I wonder if having for-profit organisations/startups who's core mission it is to protect these fantastic animals would be more successful vs non-profits or government projects. Not necessary to make a buck, but in many cases, for-profit organisations get more done because of the constant pressure they feel to perform.
> for-profit organisations get more done because of the constant pressure they feel to perform.
How is it possible that changing the primary existential goal from "save animals" to "make profits" will lead to more efficient animal saving rather than loss of efficiency in animal saving for the sake of profit? That seems like the exact opposite of what would happen.
Is it really necessary to explain that people desire to enrich themselves, therefore they seek profit, therefore they will do things which resulted in profit?
It necessary to explain when you magically hand-wave in that it's going to benefit the environment and natural animal populations when all evidence and logic indicates the opposite.
There's no particular evidence that "for profit" organisations do better at handling "common goods". And the very definition of your 'for-profit' organisation is that this is what is providing 'pressure to perform'. If they didn't have that pressure they'd just be the same as non-profit. You'd have to explain how a "profit motive" could impact these common goods - which would mean they wouldn't be in public ownership.
