Sunday, January 29, 2012

Want to Save Endangered Species? Hunt Them

On tonight's show, "60 Minutes" profiled private big-game hunting in Texas, which has become a $1 billion industry and is credited with saving some exotic species that are now extinct in their native lands in Africa. It's a great example of how private property rights and profit-based game hunting give the animals a positive economic value and create strong economic incentives to increase the herds in far greater numbers than if we were to rely on pure altruism. The big-game hunters have become the true "conservationists," and the animal rights activist are not happy about that.

Watch the full segment below:



(CBS News) -- "The scimitar horned oryx . . . the addax . . . the dama gazelle - three elegant desert antelope that you'd hope to see on a journey through Africa, except that their numbers are dwindling there. Which is why Lara Logan went to Texas -- yes, Texas. There, on large grassland ranches, some exotic species that are endangered in the wild have been brought back in large numbers. But there's a catch: a percentage of the herd is hunted every year by hunters who pay big money for a big catch. The ranchers say this limited "culling" gives them the money they need to care for the animals and conserve the species. But animal rights activists don't buy that argument, claiming the hunts are "canned" and that hunting is wholly inconsistent with conservancy."

299 Comments:

At 1/29/2012 9:41 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

It is not the fact that they are hunted that saves them, it is that they are owned and they are valuable.

The owners are selling not only the animal, but the experience of killing, the experience of being outdoors, etc. It is only one possible marketing schemes out of many.

It is the expanded right to own such creatures as property that makes the difference.

But these were wild animals before they were captured and made private. As part of the wild environment, they belonged to all of us, just like the passenger pigeons, and the transition from public proeprty to private property should be accompanied by some payment towards teh public benefit, which will eventually be entirely privatized.

Suppose that payment had to be made for each passenger pigeon taken, either to the government or to a corporation in which people owned pigeon shares.

The corporation might have been more efficient, but either way the price would rise as the pigeons declined. And either way it would not be the hunting that saved them, but the price.

 
At 1/29/2012 9:43 PM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

"hunting is wholly inconsistent with conservancy."

Proof that the antis are woefully ignorant of history. Hunters are the original conservationists.

 
At 1/29/2012 9:54 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

In a libertarian society, should the hunting of humans be allowed, if the hunted agree, given a price and terms?

 
At 1/29/2012 10:35 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Hunters are the original conservationists.


=================================

You mean like they conserved the Passenger Pigeon?

This is complete nonsense as it is well known that hunters have taken many species to extintion.

It is your history that is wrong here.

However the spokesman quoated as saying hunting is wholly inconsistent with conservation is also wrong. But not for historical reasons.

He would be more accurate to say home construction inconsisent with conservation, or highway construction, but certainly not hunting.

Such a statement is a knee jerkl reaction against hunting that makes no more sense than a knee jerk reaction against conservationists.



Clearly MPs hedline is deliberately wrong and intened to stir controversy. But no one in their right mind would suggest that [by itself] hunting is a benefit to endangered species or will save them.

Besides, how long do you think you can keep a large cat on an monthly stipend waiting for slaughter like a cow, before the cycle of dependency ruins his spirit? What you have is the same species, but is it really the same animal?

 
At 1/29/2012 10:37 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

how about we do tigers, lions, elephants and giraffes also?

Last time I heard "we have to kill them to save them", it was Vietnam

what are people who hunt these magnificent animals thinking?

why would someone want to kill them? Where is the pleasure in that?

why would one want to be in the businesses of catering to people who get pleasure from killing endangered species?

 
At 1/29/2012 10:43 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

In a libertarian society, should the hunting of humans be allowed, if the hunted agree, given a price and terms?

Sure. We can call it P-HOP: the People for Hunting Other People

 
At 1/29/2012 10:46 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

In a libertarian society, should the hunting of humans be allowed, if the hunted agree, given a price and terms?

================================

I don't see what the second question has to do with the first.

In what scenario has the hunted EVER agreed to being hunted?

Assume the human owns himself. Does that mean he is allowed to sell himself into slavery?

Why does the question of whether humans should be hunted have anything to do with the price, or whether the hunted participate inthe price (not that it would matter, in the end, you can;t take it with you).

What if Texas decided to save and in fact, raise, money on executions by turning them into hunts. I imagine plenty of people would pay for the privilege.

You think MP would claim that hunting inmates would save some endangered death row inmates?

 
At 1/29/2012 10:49 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

why would one want to be in the businesses of catering to people who get pleasure from killing endangered species?

==================================

1) To keep them from being endangered.

2) Money


Not necessarily in that order.

There is probably some beneficial land use taxation involved, too.

 
At 1/29/2012 10:49 PM, Blogger AIG said...

"how about we do tigers, lions, elephants and giraffes also?
Last time I heard "we have to kill them to save them", it was Vietnam
what are people who hunt these magnificent animals thinking?
why would someone want to kill them? Where is the pleasure in that?"

While I find hunting to be the most ridiculous and disgusting pass-time ever, you are missing the point. The point being that once a market is created, and someone takes ownership of these animals, their survival and expansion is assured.

Of course, this is common sense and proven throughout history. Which animals are the most successful? The ones we eat and the ones we pet :)

PS: If we had killed a few more in Vietnam, we would have saved them (the South) :) let the games begin!

 
At 1/29/2012 10:51 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Oh I have no problem with the idea of "markets".

I just find some kinds of markets as repugnant like selling 11 year old girls to geezers.

 
At 1/29/2012 10:52 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

why would someone want to kill them? Where is the pleasure in that?

================================

Other people get pleasure out of all kinds of things I don't understand. Just because I don't understand, does not mean there is not pleasure involved.

Some people like to drink fermented fish.

 
At 1/29/2012 11:30 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

,,,,,, their survival and expansion is assured.

=================================

Not really.

Consider he Cheetah. Cheetahs are easy to capture and domesticate, but we only recently learned to breed them in captivity. They would have been doomed, had they not survived in the wild.

Pretty hard to capture and breed a Coelecanth, too, I imagine.


But for those critters where it works, it is the ownership that is important, not the hunting.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:04 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Which animals are the most successful? The ones we eat and the ones we pet :)

=================================

Yes, and that worked so well for the Passenger Pigeons.

Then there was the Great Auk
"Once estimated to number in the millions, these huge flightless waterbirds were hunted to extinction by the 1850s. As their numbers dwindled, the price of their pelts and eggs became so valuable that even museums of the time had sanctioned them to be collected, so that their skins could be used for preservation and display.

The effort to wipe the birds out was so systematic that the killing of the last known pair was documented in gruesome detail. On July 3rd, 1844, a hunter named Sigurður Ísleifsson had strangled the last two adults, while his partner Ketill Ketilsson smashed the egg the birds had been incubating with his boot."

Market worked well there, didn't it?

Worked Pretty Well for the Monk Seal, The Quagga, and the Falkland Wolf, too.

Then there was the Sea Mink, the Carolina Parakeet and the Toolache Wallaby, all wiped out by hunters.

The last known example of several animals, including the hartebeest ied in captivity. So much for human protection.

The Stellar Sea Cow was wiped out within 30 years of being discovered.


And the Atlas Bear, which was hunted and captured by the Romans, for the purpose of executing humans.

The Serengeti National park was created because hunters had killed so many lions.


Yep, good old hunters, the original conservationists.


You want to re write some history, Michael? There is plenty here to work with.


I have hunters on my property, but let's not kid ourselves, they are not conservationists, they are predators.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:36 AM, Blogger AIG said...

"Not really.
Consider he Cheetah"

Yes congratulations. You found an exception.

"Yes, and that worked so well for the Passenger Pigeons."

Yes congratulations. You found another exception.

PS: About the cheetah. The point isn't to breed and hold in captivity etc etc. The point is that if a market exists that benefits from them and ownership can be established, then they are likely to succeed.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:38 AM, Blogger Benjamin said...

That's a great idea! Instead of Texas executions, put on Reality TV shows, and the guilty are the hunted. Texas hunters could stalk the guilty inside a fenced and gated preserve, shooting the guilty when they found them!

The ad revenue and price paid by hunters would help defray costs of the execution!

Those Texans have no imagination at all. And lousy food too.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:47 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

What these guys are doing is farming, or more correctly ranching, not hunting. Their customers are doing the hunting. It is a wonderful example of how properly aligned financial incentives can, through the workings of a free market, produce a benefit for both the private parties involved and society as a whole.

Of course, that woman from the animal rights movement is never going to acknowledge that the type of people whom she has always believed to be her moral inferiors could ever succeed in producing an outcome so beneficial to the animals that she and her cocktail party friends have organized to support. To do that would only reveal that she and her fellow travelers are not only not necessary, but that they are actually an impediment to the survival of these animals. What she is really in the business of preserving is her worldview.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:48 AM, Blogger Jackson611 said...

Ted Turner is not a conservationist by any means. He wants to return all of his land to the way it was hundreds of years ago; an act that puts him at environmentalist.

The North American Bison was near extension a century ago after the buffalo hunts. Turner wanted to return the North American bison to his lands. Turner used his money and now owns the largest private bison heard in North America.

Turner also owns "Ted's Montana Grill," the a restaurant which specializes in foods containing bison meat. Turner has touted the benefits of bison in numerous interviews.

Turner cares about the North American Bison and has found a way to sustain the numbers. Turner knows that relying on the wealthy, whose wealth comes and goes as do the charities they support, is not a way to ensure the vitality of a breed. Turner is raising the bison and harvesting them in a sustainable manner and is making a market for the animal, which has led other ranchers to begin raising bison.


@ Hydra:
Passenger pigeons went extinct because hunters over hunted the species in their natural environment. I am from Texas, and trust me when i say, antelope, zebras, and giraffes are not native.

When I walk into KFC I assume that the chicken that is being offered does not come from Pakistan, but instead a hen house from somewhere in America (the American hen house is a non-native environment).

I expect Hydra to point to numerous other species that were hunted to extension hundreds of years ago, before the populace cared about conservation. Those events happened in the past, society and its methods changed.

These hunters are conserving the species so that the hunters can continue to hunt for generations. People benefit society for a variety of personal reasons.

Planned Parenthood was started to actually hurt the black population. Whether or not it is beneficial or should receive federal funding is a different issue, but Sanger started an organization to hurt a certain part of society that now provides a benefit to some part of the populace.

You are attempting to live in a world of white-and-black. The animals that are being hunted in Texas, and relying on wealthy Americans for funding, are thriving. The animals of the same species are struggling in their native lands, where they rely on poor populations or corrupt and inefficient governments to protect them. One method has shown effective, another has not.

By opposing these hunts and making permits nearly impossible to get the lady that is trying to 'protect' the species is actually going to kill it. Wal-Mart doesn't stock product it cannot sell.

100 years from now I hope people that think like you blame this lady instead of the hunters for the extinction of these animals. Highly doubtful, but I can wish.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:50 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"Benji" would make a good wife for a below average Texan.

 
At 1/30/2012 2:05 AM, Blogger Curt said...

