Case 2 
Predators 
Prdacious animals destroy livestock, poultry, and game. 
From the earliest times the hunter of wravening beasts" has acquired
merit 
in the public qe. In recent decades *predator control" has been fostered
not 
only by subsidies (bounties) but by the direct action of government hunters.

Beginning about l80 scientists began to study food habits of predators, 
and to classify them Into good and bad species. These categories represented

a balance of ham and benefit. A "good" predator was one doing more
aood by 
eating rodents or other pests than harm by eating domestio animals or 'desirable'

wild ones. 
Modern ecology now regards these categories as false. All predators are 
good In the sense of being cogs in the organic machine. Perhaps, in the long

run. thq are indispensable to the 'health" of the biota. 
Most predators are mobile, ie., their activities extend over many ownerships.

There can be no effective individual action to either conserve or extinguish

them, Bounties recognise this characteristic. 
Many predators, as long as they exist at all* will continue to levy some
toll 
on private property, This lose is inseparable from their coi nity function
as 
beneficial cogs in the biotic machine. 
C1erys  "Does it pay" for the enlightened individual to tolerate
predators in 
some degree when the invade his poultry yard. or coverts? (It io conceded
that 
excessive damage justifies remedial action.) 
I think not. The benefits of maintaining a well-rounded biota are a 
benefit. The individual may, by reason of the mobile character of predators,

protect himself by their destruction, and at the same time reap the benefit
of 
their toleration by his neighbors. Not until the whole commuity loses the
species