On the 2020 Colorado ballot, I was asked to vote on the reintroduction of gray wolves into the wildlife of Colorado by the end of 2023 (to the west of the Continental Divide). I researched what this would mean for Colorado residents, and what the social marginal cost (the complete cost faced by society for producing one more unit - or in this case reentering one more wolf) and social marginal benefit (the complete satisfaction or increase in welfare society experiences with one more unit or action taken) would be for residents.
On analyzing and researching the total
cost, there is obviously the financial cost that would come from monitoring and
reintroducing the animals back into society. Funds would primarily come from
the division of parks and wildlife. Additionally, there is the financial burden
of compensation for whatever damages these wolves cause for farmers mostly a focus
on the human and livestock interactions with wolves. There is the social cost
for ranchers who are deeply concerned with what this would mean for their way
of life and the animals they depend on for profits. There is another external
cost in ways of human and tourist interaction with the wolves. Ultimately, they
are predators, and the population of the state, as well as the number of
tourists enjoying the mountains and outdoor activities has increased significantly
since the wolves were last roaming. There is an increase in danger to humans
and their pets in the outdoor areas where the wolves would be introduced, or
where they would eventually spread to. On analyzing the benefits, there is the overall
benefit to the ecosystem that the reintroduction of this predator would regulate
overgrazing that is taking place in some areas of the Rockies and along some
waterways. There is the financial benefit of wolves actually attracting tourists,
if they are able to witness and see this endangered species in various areas in
a safe manner. It would bring back an indigenous species to the state that had
been previously wiped out by human actions. If the population became large
enough, there would also be the financial benefit of hunting licenses in the
future.
As someone who is regularly in the mountains on hikes with my black lab, and lives on a ranch with livestock, I ultimately chose to vote against the proposition as the social marginal benefits didn't outweigh the costs in my mind. Nonetheless, it was a majority rule vote, and
the proposition ultimately passed, but very narrowly (it won by about 56,000
and was the closest decision on the 2020 ballot) and is currently in progress today.
No comments:
Post a Comment