The libertarians have been saying for decades that converting something like wild animals from 'the commons' to 'regulated private property' would solve the problem of endangered species - as well as overfishing, water and air pollution.

All commons are tragedies.

 
At 1/30/2012 2:45 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"It is not the fact that they are hunted that saves them, it is that they are owned and they are valuable."

It is the fact that they are valuable to hunters that saves them, and provides the necessary financial incentive to preserve them. Perhaps they would also make good hamburgers, like buffalo and ostriches do now.

"But these were wild animals before they were captured and made private."

That applies to any and every animal, including the ancestors of cows, pigs, chickens, and horses.

"As part of the wild environment, they belonged to all of us..."

What nonsense. You Obviously don't understand original ownership.

"...just like the passenger pigeons, and the transition from public proeprty to private property should be accompanied by some payment towards teh public benefit, which will eventually be entirely privatized."

And, there's that passenger pigeon nonsense again!

"Suppose that payment had to be made for each passenger pigeon taken, either to the government or to a corporation in which people owned pigeon shares."

But the government doesn't own, and never has owned, any passenger pigeons. Nor, is there any corporation that ever owned all the passenger pigeons. Where do you get these strange ideas?

 
At 1/30/2012 2:46 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"This is complete nonsense as it is well known that hunters have taken many species to extintion."

Not those that are privately owned, only those that belong to "everybody. The tragedy of the commons.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:02 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Assume the human owns himself. Does that mean he is allowed to sell himself into slavery? "

No. You cannot give up your will. Only you can will your body to move. You may be highly motivated to do so, and consider it your best choice, but it is you that does it.

As to selling yourself, once you became the property of someone else, so would your money.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:08 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Pretty hard to capture and breed a Coelecanth, too, I imagine."

As they have already been considered extinct, they can't become more endangered. They have no commercial use except for scaring small children.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:16 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Yes, and that worked so well for the Passenger Pigeons.

Then there was the Great Auk...

Market worked well there, didn't it?

Worked Pretty Well for the Monk Seal, The Quagga, and the Falkland Wolf, too.

Then there was the Sea Mink, the Carolina Parakeet and the Toolache Wallaby, all wiped out by hunters.

The last known example of several animals, including the hartebeest ied in captivity. So much for human protection.

The Stellar Sea Cow was wiped out within 30 years of being discovered.

And the Atlas Bear, which was hunted and captured by the Romans, for the purpose of executing humans.
"

Who owned all these species, everybody? I think I see a pattern here.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:24 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Che: "What she is really in the business of preserving is her worldview."

Yes, at as little cost to herself as possible. She came close to saying outright, that if the only way to preserve those species is through private ownership and hunting, then she preferred they not exist at all.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:46 AM, Blogger rjs said...

that hardly would work with an endangered newt...

 
At 1/30/2012 7:49 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

the only "endangered" animals that get "saved" are the ones they want to hunt for the most part.

There are also a number of other endangered animals that they'd like to hunt but won't because the public would find it much more odious than the hoofed animals and widespread condemnation would result that would end up outlawing the practice all together.

Lions, Tigers, Elephants for instance.

Can you imagine 60 minutes showing these animals going down from a high powered rifle while the shooter explains how great it is to "save" the dispatched elephant while chain-sawing off his tusks to to defray the costs?

it's an odious concept and it proves that if it were not for laws and the public conscious that all manner of "markets" would exist from dog fighting to child prostitutes.

you can bet that those who hunt these animals in the wild will now also use the same argument that by hunting them they are saving them.

the concept that anything that has a market value and market demand should exist as a market is not accepted universally and likely never will be except in the wet dreams of die hard libertarians.

Virtually everyone has their limits on "markets" - even some who claim to be libertarian - they wimp out when it gets to the hard core stuff.

It's doesn't take much in the way of imagination to demonstrate all manner of "markets" that most would find unacceptable even if there was "demand".

 
At 1/30/2012 8:48 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I don't see what the second question has to do with the first.

In what scenario has the hunted EVER agreed to being hunted?


What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work.

Hydra, if two people consent to hunt each other for sport, then they would agree on the terms and price (wager of some sort, I'd assume).

Absent of outside interference, a market cannot exist unless both sides consent. So, question is answered immediately: if there is a market, then the two consented.

 
At 1/30/2012 8:52 AM, Blogger Michael Hoff said...

"You mean like they conserved the Passenger Pigeon?

This is complete nonsense as it is well known that hunters have taken many species to extintion.

It is your history that is wrong here."

Yeah, um, no it isn't. Look around at the organizations that bring wildlife back from the brink. In PA, it's the Game Commission. The Passenger Pigeon was done in as much if not more by the chestnut blight and logging as it was by hunting. Deer, turkey, river otters, fishers... all brought back here by hunters.

Try again.

 
At 1/30/2012 8:58 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

how about a hunt for someone sentenced to death and the proceeds of the hunt go to his family and his organs harvested to sell to the highest bidder.

and if the inmate stays alive for 24 hours, he gets his freedom?

I think the point here is that we could conjure up a wide variety of willing seller/willing buyer markets that all but the most ardent libertarians would find objectionable to the point of making them illegal.

What the 60 minutes piece does is portray something that by itself most would find unacceptable as also having a "good" component to it.

And that is good terms of people better understanding that there are often tradeoffs of good and bad but I also think you could push the concept to the point where in most people's minds no amount of "good" is an acceptable trade.

The inmate example was probably over the top but back it down a notch to pit bull dog fighting and they tax it to pay for spay and neuter programs and no-kill shelters.

Would most people find that trade acceptable?

there's an interesting board game called Scruples that poses such ethical dilemmas and the "winner" is the person who best can determine what kinds of things are acceptable to the other players sort of a group consensus approach to the dilemma.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:16 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

About the cheetah. The point isn't to breed and hold in captivity etc etc. The point is that if a market exists that benefits from them and ownership can be established, then they are likely to succeed.

================================

What happened with the cheetah was they became status symbols, and so many of them were taken as pets they went endangered in the wild.


There are a lot moe than two exceptions.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:18 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

What the 60 minutes piece does is portray something that by itself most would find unacceptable as also having a "good" component to it.

=================================

Well, now that is more like it.

That I can accept. It is a whole diferent statement than what is implied in MPs headline.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:26 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

In PA, it's the Game Commission. The Passenger Pigeon was done in as much if not more by the chestnut blight and logging as it was by hunting. Deer, turkey, river otters, fishers... all brought back here by hunters.

Try again.

=================================

Hunters pay fees to the game commission which allow them to hunt and the game comission to control the hunt.

The Game commission was most likely founded not by the hunters but by the government, at the insistence of many people, some of whom were hunters.


As for the pigeeons, it is tre that habitat change was part of the problem: the tree hunters killed off all the trees - and somebody owned them.


As for the rest of the critters it wasn;t that everyobody oned them, it was that no one did. If everybody oned them you would have to buy chits or permits to kill them, and the price of chits would go up as the species needed to be managed. whichis what the Game Commission does: it asserts ownership on behalf of everyone.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:27 AM, Blogger Tom said...

The authoritarians hate freedom, guns, Texas, hunting, success, and whatever else they personally find irritating. They want to impose their twisted, evil will on all of us. The hunting preserves in Texas are a super-combo of everything the tyrants hate.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:30 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Absent of outside interference, a market cannot exist unless both sides consent.

=================================

If I descide to hunt you for sport, what makes you think I need a market? Absent of outside interference, ther is no need for a market, I just take what I want.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:31 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

The authoritarians hate freedom, guns, Texas, hunting, success, and whatever else they personally find irritating. They want to impose their twisted, evil will on all of us. The hunting preserves in Texas are a super-combo of everything the tyrants hate.

=================================

I love a good conspiracy theory.

Let me know when you have one.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:35 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

And that is good terms of people better understanding that there are often tradeoffs of good and bad but I also think you could push the concept to the point where in most people's minds no amount of "good" is an acceptable trade.

================================

And they would be wrong. The tradeoff is always there, whether yo ulike it or not, and whether you agree with the cost or not.

Such decisison are made all the time, but they are not well advertised. This is an example of sharing such knowledge, and the more of it we share the more likely we are to reach a valid market price, as opposed to some kind of scam based on assymetric knowledge.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:39 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

If I descide to hunt you for sport, what makes you think I need a market?

That's different from what is being discussed. What was mentioned as a market where consenting people hunt each other for sport. What you are talking about is a lone wolf situation, or what is called "homicide" in the legal world. See the difference?

 
At 1/30/2012 10:43 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: markets are real and undeniable

agree.

are they or should they be always legal?

ahh... the fly in the ointment rears it's ugly head!

I bet I can name several "markets" that most everyone would find repulsive and unacceptable.

want to have a go at it?

the point?

that just because there can be a market for something - does not mean that people who live in a representative governance will agree to it.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:05 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

I bet I can name several "markets" that most everyone would find repulsive and unacceptable.

What are these markets?

 
At 1/30/2012 11:08 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: "repulsive markets"

dog fighting taxed to pay for spay and neuter clinics.

legal prostitution in exchange for free health care

11 year old girls for geezers who then pay for their college

more? they get worse.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:13 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"You mean like they conserved the Passenger Pigeon?

This is complete nonsense as it is well known that hunters have taken many species to extintion.
"...

Oh dear! A particular type flying feces flinger are hunted to the last one and hydra has his knickers all in a bunch!

How many of God's furry, feathered, or finned creatures have you saved today?...:-)

Lighten up dude!

 
At 1/30/2012 11:25 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Not sure where you're going on the dog-fighting one.

The prostitution one I am unsure as to what you are talking about.

The kiddie porn one is not a market. Not everyone in that situation is consenting (children cannot possibly consent to sexual acts).

I hope, Larry, my question wasn't taken as an abrasive challenge (I realized after I typed it how brash it sounded and I apologize for that). I just want to make sure we are talking about markets. Often, those who object to the market mechanism are not objecting to a market at all. Markets require participants to consent. If something requires force, it is, strictly by definition, not a market.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:32 AM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g all in a snit said: "how about we do tigers, lions, elephants and giraffes also?"...

The Apache ranch fifty miles north of Laredo, Tx has been hosting hunts of those and other African game since the early sixties...

"Last time I heard "we have to kill them to save them", it was Vietnam"...

Ask Mr. Victor Charles how it worked out for them...

"what are people who hunt these magnificent animals thinking?"...

Wow! That hide would look good in the rumpus room...

 
At 1/30/2012 12:04 PM, Blogger FloridaSteve said...

Once again a case of stupid laws causing harm simply because someone feels uncomfortable with free enterprise.

When they are all gone I hope the altruistic fools are secure in their smugness.

 
At 1/30/2012 12:25 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

When they are all gone I hope the altruistic fools are secure in their smugness.

They will be. They will beat their chests and shed crocodile tears and say "We did our best! If only everyone else listened to us and did as we told them, this would have been avoided!" And then they will drive off in their SUVs and continue to act in the very manner that they despise.

