[jbotz]

> remember that this is an extremely complex issue

Hmph. No possyfooting. Apex predators are essential for properly functioning ecosystems. We know this know, there isn't any doubt. Want an ecosystem that isn't on the verge of collapse? Introduce some appropriate apex predators. There is no argument. Is the issue complex? Yes, because humans don't like competition in their status as apex predators, and god forbid, a human could be hurt by a wolf, or a famer could lose a few heads of lifestock.

Remember, 97% of terrestrial vertebrate biomass is humans and their livestock. If don't do what's needed to maintain that last 3%, well, then humans and our livestock will soon be 100% of terrestrial vertrbrate biomass.

[ip26]

It’s not ecologically complex, it’s socially complex. Flat out steamrolling the ranchers just because you can is foolish, and will create generations of simmering resentment. Actual governance involves hearing and recognizing their concerns and, where appropriate, addressing them as possible.

[FridgeSeal]

Bearing in mind I’m not American, but isn’t the issue:

- someone wants to be a farmer - we need to destabilise the ecosystem.

One of those is a bit stronger than the other, why is “tough luck, build a fence” not a valid argument? They chose to be out there, they accept the risk and requirements of operating in these conditions. This now includes wolves.

[naravara]

It's not just the building of the fence, it's having to maintain it. Wolves are clever, they can figure out ways around. What's more is livestock need to graze, they can't stay in fenced enclosures at all times, nobody owns that much land. Factory farmed livestock live like that, and we rightly view it as cruel to raise animals that way.

Protecting them would likely require more proactive countermeasures, but that can also be fatal to the wolves which we don't want and will get the ranchers hit with a hefty fine.

The most realistic option is a subsidized insurance or reimbursement scheme if the wolves do take livestock. But then you have all the issues with fraud and perverse incentives to worry about.

[arwineap]

Colorado already has a program like you describe

> Introduced with bipartisan support, the SB23-255 Wolf Depredation Compensation Fund appropriates $525,000 over the next two years to cover livestock losses.

> Under the state’s final plan, ranchers will be compensated for vet bills to treat injured animals, including herding dogs, with up to $15,000 for animal deaths.

Montana has a similar program, which paid out for 97 head last year. Montana is home to over 2 million cattle.

[ip26]

Part of the problem is the ranchers don’t have good tools to repel the wolves. They can’t kill them. Wolves get around fences, kill guard dogs, etc. They are persistent, smart, and learn, so they can learn to defeat traps, and quickly lose their fear of non-lethal deterrence.

You might be tempted to say, ok tough luck then, ranching is just over. But the public does like the product (beef), and ranchers will fight all the harder if your proposal is an existential threat to their way of life.

With time, the loss program, and involvement with wildlife management, hopefully good methods will be found.

If it was as simple as build a fence and tolerate a little risk, we wouldn’t be stuck in this debate.

[perrygeo]

True. But financial markets produce a strong incentive to consume that last 3% as fast as possible, and that's exactly the problem. It has nothing to do with individual farmers, it's a systematic problem.

[aziaziazi]

Last numbers I know (12/2022) are 4% wild, 96% humans and livestock. Not trying to pedantic but if you have another source than this one can you share it ? Those numbers are so close that they seems to consolidate each others.

https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

[jbotz]

The 97%-3% numbers came from the top of my head from an article I read some years ago (so slightly outdated) and obviously these kinds of estimates have a significant error bar, but also the ourworldindata page you link to talks about something slightly different; they talk about all mammals, which includes marine mammals but excludes other vertebrates, like birds and reptiles. My numbers were, at the time, cited (as I stated) as "terrestrial vertebrate biomass", which would exclude marine mammals but include birds and reptiles. I think all birds would be considered terrestrial vertebrates because even penguins have to come on land to breed.

[aziaziazi]

Thanks for the clarification! That makes sense.

[peteradio]

Ya but what if the wolves eat that last 3%?

[pvaldes]

Is a legit concern, but biodiversity does not work like that.

To start, predators block the spreading of diseases that would kill its preys.

Wolves will also reduce the amount of common preys, creating opportunities for the less common preys, will reduce the number of small predators and probably exile them to the frontiers of its territory, will boost tree grow, and will create new temporary ecosystems based on carcasses.

This last can seem gross, but it sustain thousands of invertebrates and help raptors and small vertebrates to survive winter

[naravara]

The comment you're addressing seems like an ecosystem equivalent to what economists call the "lump of labor fallacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

"Lump of biomass" fallacy might be a name for it.

As for the carrion bit, apparently when they returned wolves to Yellowstone, it wasn't just the invertebrates and raptors. Even the bears started putting on weight because the wolves were surplus hunters and would leave a lot of meat lying around for the bears to scavenge before winter.