against deer crossing the road. Wolves protect trees and allow forests to grow. Without mention that wolves provide huge and easily measurable economical benefits to tourism.

If the money comes from the public purse, they are paying for them also... Seems fair to me.

There's absolutely no evidence for any of the claims you're making.

> There's absolutely no evidence

Maybe you didn't search enough

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?...

Who pays the premiums?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com