 
At 1/30/2012 1:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The kiddie porn one is not a market. Not everyone in that situation is consenting (children cannot possibly consent to sexual acts).
"

" I hope, Larry, my question wasn't taken as an abrasive challenge (I realized after I typed it how brash it sounded and I apologize for that"

and I apologize if I came on too strong myself.

having said that - I think there is a big market in kiddie porn.

and what I asserted is that at some point as an individual or as a society - no matter the "market", it is unacceptable and so we make it illegal - even though if not made illegal.. it would indeed be a viable market.

that was my only point is that most of us have our limits on "markets" except for the most hard core anti-govt libertarian types.

 
At 1/30/2012 1:25 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Juandos, you are an idiot.


Dozens of species have been hunted to extinction or near extinction. Nothing You can changes that.


Some species have also been assisted along the path to extinction by other untamed market forces which destroyed their homes.

I don't give a rats behind about the pigeons, they are gone. But the story they and other extinct species leave behind is contrary to the idea that hunters are the true conservationists.

By the way, I do manage my farm for wildlife protection and my farm is also hunted.

The pigeons concern me less than liars and morons, and I don't worry about them that much either.

The truth is that auks and pigeons we're slaughtered by the millions, and now they are gone. Forever. No amount of insult slinging will make that untrue.

 
At 1/30/2012 1:48 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

It might be a little early to credit the texas hunts with saving some species.

what happens when they go belly up, creative destruction and all that. How will the resources be redeployed for more profitable uses?

 
At 1/30/2012 1:52 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

As to selling yourself, once you became the property of someone else, so would your money.

===================

Ron: so we agree that the second half of the original question was moot.

 
At 1/30/2012 1:54 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

that was my only point is that most of us have our limits on "markets" except for the most hard core anti-govt libertarian types.

I agree with you here, but I think the anti-gov't Libertarian argument (at least, the argument I would make as I am a Libertarian) would then be "if you find it distasteful, don't participate in it."

Of course, the natural response would be "what about kiddie porn" to which I would answer, again, it's not a market. The producer is relying on force to make his product (ie, his employees are unwilling/unable to make a choice). That automatically disqualifies it as a free-market and such an act should be illegal.

 
At 1/30/2012 1:56 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

As they have already been considered extinct, they can't become more endangered. They have no commercial use except for scaring small children.


================================

Huh? they wer thought to be exteict and proven not to be. Considering their habitat we have little idea how properous they are, or whether they have any commercial value. Considering the millions of yers they have been around, they might have learned something we have not.


You don;t think actually being extict is not more endangered than being rare?

 
At 1/30/2012 2:06 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If I descide to hunt you for sport, what makes you think I need a market? Absent of outside interference, ther is no need for a market, I just take what I want."

It's too bad you didn't give this more thought before you published it.

 
At 1/30/2012 2:18 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Juandos, you are an idiot"...

Well hydra coming from the pinnacle of idiocy your comment makes me feel warm all over...

"Dozens of species have been hunted to extinction or near extinction. Nothing You can changes that"...

Oh dear! I guess I'll go to the corner and have a good cry...

"I don't give a rats behind about the pigeons, they are gone. But the story they and other extinct species leave behind is contrary to the idea that hunters are the true conservationists"...

So now we have both hypocrisy and historical ignorance running rampant in one sentence, quite the accomplishment hydra...

Bravo!

"The pigeons concern me less than liars and morons, and I don't worry about them that much either"...

Well now! Aren't you being a bit harsh on your fellow philosophical travelers?

"The truth is that auks and pigeons we're slaughtered by the millions, and now they are gone. Forever. No amount of insult slinging will make that untrue"...

Oh man! Not the auks too?!?!

Yet another reason to have a good cry, eh hydra?

From a 2007 National Geographic article: Trophy Hunting Can Help African Conservation, Study Says

Hunting and conservation is a complicated situation...

 
At 1/30/2012 2:21 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Such decisison are made all the time, but they are not well advertised. This is an example of sharing such knowledge, and the more of it we share the more likely we are to reach a valid market price, as opposed to some kind of scam based on assymetric knowledge."

It would seem the valid market price has already been reached in the case of animals in Texas game preserves. It is what hunters are willing to pay to bag one. Those who value the animals more alive, must be willing to outbid the hunters.

Those who don't think the animals should be in Texas at all, must be willing to outbid those who buy them at their source.

 
At 1/30/2012 2:40 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"11 year old girls for geezers who then pay for their college"

Geez. It's hard to believe 11 year old girls are that expensive.

 
At 1/30/2012 2:42 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "if you find it distasteful, don't participate in it."

re: kiddie porn, child slaves,

who decides that you are too young to be a willing participant in the "markets" and why?

it's not the same around the world - it's laws - created by people who make it illegal - not the lack of demand for it.

In Haiti, for instance, there is a market for kids... and parents will sell their kids... even though there is this pesky law that is often ignored.

Haitian Parents’ Choices for Their Children: Adoption, Slavery or Prostitution?

 
At 1/30/2012 2:56 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Lions, Tigers, Elephants for instance."

Elephants are not exactly endangered in many parts of the world.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:02 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos: "Wow! That hide would look good in the rumpus room..."

LOL Thanks for the dose of reality in this otherwise fairly surreal thread.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:11 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"By the way, I do manage my farm for wildlife protection and my farm is also hunted. "

Then why is it you appear to not understand the concept that private ownership of animals for profit or pleasure protects them, and that animals owned by everyone - or in reality no one - are often doomed, something for which you have provided multiple examples?

 
At 1/30/2012 3:23 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"what happens when they go belly up, creative destruction and all that. How will the resources be redeployed for more profitable uses?"

You have already answered your own question.

"The owners are selling not only the animal, but the experience of killing, the experience of being outdoors, etc. It is only one possible marketing schemes out of many."

Perhaps a fast food chain featuring scimitar horned oryx burgers.

Or, perhaps animal rights activists could actually pool their money to buy them.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Elephants are not exactly endangered in many parts of the world"

uh huh..how about the Indian Elephant? so you think the American public would be okay with having hunting preserves in Texas where Indian Elephants or are hunted to save them?

how about these endangered: " Himalayan Wolf
Kashmir Stag
Batagur baska (Four-toed Terrapin)
Batagur kachuga (Red-crowned Roofed Turtle)
Biswamoyopterus biswasi (Namdapha Flying Squirrel)
Cremnomys elvira (Large Rock-rat)
Crocidura andamanensis (Andaman White-toothed Shrew)
Jenkin's Shrew),
Sumatran Rhinoceros)

think these would cause a flock of hunters to come running to gun down to save?

They've carefully picked species that the public will not widely object to while staying away from species the public would raise holy hell about and probably demand a halt to all of it.

the basic premise is bogus to the bone.

Let me go out on a limb here and say that there will never be a Disney Park where parents take their kids to teach them how to gun down Elephants or Tigers or Lions so the breed can be "saved".

this is at best a dirty little secret... I'm betting the majority of people who saw this on 60 minutes are appalled.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:31 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Ron: so we agree that the second half of the original question was moot."

As it pertains to selling oneself into slavery, yes. But, that wasn't the original question:

"In a libertarian society, should the hunting of humans be allowed, if the hunted agree, given a price and terms?"

There is already a thriving market in humans hunting each other, so the second part of the question is relevant.

 
At 1/30/2012 3:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"uh huh..how about the Indian Elephant? so you think the American public would be okay with having hunting preserves in Texas where Indian Elephants or are hunted to save them?"...

Sure... Why not? There's a lot piano and organ keys in those tusks larry g...

"how about these endangered: blah blah blah "...

Sure! Kill 'em all and let gaia sort it out...

Mass extinctions have happened before...

"think these would cause a flock of hunters to come running to gun down to save?"...

If there's a market in it, its usually worth saving...

"They've carefully picked species that the public will not widely object to while staying away from species the public would raise holy hell about and probably demand a halt to all of it"...

Well what did you expect from 60 minutes of liberal drivel, something actually factual in total context?

"Let me go out on a limb here and say that there will never be a Disney Park where parents take their kids to teach them how to gun down Elephants or Tigers or Lions so the breed can be "saved""...

Well considering who the Disney Parks pander to I wouldn't take kids there either...

"this is at best a dirty little secret... I'm betting the majority of people who saw this on 60 minutes are appalled"...

So you think 60 minutes caters its programming to limp wristed whiners larry g?

 
At 1/30/2012 4:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"who decides that you are too young to be a willing participant in the "markets" and why?"

The child does. Parents don't own their children, but have a responsibility to care for them. When the child demonstrates that they can care for themselves, by leaving their parents home, they are old enough to make all their own decisions, and may be considered consenting adults.

This is probably a pretty rare occurrence among 11 year old girls, but in the past, 15-16 was not unheard of.

In any case, it isn't a chronological age thing. In fact, it seems that some children NEVER become self directing and self sufficient.

"it's not the same around the world - it's laws - created by people who make it illegal - not the lack of demand for it.

In Haiti, for instance, there is a market for kids... and parents will sell their kids... even though there is this pesky law that is often ignored.
"

This isn't peculiar to Haiti, but is common wherever there is extreme poverty, and rare or nonexistent in wealthy countries.

As you have pointed out, laws are ineffective, as desperate people will do what they need to to survive, regardless of the law. Perhaps the answer, instead, is to help people lift themselves out of poverty.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:04 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: 60 minutes and limp-wristed whiners...

is there a market in that?

;-)

re: selling kids caused by poverty

well.. they'd sell them in this country if they could.. I think they call it greed here though.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:06 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"There is already a thriving market in humans hunting each other, so the second part of the question is relevant"...

Yeah ron h and it even has its humerous side: Redneck Paintball Duck Hunting

 
At 1/30/2012 4:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: "let em die".

the truth is that hundreds, thousands of species go extinct for a wide variety of reasons to include hunting - not only by man but by other animals and climate change - the kind that occurs even without mankind inputs.

there have been as Juandos (I think) pointed out, multiple mass extinctions of critters..... long before the two legged kind walked the earth.

there is a lot of ignorance on extinctions... and the vast majority of the critters are not cute nor cuddly nor trophy grade just woods rats or lizards or the like.

If a species is going to go extinct, there's probably not a lot we can do about it in the longer run... we may delay it for a few decades but at the end - the only ones that survive will be in zoos or zoo-like preserves and breeding a few "extras" for target practice is almost irrelevant in the bigger issue though I still think odious in concept.. it's basically bogus in my view playing on the general ignorance of the public in animal extinctions.

If the hunted animals were wart hogs, gila monsters, or hyena's or rattlesnakes.. no one would really complain and no one would really bother to claim that in hunting them, they were preserving them either.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:18 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

re: " Redneck Paintball Duck Hunting "

I bet here in CD limp wrist liberal paintball hunting would be a tremendous smash hit, eh?

;-)

 
At 1/30/2012 4:30 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g says: "well.. they'd sell them in this country if they could.. I think they call it greed here though"...

So now 'greed' is a bad thing, larry g?

Well thankfully that's not a universal idea...

 
At 1/30/2012 4:35 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" larry g says: "well.. they'd sell them in this country if they could.. I think they call it greed here though"...

