In today's world, all resources are scarce. These resources include land, labor, time, good quality air and water, raw materials, biological diversity, and information. Whenever there exists a finite quantity of a resource, a method of allocation must be decided upon. For most resources, in a capitalistic society, the method used is the economic marketplace. In the case of threatened or endangered species, the United States Congress has declared that the cost to saving a species is irrelevant; all species must be saved from extinction (Mann, & Plummer, 1995, p. 32); the market has no power. This legislated position forces society to reallocate the use of other resources in ways which are inefficient. In the state Oregon, with the spotted owl controversy, this reallocation does not maximize the total economic, social, recreational, and any other benefit which accrues to society. The spotted owl lives in a very large ecosystem which supports many other animals and has been used in the past by people for economic, and recreational benefit. A compromise which would save jobs, the timber industry, and still leave space for the spotted owl needs to be arranged.
A controversy is beginning, within the scientific community and with the conservationists, over whether or not heroic measures should be taken for an individual species (Yoon, 1995, p. 40-1). When the Endangered Species Act was passed, most of the population assumed that it would protect the megafauna, those animals like elk, eagles, and grizzly bears and such; the fact that it protects all species, including fungi, insects, and bacteria, has major implications for human populations living near any species on the list of endangered species (Mann, & Plummer, 1995, p. 29). Any activity which disrupts, or bothers an endangered species must be stopped. Did Congress want to force people to change their activities and livelihoods for a fungus? This includes activities whi...