Whale lovers are rightfully horrified at the tragedy that is playing itself out on Vancouver Island, where Luna, a lone killer whale, has taken to socializing with human beings rather than the rest of his pod. Over the last two years, the Orca, which seems to have adopted humanity as his pod, has taken to following boats, and hanging out at the docks in Gold River. Not surprisingly, given peoples fascination with killer whales, Luna has become an impromptu attraction, drawing people out to pet him, feed him, swim with him, and so on. Sadly, many of these visitors are unaware of the harm they can do to Luna by feeding him inappropriate food (like beer and chocolate chip cookies), and theyre equally unaware of the potential for tragedy they create when they try to stick things in Lunas blowhole, dangle their children over Lunas jaws, or allow them to reach into his mouth.
As a recent article in the National Post pointed out, potential solutions to the problem have been debated for months, but the traditional approaches have proven limited in their effectiveness. Luna isnt really trapped anywhere, nor is he isolated from his pod; they swim by him regularly. Hes just not interested in rejoining them. Posting signs hasnt helped, nor have the volunteer actions of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program(M3), which hired two whale watchers last summer to try to keep people away from Luna. In the most recent attempt to protect Luna, one of the whales visitors was cited by the RCMP for harassment, but its uncertain whether the fear of a citation will keep visitors away.
If nothing effective can be found, Luna, and perhaps some of his visitors, may well be headed for tragedy a tragedy of the commons. Traditional environmentalists have misunderstood the nature of the problem.
The real problem in this situation is not Lunas interest in people, nor peoples interest in Luna. The problem is that the way that humans and animals relate through our legal institutions doesnt create the right incentives to give people the wild whale encounter experience they want, while protecting Lunas health. The conventional approaches tried to deny the whale his expressed preference, or to deny his fans access to the whale. But theres a better way, one that has been successful in protecting elephants and other animals from abuse by humans: the establishment and use of property rights.
In the current situation, incentives and institutions for Lunas protection are all wrong. Theres no real cost to the people coming out to see him, who also face little risk of punishment if they cause Luna harm, or even his destruction. Meanwhile the people trying (in vain) to protect him incur costs they cant recover or sustain. The would-be protectors also have no real legal authority to stop Lunas abusers themselves, and the legality of the RCMPs citations for harassment has yet to be established.
By creating a property right that would declare Luna to be the property of a group (he might be given to the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program, for example), the incentives and institutions could be straightened out with a few strokes of the pen. First, M3 would have the right to directly sue people for the abuse of their property. That right is well-established under existing law. Second, M3 could establish fees for people to come visit Luna, control the flow of visitors by charging different fees for day and weekend hours, and they could and set up a fee structure that would pay for the creation of safety protocols, and monitors or guards, to ensure that Luna was not abused. While they were at it, they could create a program to sell Luna souvenirs to raise funds for animal research, and for Lunas protection. Since theyd own the rights to use Lunas name and likeness, theyd have a lock on the franchise.
People dont like to think about privatizing wild animals. Theyd rather think of them as a common trust, that belongs to everyone. But as advocates of free-market environmental management point out, the abuse of ecosystems and wildlife is often the result of the absence of property rights, and the incentives that flow from a property-rights regime. Though Canadians tend to regulate first and ask questions later, in the case of Luna, everyone would be better off if the time-tested tools of property rights and incentives were used to let Luna visit his human friends with safety for all concerned.
Commentary
Privatize Willy
EST. READ TIME 4 MIN.Share this:
Facebook
Twitter / X
Linkedin
As a recent article in the National Post pointed out, potential solutions to the problem have been debated for months, but the traditional approaches have proven limited in their effectiveness. Luna isnt really trapped anywhere, nor is he isolated from his pod; they swim by him regularly. Hes just not interested in rejoining them. Posting signs hasnt helped, nor have the volunteer actions of the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program(M3), which hired two whale watchers last summer to try to keep people away from Luna. In the most recent attempt to protect Luna, one of the whales visitors was cited by the RCMP for harassment, but its uncertain whether the fear of a citation will keep visitors away.
If nothing effective can be found, Luna, and perhaps some of his visitors, may well be headed for tragedy a tragedy of the commons. Traditional environmentalists have misunderstood the nature of the problem.
The real problem in this situation is not Lunas interest in people, nor peoples interest in Luna. The problem is that the way that humans and animals relate through our legal institutions doesnt create the right incentives to give people the wild whale encounter experience they want, while protecting Lunas health. The conventional approaches tried to deny the whale his expressed preference, or to deny his fans access to the whale. But theres a better way, one that has been successful in protecting elephants and other animals from abuse by humans: the establishment and use of property rights.
In the current situation, incentives and institutions for Lunas protection are all wrong. Theres no real cost to the people coming out to see him, who also face little risk of punishment if they cause Luna harm, or even his destruction. Meanwhile the people trying (in vain) to protect him incur costs they cant recover or sustain. The would-be protectors also have no real legal authority to stop Lunas abusers themselves, and the legality of the RCMPs citations for harassment has yet to be established.
By creating a property right that would declare Luna to be the property of a group (he might be given to the Marine Mammal Monitoring Program, for example), the incentives and institutions could be straightened out with a few strokes of the pen. First, M3 would have the right to directly sue people for the abuse of their property. That right is well-established under existing law. Second, M3 could establish fees for people to come visit Luna, control the flow of visitors by charging different fees for day and weekend hours, and they could and set up a fee structure that would pay for the creation of safety protocols, and monitors or guards, to ensure that Luna was not abused. While they were at it, they could create a program to sell Luna souvenirs to raise funds for animal research, and for Lunas protection. Since theyd own the rights to use Lunas name and likeness, theyd have a lock on the franchise.
People dont like to think about privatizing wild animals. Theyd rather think of them as a common trust, that belongs to everyone. But as advocates of free-market environmental management point out, the abuse of ecosystems and wildlife is often the result of the absence of property rights, and the incentives that flow from a property-rights regime. Though Canadians tend to regulate first and ask questions later, in the case of Luna, everyone would be better off if the time-tested tools of property rights and incentives were used to let Luna visit his human friends with safety for all concerned.
Share this:
Facebook
Twitter / X
Linkedin
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
STAY UP TO DATE
More on this topic
Related Articles
By: Julio Mejía, Elmira Aliakbari and Tegan Hill
By: Kenneth P. Green
By: Kenneth P. Green
By: Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari
STAY UP TO DATE