So now 'greed' is a bad thing, larry g?"

well.. does that mean you think it's okay to sell kids in the US also?

because I'm quite sure people would if they could.

would you the folks who try to do it can do it but only if their income qualifies at the "poverty level"?

saaaayyyy.. is that a way to get dramatic improvement in our urban schools? just sell the kids?

 
At 1/30/2012 4:36 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"uh huh..how about the Indian Elephant?

how about these endangered: " Himalayan Wolf
Kashmir Stag
Batagur baska (Four-toed Terrapin)
Batagur kachuga (Red-crowned Roofed Turtle)
Biswamoyopterus biswasi (Namdapha Flying Squirrel)
Cremnomys elvira (Large Rock-rat)
Crocidura andamanensis (Andaman White-toothed Shrew)
Jenkin's Shrew),
Sumatran Rhinoceros)
:"

As juandos asked, "What have YOU done today to save any of these species?"

I doubt that many people would be interested in hunting very many of the animals you listed. Perhaps they are good to eat, or fun to look at in something resembling their natural habitat.

Those like you, who cry about endangered species, need to step up to your responsibility to pay for their protection in some way.

As with people selling children, people who are desperately poor will do what is necessary to survive, including capturing or killing native endangered species for food or money. You can't effectively legislate against that. Your job is to figure out how to make these animals more desirable in their native habitat, then dead or shipped elsewhere by providing financial incentives to people that live with these animals.

"They've carefully picked species that the public will not widely object to while staying away from species the public would raise holy hell about and probably demand a halt to all of it."

No, they have carefully picked species that are desirable to hunters willing to spend big bucks to hunt them.

"the basic premise is bogus to the bone."

Privately property has value to the owner, and will be protected. Public property - the commons - will not.


"Let me go out on a limb here and say that there will never be a Disney Park where parents take their kids to teach them how to gun down Elephants or Tigers or Lions so the breed can be "saved".

You are being obtuse.

"this is at best a dirty little secret... I'm betting the majority of people who saw this on 60 minutes are appalled."

There is nothing secret about it. Maybe you should check the comments at YouTube, which are mostly positive.

If these folks raised white tailed deer for hunting would you still be appalled? What about raising cattle for food? What exactly are your ethics on this?

 
At 1/30/2012 4:41 PM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

One thing that I think is getting lost here is this:

No one is saying that species haven't been hunted to extinction. Of course they have.

What we are talking about is creating property rights in order to protect these animals. When hunters are fully responsible for the costs as well as the benefits, then there is a much greater incentive to conserve. If one can only hunt in a 1 square mile area, you can bet he'll do his best to keep that area stocked with animals and protect it from poachers. This is all we are talking about. So, can we please drop these stupid strawman attacks?

 
At 1/30/2012 4:43 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"well.. they'd sell them in this country if they could.. I think they call it greed here though."

Who is "they"? I don't believe I would sell my kids, would you sell yours? Do you know anybody who would?

How about a link to support that statement even a little bit, or - you could just admit you pulled it out of your ass.

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously!

 
At 1/30/2012 4:43 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"it's basically bogus in my view playing on the general ignorance of the public in animal extinctions"...

Well larry g thanfully your view is in the minority and the reasoning if you had read the National Geographic link would show you why...

"If the hunted animals were wart hogs, gila monsters, or hyena's or rattlesnakes.. no one would really complain and no one would really bother to claim that in hunting them, they were preserving them either"...

Yet again larry g takes a blind shot at reality and misses...

All those animals are hunted...

Gila monsters and rattlers are prized for their venmon...

Hunting wild boar has long been a sport for sporting hunters...

Heck! I've been hunting 'feral' hogs all last year in St. Francois county and have spent a small fortune in recycling ammo brass...

 
At 1/30/2012 4:43 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" If these folks raised white tailed deer for hunting would you still be appalled? What about raising cattle for food? What exactly are your ethics on this? "

I do not have a problem with raising animals for food.

I have a problem with how they are treated but that's another issue.

I have no problem with people who hunt for food.

I would allow people who truly hunt for food - to hunt year round as long , as they are truly harvesting the meat and not trying to give it away.

I would have no problem with using darts with birth control for species that no longer have natural predators and we don't want to reintroduce wolves or the like to control them.

the premise behind "saving" animals by providing hunting opportunities to those who basically get pleasure from killing is sick in my view.

I've participated in killing and slaughtering hogs for food and let me tell you - anyone who finds that "fun" is sick.

I've hunted deer and participated in gutting and butchering them and again.. anyone who finds that "fun" has got some issues in my view.


It's not fun for pigs and it's not fun for wild animals either in my opinion.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:45 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

Mom arrested for trying to sell baby for $7,000

 
At 1/30/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" "If the hunted animals were wart hogs, gila monsters, or hyena's or rattlesnakes.. no one would really complain and no one would really bother to claim that in hunting them, they were preserving them either"..."

Juanos, did you not understand?

I said people do hunt and there are no complaints and there are no pious claims of saving them either.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:47 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos: "Yeah ron h and it even has its humerous side: Redneck Paintball Duck Hunting"

LOL! Oh, that's great! Thanks.

 
At 1/30/2012 4:48 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"well.. does that mean you think it's okay to sell kids in the US also?"...

I don't even like kids so I wouldn't sell them...

I'd give money for someone to take them off my hands 'if' I had any...

Life is to short to waste any part of it on the care and feeding of human larvae...

 
At 1/30/2012 4:50 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"I said people do hunt and there are no complaints and there are no pious claims of saving them either"...

Wrong again as usual...

You got to get out more boy...

 
At 1/30/2012 4:54 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I'd give money for someone to take them off my hands 'if' I had any"

now you're talking!

we don't need no mo stikin kids...

 
At 1/30/2012 4:55 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"LOL! Oh, that's great! Thanks"...

Hey ron h we rented one of those air mattress thingies last summer ($110/day including tax and blower motor) and it was worth it...

I'm guessing (there was dozen of us) we went through $500 worth of paintball ammo in a single weekend...

We're going to do it again this year...

 
At 1/30/2012 5:03 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Well larry g maybe you and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson have some common ground...

 
At 1/30/2012 5:07 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"If the hunted animals were wart hogs, gila monsters, or hyena's or rattlesnakes.. no one would really complain and no one would really bother to claim that in hunting them, they were preserving them either."

Does that mean that there are animals you like, and animals you don't care for, and your preference should determine whether hunting them is appalling or not?

What is there about scimitar horned oryx that make them special, in your view?

 
At 1/30/2012 5:23 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Does that mean that there are animals you like, and animals you don't care for, and your preference should determine whether hunting them is appalling or not?"

not me - the public

What is there about scimitar horned oryx that make them special, in your view?

only that their "value" for killing is in my view sick and perverted because it's not for meat or "venom" or other useful animal product but the pleasure of killing.

it's purely for pleasure - the pleasure of killing something and as I related.. I've hunted and killed deer/rabbit/squirrel and butchered ...shot hogs with a 22 between the eyes, then chained them up with the hind legs and gutted them over top a galvanized tub ...

and my view is that anyone who thinks this is pleasurable is someone who has a very different idea about it than I do...

I'd describe it in a number of ways but "pleasure" is not one of them.

 
At 1/30/2012 5:37 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I don't even like kids so I wouldn't sell them...

I'd give money for someone to take them off my hands 'if' I had any...

Life is to short to waste any part of it on the care and feeding of human larvae...
"

Well then, what the eff is your complaint about selling kids? Do you even know?

 
At 1/30/2012 5:51 PM, Blogger Ken said...

All those who say that hunting is disgusting and eat meat, use leather, etc are pussies. You want the benefits of hunting without actually doing the hunting, then like the effete scumbags you are claim an air of superiority over the people that kill for you or for themselves.

 
At 1/30/2012 5:51 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"not me - the public"

You have no idea what the public likes or doesn't like.

"only that their "value" for killing is in my view sick and perverted because it's not for meat or "venom" or other useful animal product but the pleasure of killing."

What about deer hunting? Is that OK?

What if the hunter actually wants to butcher an oryx for meat, a magnificent head on his wall, and that great hide in the rumpus room? Is it OK then?

"It's purely for pleasure - the pleasure of killing something and as I related.. I've hunted and killed deer/rabbit/squirrel."

Was that for food, or just to shoot little animals because you could?

"...and butchered ...shot hogs with a 22 between the eyes, then chained them up with the hind legs and gutted them over top a galvanized tub ..."

That's great! You, unlike some people, know where that yummy bacon comes from. Did your experience cause you to quit eating meat for ethical reasons? Is it now OK for other people to do that dirty work for you?

There seems to be something strangely inconsistent about your claims, and I can't quite figure out what it is.

You know, it's fashionable to be "appalled" at the killing of animals. Could that be what it is?

 
At 1/30/2012 5:59 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

For the record, If the Texas hunt farms can make money at it, good for them.

Lets just not make it something it isn't.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:02 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

here's what I recommend. Go to a slaughterhouse for a tour or go to a poultry processing plant for a tour... or go to a farm and help them slaughter.

how many here have actually chopped the head off a chicken here and then plucked the feathers off and cut and clean it then eat it? skinned and gutted a rabbit or squirrel then ate it?

once you actually do this or watch it being done - if you think this is pleasurable then so be it.

I strongly suspect that few except those who are "sketchy" would call it an enjoyable experience.

Is shooting a pig between the eyes with a gun ..."fun". it was not for me... the pig knew bad stuff was about to happen.

why is killing the animal fun for some folks? I did not find it fun at all even though I did it because it was food to eat.

gutting the pig.. then dipping the carcass in scalding water and scraping off the hair and hide was also bunches of fun - not!

So that ought to be the rule at that Texas ranch, eh?

You shoot - you butcher and field dress and take home to eat, eh?

fair enough?

 
At 1/30/2012 6:08 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Well then, what the eff is your complaint about selling kids? Do you even know?"...

Well ron h I do have problem when selling children (not for adoption purposes) is for reasons of slavery...

That bothers me more than I can explain...

I just can't wrap my head around slavery for some reason...

 
At 1/30/2012 6:10 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I just can't wrap my head around slavery for some reason... "

gee..isn't there some sort of theory about natural rights?

 
At 1/30/2012 6:13 PM, Blogger juandos said...

larry g apparently has a bit of a weak stomach: "how many here have actually chopped the head off a chicken here and then plucked the feathers off and cut and clean it then eat it? skinned and gutted a rabbit or squirrel then ate it?"...

Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt...

Summer of '61 when I was ten I was swing a six pound maul onto the heads of steers to stun them for further processing...

Queasy at first? Yeah but the taste of well grilled steak took care of that little detail...

 
At 1/30/2012 6:14 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"gee..isn't there some sort of theory about natural rights"...

Google it and find out larry g but for me its a personal issue...

 
At 1/30/2012 6:19 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Queasy at first? Yeah but the taste of well grilled steak took care of that little detail... "

did you find it enjoyable and pleasurable enough that you just like to do it for fun in your spare time?

did you buy all sorts of special gear so you were properly equipped to do it?

did you hang the steer heads up in your Den?


