[BeetleB]

> For example, ranchers who don't want their livestock eaten by wolves that they can't defend against, legally.

I recall listening to NPR one day on this topic, and they pointed out that ranchers lose several orders of magnitude more livestock due to other preventable causes that are mostly in their control. It's not likely they care that much about their livestock.

[tpmoney]

On the other hand this is sort of like saying, you already spend hundreds of dollars on unnecessary entertainment and other discretionary spending so you shouldn't be complaining when a new mandatory "entertainment tax" is established. Whether a business (or a person) is accepting of any given set of losses does not obligate them to be accepting of further losses.

[BeetleB]

Quite an unrelated point. This isn't asking them to spend more on what they're already spending on. It's about them claiming something that isn't true. The data indicates they really don't care that much about their cattle.

[ffgjgf1]

> further losses

Losses that are generally compensated by the government

[tpmoney]

Eminent domain requires the government to compensate you for your losses too, that doesn't usually make people happy about the losses.

[ffgjgf1]

Sheep are generally fungible, land and real estate not so much