8095

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8095
• Author: National Research Council.
• Title: Impacts of Emerging Agricultural Trends on Fish and Wildlife Habitat.
• USFW Year: 1982.
• USFW - Doc Type: Washington, D.C.
• Copyright Material: NO

6

detriment of wildlife in some areas in the East.
One factor associated with or responsible for the regional
differences is the shifting comparative advantages of the agricultural
locations. Changing economic conditions, such as rising energy
prices, influence transportation and irrigation costs and, in turn,
the types of crops most profitably grown in a given region. There are
regional differences in the intensity and nature of production as well.
Ecosystems in some regions are more fragile and sensitive to
changing trends than are those in other regions. Supplemental
irrigation may have a smaller impact on water quality and quantity in
the eastern states than in the western states.
It is important to consider regional trends in production as well
as national changes. Once the regional trends are identified, their
potential impacts can be assessed in terms of the particular regional
habitat characteristics and situation. In assessing the habitat
impacts it is important to remember that the whole is the sum of its
parts and that some of the parts may be quite different.

INCORPORATING VALUES IN DECISIONS

The major impediment to the inclusion of wildlife and habitat values
in land use decisions is that these values are difficult to measure.
without an accepted unit of value, wildlife and habitat values cannot
be expressed in dollars for comparison with other land use values. At
present, it is possible to measure, or measure by proxy, some wildlife
habitat values such as recreation, but the more intangible aesthetic
and philosophical benefits may be impossible to measure.
Although Congress has declared that "Fish and wildlife are of
ecological, educational, aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic,
and scientific value to the Nation" (Fish and wildlife Conservation
Act of 1980), other decisionmakers have often failed to share this
recognition. Inclusion of wildlife values in decisionmaking is
further complicated by the fact that they are often external to
private interests and included only in social or public interests.
This "public good" nature of wildlife is related to the doctrine
of public ownership that governs wildlife in the united states. The
difficult question of who owns wildlife presents a major obstacle to
valuation. In this country, wildlife is determined to be owned by all
Americans. The ownership right is limited, however, by the power of
both state governments and the federal government to protect and
control wildlife in the interests of the public and future
generations. one answer to the ownership question was put succinctly
but paradoxically by Russell Train when he said, "Wildlife is owned by
everybody and by nobody. . . " (Brokaw 1978). Thus attempts at
valuation founder on the fact that one person's use of wildlife
resources affects another's, sometimes positively, often negatively.
Yet these elusive external costs and benefits (i.e., those not taken
into account by individuals) must somehow be included in estimates of
wildlife resource values.
In economic terms, the desired level of investment in wildlife