;-)

 
At 1/30/2012 6:26 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Then why is it you appear to not understand the concept that private ownership of animals for profit or pleasure protects them,

===============================

Do you ever read anything? I never said it didn't. I agree, in fact, up to a point. We ought to find more ways to have private ownership, or to treat public ownership on a more individual basis.

What I disagreed with was the idea that it was hunting that saved the animals, rather than the ownership.

Then I disagreed with the idea that hunters are the true conservationists, because history does not support that idea.

And Then I suggested that the game commission amounst to a form of ownership in which they charge hunters fees, not unlike the Texas hunts, and this simply represents a different kind of ownership.

I suggest, that as a governemtn entity the Game commission might not be the best manager. If they are managing wildlife that belongs to everyone, then I would prefer that everyone get chits representing stock in the herd. Then let the market manage. Hunters would have to buy enough chits to represent one head before they could hunt. Conservationists could refuse to sell their chits, but they would have to absorb the opportunity loss. Game Commission would still have some say, because they issue the chits, and people who support tht sport could make some money off of the use of "THEIR" resource.

Everything is owned, game is protected, and everyone is happy, happy ,happy.

I also suggest that wild game kept as livestock, and depending on handouts and protection, until they are shot, may not be wild game very long.

If someone wants to raise elephants and hen have someone pay him to shoot one, well, I think they are both nutty as a fruit cake, but I don't think they should be stopped just because it is disgusting. Not my elephant, not my land, not my bullet, not my business until the elephant offal stinks up my house.

Someone wants to kill their unborn child, I may think they are nuts too, but it is not my business to set their moral standard.


However, as Larry points out, there are limits.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:28 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You shoot - you butcher and field dress and take home to eat, eh?"

What nonsense. The animal is just as dead no matter the feelings of the hunter.

"If you don't need the meat, you can't hunt here."

You can't make this about necessity, no matter what you demand.

The issue, in case you've forgotten, is that, private ownership protects the environment, including animals. Common ownership doesn't. Period.

I personally prefer that someone else provide my meat in a package in the store, or on a plate at my table, only because I'm not any good at doing it myself, and I can be more productive trading what I do well, for what someone else does well. We all benefit from division of labor.

You may not like it, but you are genetically hardwired to hunt and kill animals for food. You may find it "appalling", but there it still is, even if most people don't still need to hunt to survive.

In earlier times, you would be thrilled when that animal lay dead at your feet because your family group would get to eat.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:32 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"We're going to do it again this year..."

What fun! Is there a limit to how many you can bag? This sounds like an activity that goes well with beer.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:33 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You want the benefits of hunting without actually doing the hunting,

===============================
Umm, well yes.

Its a free market: that is why we have butchers.

Nothing says I can't eat meat and not like killing.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:34 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" You may not like it, but you are genetically hardwired to hunt and kill animals for food. You may find it "appalling", but there it still is, even if most people don't still need to hunt to survive. "

well you are genetically wired to do quite a few things but I was differentiating between doing what you have to do to survive and eat and what you do for optional pleasure.

and I make the point that killing animals is not normally pleasurable for most of us even though some will actually pay money to kill animals even if they don't eat them.

yes. I find that concept repulsive.

and I find a business based on that concept - appalling - even if the "package" it as "saving" animals.

the act of killing an animal is not a pleasurable act in my book.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:36 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:39 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I would have no problem with using darts with birth control for species that no longer have natural predators and we don't want to reintroduce wolves or the like to control them."

I don't think the scimitar horned oryx ever had natural predators in Texas, but that's beside the point. They are there to be hunted. The money from hunting pays for the preservation of the rest of them.

 
At 1/30/2012 6:50 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

As juandos asked, "What have YOU done today to save any of these species?"

I doubt that many people would be interested in hunting very many of the animals you listed.

=================================

What I have done is my two cents wrth to dispel the lie that hunters save endangered species.

Ownership I don;t have a problem with. hunters I don;t have a problem with. Lies, I have a problem with.


All of the animals I mentioned were in fact hunted to extiction. We even knoe the names of some of the persons who killed the last remaining example.

They were hunted for food, for fat, for feathers, for fur. At leas one was hunted to extictinction because it was believed to be involved in sorcery. And some were killed because it was believed they killed livestock.

There might have been a solution to that problem that did not involve exticntion. In any case, all of those creatures wee hunted off the planet. As interesting as they might have been, we will never know.

Here is what we know:
1) We are capable of hunting animals to extinction.
2) We have done it more than once.
3) If we keep that up, we will eventually extinguish all the wild animals.
4) Then we will slap ourselves on the back and say, "Good job, Survival of the fittest, thats the way the market works, boy."

 
At 1/30/2012 6:57 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

The money from hunting pays for the preservation of the rest of them.

=================================TrTrue enough, but the hunters did not save the animals. It took a system that involved ownership,and protection of that ownership. That protection includes protection against those who think the activity should be abolished just because they find it disgusting.


Left to their own devices, with no sysem of restraint, the hunters will exterminate the animals, as we have seen over and over again.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:00 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Well larry g maybe you and the Rev. Ken Hutcherson have some common ground..."

Oh wow. Another dufus with too much time on his hands, and no understanding of economics.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:00 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If the hunted animals were wart hogs, gila monsters, or hyena's or rattlesnakes.. no one would really complain......

===============================

Oh, I think you are wrong.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:08 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

" You may not like it, but you are genetically hardwired to hunt and kill animals for food.

================================

Not a proven statement and one that is demonsrably weak, if not false.

If we were genetetically hardwired to hunt and kill, we would be out doing it even if we don't have to.

It is probably more accurate that we are programmed to ingratiate ourselves with those that do this for us.

And, we actually subsist better on grains and fruit.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:13 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"What I disagreed with was the idea that it was hunting that saved the animals, rather than the ownership."

You are being extremely obtuse today. The ownership only happened because there was a way - hunting - to finance the operation. Without hunting, those animals in question would still be in zoos.

Yes the ownership saved them, but no, it wouldn't have happened without hunters.

Most successful enterprises can thank their customers for that success.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:15 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Most successful enterprises can thank their customers for that success"

indeed. when the geezer gets TWO 11 year girls for the price of one..they are very appreciative and yes those businesses do thank those customers.

they aim to please.

next up - the man-boy love "business", eh?

remember.. if there is a market for it..it's gotta be good and right.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:16 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

let me see.. do I want to go play paintball or kill some steers with a sledge hammer or hunt some rare hoofed critters?

hmmm..

tough choice.. let me ask around and take a "head count" of my buds.

I know Ron and Juandos will go for the steer slaughtering..right?

that dang paintball is for those effete limp wrist dufuses, eh?

yessir.. give me a load of real blood and guts any day over playing hide and seek with inflated boulders, or playing shootem up with weird African critters...

 
At 1/30/2012 7:17 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" I don't think the scimitar horned oryx ever had natural predators in Texas."

even if they introduced lions and tigers, hyennas.. wolves.. to compete with the hunters and they could sell "real" African-style Safaris?

That would be cool, eh?

I mean they could advertise that they were "savings" a whole crapload of species that way, eh?

They could offer Roosevelt Style hunts complete with native spear chuckers, eh? More JOBS!

Course you'd not call them that.. you'd call them "authentic trackers".

I could see them busting their butts to get Obama down there, eh?

 
At 1/30/2012 7:18 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Do you ever read anything?"

I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I do tend to skip over your comments when you start writing about nonsense like everyone getting shares for individual ownership of various common goods. It's a waste of my time.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:20 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Not a proven statement and one that is demonsrably weak, if not false. "

Well, demonstrate it then.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:22 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Turner is raising the bison and harvesting them in a sustainable manner and is making a market for the animal, which has led other ranchers to begin raising bison.

==================================

This makes me laugh. Show me his books and then tell me what he has done is susainable and does not depend on his wealth.

There is a farm near me that claims to sell organic poultry sustainably, but that farm is suppoerted by a huge communications fortune.

If it had to make it on its own farm proceeds, it would not last a week, and neither could Ted Turners Ranches.

I applaud what he has done, and I eat Bison, but don't make me laugh about sustainability. Show me the budget that says he can sell enough bison to pay for the land they are standing on.

If that was the case, people would be standing in line to grow bison, wouldn't they?

 
At 1/30/2012 7:28 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

there are many bison farms besides Turners and they are raised for their meat not to "protect" the species.

http://www.eatbisonmeat.com/webapp/GetPage?pid=56

 
At 1/30/2012 7:31 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

when you start writing about nonsense like everyone getting shares for individual ownership of various common goods.

=================================

You have shares in Mcdonalds?

What is the difference? Beef is about as common as it gets. Thousands of people get a share of the money Mcdonalds pays for beef

The only difference is the declaration and protection of ownership. Right now, in PA it is done by the game comission on behalf of the common owners.

You think the centrally organized game commission can do a better job than thousands of individual owners?


Are they common goods because no one owns them or are they "goods" because they are in fact good, and we all have an interest in them?

The point here is that onership is better than nonownership, and I am just suggesting there may be other means of ownership.

Do you have a better idea, or is it that you see this leads to cap and trade? I imagine those texas ranches ahve to set some kind of cap on the hunting they allow.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:36 PM, Blogger juandos said...

So larry g now that you've yet again shown that your grasp of simple economics and market princples are less than nil its time for the 'strawman fling', eh?

"yessir.. give me a load of real blood and guts any day over playing hide and seek with inflated boulders, or playing shootem up with weird African critters"...

Apparently the people who spawned you didn't think very highly of inculcating their progeny with responsibility and self-reliance, eh?

 
At 1/30/2012 7:38 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

there are many bison farms besides Turners

=================================

There are many of lots of kinds of farms besides bison farms.

Almost NONE of them are sustainable on their own income.

If you cannot earn enough money from the profit off the farm to pay for the land it sits on in 25 or 30 years, then the farm is not sustainable. It only exosts because of outside income (Charity) or because it is a sunk cost (the land was inherited).

 
At 1/30/2012 7:38 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

does that mean you choose the steer slaughtering over paintball?

they're both "economic" right?

problems?

 
At 1/30/2012 7:49 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Most successful enterprises can thank their customers for that success.


=================================

And all this time I thought it was he one percenters that created success.



You ae being obtuse. In this case you have a system of owners, government that protects ownership, and you have hunters, animals and land.

Without the system in place, the hunters would go in and decimate the animals. The owners institute a a cap and trade plan, and the governmnet shoots anyone who trespasses.


All I am suggesting is that this might not be the only system that works, but we know one system that doesn't work, and that is to let the hunters have free reign.


I might also point out that there are safari ranches where the hunters shoot only cameras. Those places must also have some means of culling the animals, but they don't talk about it.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:53 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

does that mean you choose the steer slaughtering over paintball?

they're both "economic" right?

problems?

================================

If it was up to me I would have steers and paintball. maybe Bison or bears and paitball, to liven things up. with Both of them I maight make some money.

But the problem is that I am only zoned for agriculture, so paintball, wild animal shooting and anything not strictly agriculture is verboten.

