Lol the article talks about the reduction in big game animals only as a benefit, but doesn't talk at all about how that might impact the massive hunting tourism industry there. Talk about the irony of the urban vs rural divide...
I think it’s pretty obvious the people that voted for the measure don’t feel the effects of it, just from that quote alone.
So, a bunch of people voted to spend their money to ensure wolves are reintroduced and you are saying they do not feel the effects of it?
Obviously, there is more far reaching consequences than just money, but that means you need to listen to the experts and take their opinion. If it is just majority opinion, it is clear what the opinion is.
Their taxes are being used to pay compensation for wolf kills, from the article that's the price of a single ungrown calf.
The cost to the rancher is, again according to the article, the loss of the full grown cow the calf would grow to AND a reduction (10% ?) in birth numbers and calf weights in the herd overall which witnessed the wolf attack on the calf.
The birth reductions and weight numbers come from agricultural stats which ranchers and farmers keep these past decades, it's a data driven business, and we can hope these are accurately reported.
These claims are being made but they're apparently swamping the compensation fund setup.
Perhaps if they want healthy rivers with more plant growth then they might achieve this by hunting more elk, even using elk bounties, rather than wolves that harrass and stress the herds.
Is it? In other states it comes from the department that oversees fish and game, which is primarily funded from hunting and fishing licenses.
The people with the money voted to approve a measure the hurts the people without money.
People wonder why we have the administration we have.
That's why there's a Senate in the US. So that the rural folks get some kind of voice in these matters when they don't have enough bulk population to matter in the House.
> No, there's a senate to get the small states in the late 18th century to ratify the constitution.
There's nothing really incompatible about these statements. The reason you needed a Senate to get the little states in on the whole deal was precisely the "populous states swamp out the less populous states" problem. I'm pretty sure the rural vs urban divide was already happening even then even if it was smaller in magnitude.
I would love to know more about the statehood population minimum you've referred to. Did some googling and didn't find much so a link would be greatly appreciated.
Everyone can pay their own risk level in insurance, we can remove social security and Medicare and allow for optional private insurance.
Emergency care is tough, but I think it's probably better to let people die than to have someone decide to spend another's money on a third person.
Power transmission for the rural is an issue, and for urban people whose power is generated rurally. But I'm sure the power companies can charge appropriately.
so you're saying Karen should get more votes?
And anyway, why shouldn't 49 deeply invested people get their way over 51 "meh" responses? That's maximizing utility. And this is usually what happens in practice - focused pressure groups, lobbyists etc press their case and get what they want, beating out average public opinion more often then not. Always has been this way.