Okay. What is it worth to you and others to protect habitat by preventing the land subdivision process you describe? It is worth something, quite a bit actually, but the cost or value of that is nowhere to be found. Why is that? How can something real be valued while no one places a dollar amount on it? It can't, and that is the problem in a nutshell. It isn't that it has no value, the issue is that the value is not being recognized.
As a small landowner, I provide the habitat that allows deer and moose hunting. I provide the ecosystem that puts clean water in fishing brooks and lakes. The state sells licenses to harvest what cannot be provided without landowner inputs, yet I don't get paid or compensated for what I am providing. In fact, I pay property taxes for the pleasure of providing free resources. It is another example of a valued resource with no dollar amount attached to it.
We can't sustain unrecognized or ignored costs and benefits in a market-driven economy. It isn't working now, and it isn't going to work as human population levels and increased consumption drive the situation to further unbalanced conditions. How to fix it is above my pay grade, but it needs adjustments somehow.
Maybe a good place to begin would be to stop subsidizing everything under the sun. That requires education and understanding because those subsidies are the "will of the people", the government is just the administrator. If we started paying and benefiting in anything near true values, the market would resolve the issues by itself I think.
If the true cost of shipping sheep products from New Zealand to the US were paid, would it be possible to build ships and burn bunker oil to propel them? There is a lot of environmental degradation involved: mining, drilling, smelting, material transport, and carbon fuel use. None of those are beauty marks on the planet but nobody is paying for the direct and indirect damage with real dollars. I believe if the true costs had to be paid, a lamb from the farmer nearby would be cheaper by far and he could still afford good fences.
Nature is full of prey and predators; eat or be eaten is pretty much the rule of the system. Predators are necessary whether they are wasps or coyotes. We don't mind predation unless it intersects with our financial interests, such as with coyotes and lambs or deer. We know from records written during colonial settlement that wolves did not wipe out the deer or moose, for example. Both were plentiful when Europeans arrived. There is no reason to believe that coyotes are capable of wiping out the deer today. The populations of each are in great flux, and human activities have created and continue to contribute to this situation.
The reasons for human intervention and contribution to change have always been based on financial motives. It is plain and simple a money problem. What money can break, money can fix.
Population growth is driving the urbanization of the planet, such as the problem you described with land developers. Developers need customers, population growth provides an endless stream of customers. If you look at the biodiversity in an urban environment, it's pretty poor. Take away the cock roaches, pigeons, rats and squirrels and there isn't much left.
If we don't want that scenario to be the future of the planet, we need to recognize that is where we are headed and start avoiding it now. We cannot recreate biodiversity once it is lost. Protecting habitat and biodiversity should be a priority. Without biodiversity, we will be eating test tube food and living in an endless cityscape, probably underground because there will be nothing on the surface but toxic air, water and soil.
I realize that none of my blather solves your day-to-day problem of keeping the lambs alive and the coyotes in check. :laughing: However, I think the long term solutions are important to think about.
