7393 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

objective, one seeks the least costly way of achieving it. This leads to two further considerations. First, how are limited resources available for endangered species protection to be allocated among many endangered species? Second, how does one choose among alternative strategies for preserving a single endangered species? The first question raises some difficult biological and ethical issues, which are beyond the scope of this paper. There are now almost 200 US species on the Endangered List; another 2000 are proposed for listing. Is the allocation of effort among these species to be made purely on the basis of the threat of extinction, however measured, or will there be at least an implicit determination that some species are more worthy of preservation than others? If the latter is true, how is such a determination to be made? In an article by Ramsay (1976) such criteria and similar matters are discussed. The second question refers to the fact that other approaches to endangered species protection may in certain cases be substituted for regulation. One such approach is to purchase lands for exclusive use by wildlife. Other approaches fall under the general heading of "wildlife management," but in fact are so varied as not to be easily categorized. For the whooping crane, for example, eggs are transplanted into the nests of sandhill cranes, which then act as foster parents for the intruders. Another practice is to warn hunters by radio whenever whoopers in the vicinity take to the air so that they will not be shot by mistake. Another technique, not yet tried but under consideration, is the mechanical enhancement of habitat along the Platte River in Nebraska (on the cranes' annual migration route). Doubtless, many wildlife management techniques show promise ~n enhancing the survival prospects of endangered species, but the question here is whether they can be expected to act as substitutes for regulation (that is, whether more development can be compensated for by more wildlife management when it is economically advantageous to do so). This hypothesis has been put forward by Miller (1978). While it is not an impossible concept, for several reasons it is an unlikely one. In the first place, the use of many such management alternatives may not be consistent with the "ulterior" objectives of endangered species policy as discussed above. Secondly, effective wildlife management requires considerable 7