 
At 1/30/2012 7:56 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Well, demonstrate it then.

=================================

for a species genetically hardwired to kill, very few actually do so.

The wiring must have shorted out somewhere.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:50 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"remember.. if there is a market for it..it's gotta be good and right."

No, but if there's a market for it, someone will supply it.

 
At 1/30/2012 10:54 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

Me: "I don't think the scimitar horned oryx ever had natural predators in Texas.""

you: "even if they introduced lions and tigers, hyennas.. wolves.. to compete with the hunters and they could sell "real" African-style Safaris? "

Another perfect example of you not reading well.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"there are many bison farms besides Turners and they are raised for their meat not to "protect" the species."

As long as there is a market for buffalo meat, they won't go extinct. Neither will cattle.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:12 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Threw was a marker for auk and sea cows. Hunters killed the last one of each, dot immediate profit over sustainability.

 
At 1/30/2012 11:20 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

They will go extinct in spite of demand if you cannot afford to raise them.

The minimum cost to raise may exceed what the market will pay.

We have a phrase for it: no sale.

 
At 1/31/2012 12:15 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You have shares in Mcdonalds?

What is the difference? Beef is about as common as it gets. Thousands of people get a share of the money Mcdonalds pays for beef
"

Wait! Wait! There's no scrap of intelligence there. Please rewrite it so it comes closer to making sense.

" The only difference is the declaration and protection of ownership. Right now, in PA it is done by the game comission on behalf of the common owners."

The game commission is not allocating shares of common goods. You are off the rails here. How would I exercise my shares to vote against hunting?

"You think the centrally organized game commission can do a better job than thousands of individual owners?"

No I don't. Incentives matter.

"Are they common goods because no one owns them or are they "goods" because they are in fact good, and we all have an interest in them?"

They are common goods because they are goods owned in common by everyone, so that invariably, we see the resulting tragedy of the commons.

"Do you have a better idea, or is it that you see this leads to cap and trade? I imagine those texas ranches ahve to set some kind of cap on the hunting they allow."

My better idea is that everything should be privately owned, and there would be no common goods that must be controlled and administered by central planning. If you understood the concept of original ownership, you would better understand why this should be so.

"for a species genetically hardwired to kill, very few actually do so.

The wiring must have shorted out somewhere.
"

Division of labor, and the advent of farming and raising animals for food, has very recently in human history made it unnecessary for each of us to hunt and kill our own dinner.

"If we were genetetically hardwired to hunt and kill, we would be out doing it even if we don't have to."

Duh, what do you think this post is about?

"It is probably more accurate that we are programmed to ingratiate ourselves with those that do this for us."

You mean like cozying up to lions and hyenas?

"And, we actually subsist better on grains and fruit. "

Now THAT is a demonstrably weak, if not false statement. Do you really believe that all the many arrowheads, spearpoints, stone knives and scrapers, found at archaeological sites where prehistoric humans lived were used to hunt fruit and grain?

It must have been a much more hostile environment than I imagined.

Likewise, how would you explain the many charred animal bones found at these same sitesd that appear to have been scraped and smashed perhaps as part of someones dinner?

Without eating meat, early human ancesters might not have developed into us.

 
At 1/31/2012 12:15 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 1/31/2012 12:26 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Without the system in place, the hunters would go in and decimate the animals. The owners institute a a cap and trade plan, and the governmnet shoots anyone who trespasses."

No, the owners do that. The government shows up after the fact to write a report.

Are you aware that many hunters form groups and buy property for just this purpose, to provide themselves with sustainable hunting?

The problem with decimating the animals is private vs public ownership.

 
At 1/31/2012 12:35 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Threw was a marker for auk and sea cows. Hunters killed the last one of each, dot immediate profit over sustainability."

Who owned these animals?

"They will go extinct in spite of demand if you cannot afford to raise them.

The minimum cost to raise may exceed what the market will pay.
"

Then that's a bad business model. maybe they *should* go extinct if they aren't valuable enough to anyone, for any reason at all. Apparently no one cares enough.

 
At 1/31/2012 12:43 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"But the problem is that I am only zoned for agriculture, so paintball, wild animal shooting and anything not strictly agriculture is verboten."

But this is the government you think knows best protecting the common interest, by telling you what you can do or not do with your own property, because someone else wants it that way, isn't it?

 
At 1/31/2012 5:13 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" Another perfect example of you not reading well."

ha ha ha...

as opposed to you?

:-)

reading for you is dangerous for the rest of us, I can tell you.

 
At 1/31/2012 5:57 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

" As long as there is a market for buffalo meat, they won't go extinct. Neither will cattle"

and we don't hunt them to save them either, eh?

Maybe we should add scimitar horned oryx to the list of domesticated animals grown for food?

After all, in doing that, we'd certainly "save" the species, right?

then we could have "hunt your own meat and save them from extinction farms", eh?

re: " No, but if there's a market for it, someone will supply it."

really? how about "try" and end up in prison for trying?

see..you dunderheads don't seem to grasp the realities even as you blather on about what you believe.

You guys remind me of Beavis and Butthead sans the brain sometimes.

robotic libertarians...

just need a source of fuel.. and you're good to go....

 
At 1/31/2012 8:59 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Maybe we should add scimitar horned oryx to the list of domesticated animals grown for food?

=================================

Probably not too dissimilar to what happened with Cattle. They were once wild, Were probaly partiall cared for (protected from predators), before they became domesticated. Even in the west, they were free range and "ownership" was little more than a brand.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:00 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

but then the hunters would no longer want to "save" them, eh?

 
At 1/31/2012 9:24 AM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Saving organisms in zoos or on ranches can preserve a few species, especially large mammals, but the more important problem is preserving threatened ecosystems. Reserves seem to be the best solution at this point. Most are public, but a few private reserves turn a profit. The U.S. set the standard for modern times when Teddy Roosevelt set aside large tracts in the American West.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:35 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

But this is the government you think knows best protecting the common interest, by telling you what you can do or not do with your own property, because someone else wants it that way, isn't it?

=================================

Not at all. Again, you are too busy arguing to read and consider.


There is a need for government. There is a need for government to do its job better and more equally. To do this government needs to addopt a golden rule standard or a hippocratic standard: Do no harm: treat people equally.

They need an attitude that says one neighbors protection cannot exceed the damage another neighbor incurs to provide that protection. They need to undeerstand thee is no public benefit, unless the winners can fairly compensate the losers, and still come out ahead.

Where we disagree is that I believe that such and outcome is possible (even if rare), and you apperently think the goovernment is forever and always a total failure.

How do you achive a truly balanced government? You establish market based regulations.

The government has lost sight of its central mission: to protect people and property and promote the general welfare, and defend Liberty. As a result, it protects some better than others, and the feedback loop to correct such problems is too slow, and too indirect. We have become a nation of Hurricane Carters, where it takes a lifetime or more to identify and correct injustices.

In my area there is a lively debate about what non-agricultural or agricultural related activites whould be allowed. One case is about to come to the state supreme court. It is a long slow way to fix a problem that Coase would have solved through some sort of bidding.

But, Paint Ball is probably not going to be part of that debate for the same reason some object to canned hunts: it is distatesteful to them. My problem is not with government, per se, but with the fact that government has failed to develop a dispassionate method of continuously re-evaluating and re-adjusting regulation to achieve the highest benefit at lowest cost.

Now, the Auk had some value, which could have multiplied over time, but it is gone forever. Therefore, one cannot very well argue that no regulation and extinction could possibley have been the lowest cost option.

Extinction is not a good business model.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:51 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Then that's a bad business model. maybe they *should* go extinct if they aren't valuable enough to anyone, for any reason at all. Apparently no one cares enough.

================================

Surely you don't expect anyone to take that seriously.

Are you talking about leting the hunt farms go extinct? They have a business model, animals don't. The Oryx has no more choice in the markt than a child pron victim.

What you are suggesting is that only economically important animals are worth having. You assume that an animal not important now will never be important, which suggests a discount rate near zero. It suggests an attitude in which we are free to zero out any resource, renewable or not, without regard to the future and its net present worth.

In other words, you would be OK with an orginazation that manages things in a way that lowers the general welfare.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:56 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Saving organisms in zoos or on ranches can preserve a few species, especially large mammals, but the more important problem is preserving threatened ecosystems.

=-============================

Zachriel is correct. Considering only economically viable animals as worthy of existence ignores whole systems that may have economic value.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:00 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

"There was a marker for auk and sea cows. Hunters killed the last one of each, for immediate profit over sustainability."

Who owned these animals?

==================================

Precisely the point. The hunters are not the true conservationists. It takes some other system of protection, in this case ownership. Which is what I said in post one. Glad you finally agree.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:07 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

if they aren't valuable enough to anyone, for any reason at all. Apparently no one cares enough.

================================

It is not valuable enough to me to go out and pick up highway trash, but it is valuable enough that I contribute for someone else to do it for me. That is why organizations can do things individuals cannot, and why it is a mistake to think that only individuals count: they woud be a lot worse off without the organizations they depend on.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:14 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

No, the owners do that. The government shows up after the fact to write a report.

=================================

Same difference. The report exonerates the owners and puts other potential trespassers on notice. Otherwise you have reprisals and blood feuds. One way or another some organization ( the biggest tribe or whatever) is going to step in and enforce the idea that trespassing and rustling is not allowed. Whoevr does that is the de facto government.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:23 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

The problem with decimating the animals is private vs public ownership.

=================================ThAt is either mistaken or a lie. the problem with decimating the animals comes from no ownership, not public ownership, or as I have suggested dispersed ownership.


Yes, hunters are part of the public, and they can do anything anyone else in the public can do. They are free to create reserves and set their own cap on the cull.

They also contribute to the PA game commission which works on behalf of the public, of which the hunters are part.

But hunters buy and lease hunting land, in order to guarantee rights which others are less likely to grant for free. the Auk is one reason why.

With no organization and no government and no rules, the aimals would be exterminated. The fact thatt some hunters (now) have self imposed rules doesn;t make them the true conservationists, all of a sudden.

 
At 1/31/2012 3:04 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"re: " No, but if there's a market for it, someone will supply it."

really? how about "try" and end up in prison for trying?
"

You need to think, if you can, before you write this nonsense. Are illegal drugs readily available? How about prostitution? It has always existed, and always will. Was booze readily available during prohibition?

If there's a market, there's a supplier.

 
At 1/31/2012 3:13 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How do you achive a truly balanced government? You establish market based regulations."

Yawn...I can stop reading at this point.

"Now, the Auk had some value, which could have multiplied over time, but it is gone forever. Therefore, one cannot very well argue that no regulation and extinction could possibley have been the lowest cost option."

Exactly what value did the Auk have? Please be specific. If enough people had valued them at the time, they would have been saved. Apparently extinction *was* the lowest cost solution.

 
At 1/31/2012 3:25 PM, Blogger juandos said...

hydra still trying morph his delusions into fact: "Precisely the point. The hunters are not the true conservationists. It takes some other system of protection, in this case ownership. Which is what I said in post one. Glad you finally agree"...

