Hacker News Reader

Comment by archgoon | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it. The article's title is that the ranchers have become allies to jaguars and pumas.

But nothing in the article supports that view. What has changed are cattle ranching practices that reduce the opportunity of attack. Everything that the article talks about is "How did cattle ranchers adapt to an ever present threat of pumas and jaguars without killing them (for reasons that are not well discussed beyond a reference to a government mandate)" rather then "We're best buds now!" or even "We have found utility in the jaguar and puma population that benefits us".

It seems the adapted practices are beneficial on their own, but it sounds like they would be beneficial without jaguars and pumas.

View on HN

If the goal is to maximize ranching, I think you're right. But if the goal is to maximize the economic opportunities in Costa Rica it probably is not the best decision. When I hired a tour guide there he pointed out that Costa Rica could easily install dams to create vast fresh water reservoirs and generate some power as well. But because the country doesn't do this they have ecosystems people come to visit their from around the world. So by choosing not to maximize for one thing they retain another at little to no cost. After all, free flowing rivers don't cost much to maintain.

The tourism industry is important to them. So perhaps by finding a way to co-exist with big cats, it's a net positive to the ranchers because they probably don't want Costa Rica to be a nation with only 1 industry. If they can produce enough beef (or whatever animal they want to raise) to satisfy domestic and export desires then there probably is not much of a need to expand the industry at all costs.

It is this argument, about what benefits the jaguars themselves bring to the farmers, that is unfortunately lacking from the article.

Thank you for the additional context.

Costa Rica already gets almost 100% of its power from renewables. I guess they could create massive dams and then sell the power to nearby countries.

Also, the jaguars and pumas probably deter cattle rustlers.

> In spite of the recent incident, Durán says that since 2018 he’s been able to see the benefits of jaguar conservation on his ranch firsthand. He’s now one of the most active cat defenders. In December 2023, he became a park ranger and helped three former hunters do the same. This transformation is an example of how improving data collection and carrying out interventions based on evidence in the communities benefit both humans and cats.

I guess the point is that ranchers don't blindly hate big cats. They hate suffering large economic losses due to big cats. Once they aren't suffering the losses, they're happy to have the cats around.

But it's just obvious, why we even need to discuss it?

Why would some large group of people just "hate" an animal species, if not for some suffering they experience?

Yes, the title is completely misleading.

What the article seems to suggest is what economists have always known. People react to incentives (and so do animals). Ranchers do not have blind hate for cats but rather care more about their cattle than the cats. By making few changes that are profitable for them cats can co-exist. But that does not make them allies.

Cats are not helping the ranchers in any ways.

Title should be: Electric fences and careful herd management allow coexistence of ranchers and big cats.

Co-existance via intermingling use of hardier water buffalos' with horn within the cow pasture is the key.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com