Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Tellico Dam case, for example, the existence of the snail darter was jeopar- <br />dized because of ac tion by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) a federal <br />agency. The principle nonetheless remains the same: wildlife species have <br />become excessively endangered because the benefits of their survival have not <br />been counted by decisionmakers, whether public or private. The extinction of <br />a species means the irreversible loss of a unique biological asset; therefore, <br />future generations have an interest not reflected in market decisions <br />(Bachmura, 1971; Plourde, 1975). Even if a species provides no benefits now, <br />it may in the future; therefore, to take into account this uncertainty in the <br />preferences of future generations, a premium must be placed on the value of <br />the irreplaceable asset (Krutilla and Fisher, 1975; Bishop, 1978). <br />And what are, in fact, the benefits of endangered species protection? In <br />the 1978 Senate Hearings to amend the Endangered Species Act, the most fre- <br />quently encountered justifications for a general policy of endangered species <br />protection were first that each species is a repository of unique genetic in- <br />formation, and second that extinction is irreversible.* For all we know, it <br />is argued, a species regarded today as worthless and obscure may some day be <br />essential to a cure, say, for some previously incurable disease. <br />Endangered spec ies protec tion is, however, more than simply a mat ter of <br />species uniqueness and irreversibility. For one thing, genetic uniqueness is <br />not necessarily confined to species. Different subspecies or subpopulations <br />in particular geographic locations may be genetically distinct.** <br />More importantly, it is at least questionable whether the concepts of <br />uniqueness and irreversibility fully capture the benefits of endangered species <br />preservation. If the preservation of genetic information were the only bene- <br />fit, it would permit the consideration of other policies besides preservation <br />of species in the wild. Captive populations, for example, could conceivably be <br /> <br />*For example, see testimony by Michael Bean, p. 73, and the comments by Senator <br />Hodges, p. 227 (US Senate, 1978). <br /> <br />**Moreover, there is often disagreement among biologists over the classifica- <br />tion of species. A species is usually defined as a group that can interbreed; <br />but as Ramsay (1976) points out, instances occur in which group A can inter- <br />breed with group B, group B can interbreed with group C, but groups A and C <br />cannot. <br /> <br />3 <br />