Nice try to bad its at odds with reality...

 
At 1/31/2012 3:42 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"What you are suggesting is that only economically important animals are worth having. You assume that an animal not important now will never be important, which suggests a discount rate near zero."

No, I'm suggesting that only animals that someone considers valuable are worth having, by definition. If no one is willing to spend the time and resources - their own - to ensure survival of an animal, then it must, by definition, have no value.

What obviously *doesn't* work well, is to use government to force other people, who may not be interested, to pay for preservation as a common good.

You cannot guess what value an animal might have in the future. That's meaningless

"It suggests an attitude in which we are free to zero out any resource, renewable or not, without regard to the future and its net present worth."

You can't determine net present worth of a natural resource, especially a living creature..

"In other words, you would be OK with an orginazation that manages things in a way that lowers the general welfare."

We already deal with such an organizations, called government, and no, I'm not OK with it.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:02 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You guys never let reality get in the way of your beliefs. Hunters have exteminated dozens of species, and man has exterminatd dozens more by accident.

And You still believe that government is responsible for a worse outcome.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:04 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You can't determine net present worth of a natural resource, especially a living creature..

=================================

Of course we can, and we do it all the time. Ask for a life insurance quote when you are twenty and ask again when you are fifty.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:09 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Which is what I said in post one. Glad you finally agree"...

Nice try to bad its at odds with reality...


================================


Juandos, you really are an idiot.

You will deny reality that is printed on this page.

Go look at post one, "it is that they are owned.... "

How is it that you suppose that a total rewrite of history to suit your ideals is going to convince anyone that your iedeals are worth having?

 
At 1/31/2012 4:11 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

We already deal with such an organizations, called government, and no, I'm not OK with it.

==================================

Well, I have a suggestion to improve the government and you have a suggestion to do away with it.

They are both pretty futile, but I like mine better.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:16 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You cannot guess what value an animal might have in the future. That's meaningless

================================

I guess that the value of an animal at some time in the future is greater than the value of no animal at some time in the future.

I guess that the value of a meal some time in the future is greater thatn the value of no meal at some time inthe future.


Meaningless maybe, but not worthless.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:25 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

What obviously *doesn't* work well, is to use government to force other people, who may not be interested, to pay for preservation as a common good.


================================

What obviously does not work well is to allow free riders to destroy the planet one species at a time.

I don't give a flying fig if they are interested: they do not get to share a benefit for free by whining about their arms being twisted.

What I do care about is whether the benefits exist and are valued properly, which even your supposed neanerthals ought to get. Which is why I propose market based regulations: because then we will find out how much they care, and it is probably not zero.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:32 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

If there's a market, there's a supplier.

================================
You are an idiot.

I imagine there is still a Market Demand for Auks and Carolina Parakeets. There is no reason to think it went away.

There just don not happen to be any suppliers.

Any more.

Or ever again.


But that's OK, you beleieve whatever you want.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:34 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

"How do you achive a truly balanced government? You establish market based regulations."

Yawn...I can stop reading at this point.

=================================

Good idea. The place to stop looking is when you have found what you are looking for.

 
At 1/31/2012 4:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"You will deny reality that is printed on this page"...

Who's reality you retarded socialist scaremonger?

The fact that hunters have had conservation projects going for literally decades before you 'pseudo gaiaists' ever considered it is the reality you're failing to come to grips with...

That that I put up a couple of links that even a simple minded stooge like you should've been able to read and comprehend just shows me I definitely overshot the target...

You gave it away when in your latest whine you said: "Go look at post one, "it is that they are owned.... ""...

No kidding you slow child... What made you think all hunting conservancies were somehow public property?

I tell you, you didn't read or comprehend the little you might've read...

 
At 1/31/2012 5:30 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Exactly what value did the Auk have? Please be specific. If enough people had valued them at the time, they would have been saved.

=================================

You really are an idiot.

They were highly valued and sold in the market. Right up until the last two were killed and their sole remaining egg was crushed.



"They took the "pingouins" and their eggs in such huge numbers, that they considered it unnecessary to stock their ships with food for the duration of their stay off the Grand Banks. In 1534, Jacques Cartier visited an "Island of Birds" off Newfoundland; his crew filled two boats with great auks in less than half an hour, and every ship salted down six barrelfuls of the birds. A Captain Mood recorded taking 100,000 eggs in a single day. The egg in the photos is preserved at Ipswich Museum, Ipswich, Suffolk, UK.

Though the great auk was extensively killed for food and its eggs take, it was not until the birds came to the attention of the feather industry that they were headed for extinction. Around 1760, the supply of eider-down and feathers for feather beds was exhausted due to excessive hunting of breeding eider ducks and the destruction of their nesting grounds along the east coast of North America. The feather merchants sent out crews to the great auk nesting grounds and the birds were killed on an industrial scale. By 1810, Funk Island was the only west Atlantic 'rookery' left. The feather company crews returned each spring until they had killed every bird."

 
At 1/31/2012 5:33 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Who's reality you retarded socialist scaremonger?

================================

I am neither socilais nor a sacremonger.

It is no persons relaity, it is the reality of this page. Anyone who cares to can look at the page and see the reality of what was said by whom.

You can invent some other reality if you like, it just won;t be real.

 
At 1/31/2012 5:38 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

The fact that hunters have had conservation projects going for literally decades


===============================That is correct dear child so far as it goes.

The fact is ALSO that for decades and generations before that hunters slaughtered animals to extinction for money.

The conservation projects hunters now have going, all depend one way or another on the rule of law. They are cooperative ventures - socialist if you will prefer to call them that.

They all depend on some cap or limitation of how much resource can be taken by hunters.

If you want to try to invent and sell some other reality, good luck.

 
At 1/31/2012 5:54 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

"it is that they are owned.... ""...

No kidding you slow child... What made you think all hunting conservancies were somehow public property?


===============================

You need to learn to read. The subject is the animals non=t the conservancies, which are not even part of that sentence.

Another exampe of a fantasy invention on the part of Juandos in a silly effort to change the topic.

The reality is ( and we have multiple well documented examples)that left to their own individual devices hunters will slaughter every last animal.

It takes some kind of cooperative effort with rules, laws, agreements, peer pressure, and enforcement throguh coercion to make (some of) them do otherwise.

It makes little difference how those cooperative efforts work, they amount to some form of government, whether you call it the Game commission the home owners association or the duck shooting cooperative.

And that duck shooting cooperative probably only exists because it is protected by an even larger and more coercive organization which prevents the duck murdering mafia from taking out the members of the Co-op at the same time they take out the ducks.

No doubt you will see it another way, but I will believe your version when you produce a living Auk and a living Sea Cow.

 
At 1/31/2012 6:14 PM, Blogger juandos said...

In a sad attempt to salvage what little creedence he may have at one time had hydra runs a multiple part rant:

"I am neither socilais nor a sacremonger"...

Then you must be a pathlogical liar or delusional, which is it?

"The fact is ALSO that for decades and generations before that hunters slaughtered animals to extinction for money"...

So what? Who cares? You're croc tears for these animals comes from the same crock your attempt at getting a grip on reality comes from, the near perfect vacuum between your ears...

You have offered nothing credible to back up your blather...

"You need to learn to read. The subject is the animals non=t the conservancies, which are not even part of that sentence"...

What an insanely moronic statement!!

Actually what its about is that you continually and purposely miss the point because you simply have no idea of what you blather on about...

 
At 1/31/2012 7:44 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"It is not valuable enough to me to go out and pick up highway trash, but it is valuable enough that I contribute for someone else to do it for me."

Whether you want to or not. someone else has decided for you that it's important to pick up trash, and you *will* pay for it.

I know you weren't referring to a voluntary organization paying a private service.

"That is why organizations can do things individuals cannot, and why it is a mistake to think that only individuals count: they woud be a lot worse off without the organizations they depend on."

Organizations are formed for the benefit of individual members. There is no separate entity that is the organization, so yes, it is only individuals that count. a corporation is one form of organization formed for the benefit of members. It is only a convenience to refer to an organization as an entity.

 
At 1/31/2012 7:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"ThAt is either mistaken or a lie. the problem with decimating the animals comes from no ownership, not public ownership, or as I have suggested dispersed ownership."

Go do some reading and understand the meaning of "tragedy of the commons", then come back, and we can talk about this some more. Otherwise, you are wasting my time.

 
At 1/31/2012 8:01 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Of course we can, and we do it all the time. Ask for a life insurance quote when you are twenty and ask again when you are fifty."

You are describing an actuarial relationship, not a value. are you collaborating with Larry?

 
At 1/31/2012 8:06 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

oh that hurt beavis...

:-)

 
At 1/31/2012 8:20 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

I think what Hydra was showing was that values can change - and you know ROn, the can.. and no they don't call that an actuarial relationship guy.

are you dense or just foolish or both?

 
At 1/31/2012 8:32 PM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Ron H: It is only a convenience to refer to an organization as an entity.

This is a bit off-topic, but organizations can act as distinct entities, even taking actions that are unintended by the individuals that constitute the organization.

Ron H: My better idea is that everything should be privately owned, and there would be no common goods that must be controlled and administered by central planning.

The atmosphere? The watershed?

 
At 1/31/2012 8:36 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" The atmosphere? The watershed?"

Zachriel... remember who you are talking to... guy

bringing up the troublesome concepts is liable to start another tirade about Austrian School Economics!

;-)

 
At 1/31/2012 8:55 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

"The fact is ALSO that for decades and generations before that hunters slaughtered animals to extinction for money"... So what? Who cares?

++++++++++++

I see You have conceded the point, since you no pointer deny it.

Now you just say, who cares.


I do not know for certain, but I have enough imagination to guess.

Anyone who does not have a job, but who might have had one caring for auks, or processing auks for consumption.

No crocodile tears for auks here. I would be happy to eat one, if there were enough left after.

No changing the subject with another invented lie, that way, prevaricator..

 
At 1/31/2012 9:09 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

My better idea is that everything should be privately owned, and there would be no common goods that must be controlled and administered by central planning.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, we agree then.

How should we start? Do we give all the common goods to one group or corporation, and let them make central decisions? Or do we simply make formal the ownership for everyone that already owns the common goods? Declare a stock distribution and if some corporation thinks hey can do a better job of central planning, then they can form some kind of socialist cooperative and try to buy a controlling interest.


In the same way as a cattle buyer might try to buy a controlling interest in free range cattle whose ownership is determined only by the brands.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:16 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

I concur with Zack. Organizations often act in ways that are opposed to the interests of some of their members. Those members suffer some kind or degree of coercion.

The only difference between a government entity and a corporate entity, or the local reading group is the amount of coercion they can apply.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Well, I have a suggestion to improve the government and you have a suggestion to do away with it."

That's funny. Creating more of something that lessens the general welfare is not an improvement.

"I guess that the value of a meal some time in the future is greater thatn the value of no meal at some time in the future."

But maybe way less than the value of a meal now.

"What obviously does not work well is to allow free riders to destroy the planet one species at a time."

Free riders? Are you sure that is the term you want to use here?

"I don't give a flying fig if they are interested: they do not get to share a benefit for free by whining about their arms being twisted."

Besides suggesting that your values should be imposed on others, you may be having trouble with the concept of the word "benefit". If someone isn't interested in conservation, they receive no "benefit" from it. Got It? But, you will make them pay for that "benefit" in any case, because it's a benefit to you.

The idea of shaking someone down for money by twisting their arm seems appropriate.

"What I do care about is whether the benefits exist and are valued properly, which even your supposed neanerthals ought to get."

Valued properly? What can that even mean? All values are subjective.

"Which is why I propose market based regulations: because then we will find out how much they care, and it is probably not zero."

Yawn...

 
At 1/31/2012 9:27 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

You are describing an actuarial relationship, not a value.

++++++++++++++++++++

You are the supposed economist. Do I really have to explain to you the difference between value and price?


The insurance company is in the business of setting a price on partially subjective and partially statistical actuarial values.

That is only one example. We frequently monetize subjective values by virtue of spending money on one thing rather than another.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:33 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I imagine there is still a Market Demand for Auks and Carolina Parakeets. There is no reason to think it went away."

No, as a matter of fact, there isn't. Perhaps you should also learn some economics, and pay special attention to terms, like market. A buyer and seller are necessary for a market to exist. Wishing for isn't a market.

 
At 1/31/2012 9:37 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Valued properly? What can that even mean? All values are subjective.

++++++++++++++
Did you write that, or Larry? Strikes me as a particularly liberal position.

Also as particularly ignorant. We put prices on values every day.

Losing 3000 people is a tragedy. Which do we spend more money on, 3000 swimming pool deaths, ( which happens every year) or 3000 world trade deaths, which happens once?

 
At 1/31/2012 10:11 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

juandos:

Hydra sez: ""I am neither socilais nor a sacremonger"..."

"Then you must be a pathlogical liar or delusional, which is it?"

At least he accepted the "retarded" part. :)

 
At 1/31/2012 10:11 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

No, as a matter of fact, there isn't.


+++++++++

We agree again. Why are you still arguing?

You notice that I distinguished between the demand for a market and the actual market.


Your claim is a silly, self fulfilling prophecy. Of course [IF] there is a market, then there is always a supplier.

There was a market for auks, and there still would be, if there was a supplier. When Hans killed the last auk, he also killed the market.

Now let us suppose that someone owned the last two auks. As owner o the auks, it would be his right to kill the auks and eat them. Utility the market is a public good which he does not own [unless he has a deed for it] . Therefore the government, in its propped role of protecting property, must step in and take the birds, fir public use, and compensate the owner.


Now, the owner will say, " I value the auks, I do not want money".

So the government says, " fine, we will give you two auks back, sometime in the future, plus interest.

What is the discount rate on auks?

 
At 1/31/2012 10:17 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

At least he accepted the "retarded"

I concede being retarded compared to some. What I don't concede is being wrong, this time.

Even my retarded arguments are better than the arguments of demented juandos.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:19 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"How should we start? Do we give all the common goods to one group or corporation, and let them make central decisions? Or do we simply make formal the ownership for everyone that already owns the common goods? Declare a stock distribution and if some corporation thinks hey can..."

Yawn...There you go again.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:23 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Means by which buyers and sellers are brought into contact with each other and goods and services are exchanged. The term originally referred to a place where products were bought and sold; today a market is any arena, however abstract or far-reaching, in which buyers and sellers make transactions.

++++++++++++++++++++
By that definition, I claim there is still a market for auks.


Unfortunately, God is the only supplier and the price is really high.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:28 PM, Blogger Hydra said...

Yawn...There you go again. 1/31/2012 10:19 PM

+++++++++

I am glad you think my argument is so pedestrian. Since you have no counter, I am free to think I must be on the right track.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:35 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The only difference between a government entity and a corporate entity, or the local reading group is the amount of coercion they can apply."

I can unjoin the local reading group. I can sell my holdings in a corporation, I can ... What can I do about that government entity.

World of difference.

 
At 1/31/2012 10:39 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Anyone who does not have a job, but who might have had one caring for auks, or processing auks for consumption."

All those people instead have better, higher paying jobs doing something else. They are grateful that there are no auks.

Learn some economics.

 
At 1/31/2012 11:52 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"That is only one example. We frequently monetize subjective values by virtue of spending money on one thing rather than another."

I believe that what you are attempting to describe here, in your own clumsy way, is opportunity cost. Thats the highest valued thing you gave up to get what you wanted most.

While you can say that you prefer one thing over another, you can't really use price to measure that preference. You can only say, for example, that you prefer oranges to apples, but not that you prefer oranges 1.33 times as much as apples.

As much fun as that was, it doesn't help determine how much an auk might be valued at today, or how much a scimitar horned oryx would be worth in 100 years.

 
At 1/31/2012 11:55 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"They were highly valued and sold in the market. Right up until the last two were killed and their sole remaining egg was crushed."

their immediate value was higher than their future value. A bird in the hand, so to speak.

If I don't harvest as many of these things as I can right now, somebody else will.

 
At 2/01/2012 12:23 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Did you write that, or Larry? Strikes me as a particularly liberal position."

Carl Menger wrote that.

"Also as particularly ignorant. We put prices on values every day. "

Prices, yes, but everyone's value isn't the same. You are showing your weakness in economics here.

Subjective value is just that. It's different for everyone. Thank goodness, or there wouldn't be any trade. We exchange something we value less, for something we value more, as does our counterparty in the exchange.

You cannot say a scimitar horned oryx is worth $5000, unless you can say to whom it is worth $5000.

I shouldn't have to be explaining these concepts to you.

 
At 2/01/2012 12:29 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I am glad you think my argument is so pedestrian. Since you have no counter, I am free to think I must be on the right track."

You are free to think whatever you wish. I have explained to you in the past why this nutty idea of yours won't work, but you keep bringing it up. I'm just not inclined to waste any more time on it.

 
At 2/01/2012 12:53 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"You notice that I distinguished between the demand for a market and the actual market."

No, you didn't.

Here's what you wrote:

"I imagine there is still a Market Demand for Auks and Carolina Parakeets. There is no reason to think it went away.

There just don not happen to be any suppliers.
"

Reread your earlier comments before you embarrass yourself next time.

I cited a definition of "market" for you previously. Do you need one for "demand"?

There is neither demand for, nor a market in, auks.

Nor is there "Market Demand", as you put it.

 
At 2/01/2012 1:09 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Now let us suppose that someone owned the last two auks."

Someone did. The hunters who killed them owned them by taking something they found nature, unowned by anyone else, and converting them by their labor into economic goods. The auks were then their property.

This assumes auks that are not owned by anyone, as opposed to common property. You seem to confuse the two concepts a lot.

Do you want to try that little exercise auks owned by everybody?

Actually it works out the same in this case. The hunters spent the time, money, and effort to take the auks, whereas all the other owners did nothing, so they have nothing to complain about.

As owner o the auks, it would be his right to kill the auks and eat them.

- or what ever else he chose to do with them. Good so far.

"Utility the market is a public good which he does not own [unless he has a deed for it] ."

That's unclear. What did you mean to write?

You can understand why I skip over a lot of your comments.

"Therefore the government, in its propped role of protecting property, must step in and take the birds, fir public use, and compensate the owner. "

Nope. Hard as I try, it just doesn't make sense. I can't respond.

 
At 2/01/2012 1:11 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Now, the owner will say, " I value the auks, I do not want money".

So the government says, " fine, we will give you two auks back, sometime in the future, plus interest.

What is the discount rate on auks?
"

Nonsense. Nothing here to respond to.

 
At 2/01/2012 7:02 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Coase points out that ownership matters. He says nothing about the form of ownership

 
At 2/01/2012 7:29 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Nonsense. Nothing here to respond to.

=================================

Why is that nonsense?

You don't believe in the time value of money?

You don't believe in the timve value of Auks?

You don't believe in eminent domain?

You don't believe that value can be monetized and given a price?

Oh ye of little faith.

 
At 2/01/2012 7:32 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

Notice that if the Market is owned and enforced, all Auks sold have to go through the market, then the birds might still be protected without being "owned" until they pass through the market.

Which raises an interesting question, when does wild game, a public good, become "owned"?

 
At 2/01/2012 7:37 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

"Utility the market is a public good which he does not own [unless he has a deed for it] ."

Should read, unless the martet itself is a public good, which he does not own.

(Droid has a habit of changing the word after you have left it. Have not yet developed the habit of double checking.)


The idea here is that the birds need not necessarily be owned, if the only market for them is owned. then the owner of the market has an interest in the continuation of the birds.

 
At 2/01/2012 7:46 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

All those people instead have better, higher paying jobs doing something else. They are grateful that there are no auks.

=================================

You are an idiot.

first you do not klnow that they have better, higher paying jobs.

If they do have higher paying jobs, they might like to buy some Auks.

The presence or absence of Auks does not prevent them from having a higher job, but the absence of auks means nothing about their preference for Auk, but if they do have a preference for auk they will be sorrowful not to have one.

so, if they do not want auk they might be happy or sad about the auk, and if they do wnat auk they will be sad.

They are twice as likely to be sad about the Auks as happy, and they are the minority (auk hunters).

Were there still auks, they would still have value. So if youwant to speculate about auksm the statistics are against you.

I know some economics, and economic theory does not fully represent the real world: It is a model, just like global warming models.

All models are wrong, some are useful. I am no heretic just because I question your economic church.

 
At 2/01/2012 7:56 AM, Blogger Zachriel said...

Ron H: Go do some reading and understand the meaning of "tragedy of the commons", then come back, and we can talk about this some more.

We're familiar with the concept. You suggested private ownership as a possible solution, but say a property owner corners the market and decides to cut down the last tree (or some other species), does society have any say in the matter? What if the overall human environment is threatened (such as poor soil practices by individual farmers contributing to the Dust Bowl)?

Ron H: What can I do about that government entity.

Repudiate your citizenship, sell your property on the market, and move. Not saying you should, just that it is a real option.

Still interested in your opinion on this:

Ron H: My better idea is that everything should be privately owned, and there would be no common goods that must be controlled and administered by central planning.

The atmosphere? The watershed?

Hydra: The fact is ALSO that for decades and generations before that hunters slaughtered animals to extinction for money

juandos: So what? Who cares?

Turns out, a lot of people, including scientists who look on ecosystems as essential components of the human biological environment.

 
At 2/01/2012 8:00 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

corporation, I can ... What can I do about that government entity. World of difference.


++++++++++++++++++

I see it the same, only a question of degree. You can leave the reading group and give up the benefits, or join a different one with different rules and benefits.


Same with the government.


For $100k you could buy a sturdy little boat and go sit in the doldrums for months. Crowhurst did it.

You just don't like rules, or the choices you have.

Neither did crowhurst, but he was nuts.

 
At 2/01/2012 9:04 AM, Blogger Hydra said...

http://www.messybeast.com/extinct/great-auk.htm

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home