determining the economic "value" of fish and wildlife. Fish and wildlife, in terms of 

 traditional economic theory, are given no value. Historically, wildlife values have 

 been estimated by: gross expenditures, expenditures for transportation and other 

 variable costs, willingness to pay, income forgone," and annual replacement 

 values. '* According to Sanderson et al. we need to understand why these approaches 

 led to substantially different estimates, and we should identify the most appropriate 

 approaches for various uses.'* 



Without improved methodology to generate values that the public and decision- 

 maker can understand and appreciate, fish and wildlife will finish last in the 

 allocation process. 



In addition to determining the value of fish and wildlife to society, we need to 

 identify and document the value of various kinds of habitat to society. If their value is 

 recognized and is high enough to compete, they will be maintained and their 

 associated fish and wildlife will benefit. 



Wetlands, for example, help society by having a beneficial influence on flood 

 control, water quality, fisheries, groundwater, wildlife and aesthetics. Larson (this 

 monograph) noted that: 



"As long as wetlands were viewed as having only value for wildlife, the pros 

 pects of maintainingan adequate network of wetland wildlife habitat were 

 dim. Research of the last decade has identified health, safety and welfare 

 values that stem from basic ecological functions of wetlands and these 

 issues have attracted interest in and support for public management of 

 wetlands to maintain these functions." 

 Research efforts need to be directed at the value of other critical wildlife habitat to 

 society. For example, what benefits accrue to society from sound floodplain 

 management, from protecting riparian habitats, from measures to reduce soil 

 erosion, and from perpetuating genetic variety by maintaining representative 

 ecosystems? 



FUNDING NEEDS 



Monies for fish and wildlife research have increased significantly during the past 

 ten years.' However, so has the task at hand. Congress, as a reflection of society in 

 general, has placed increasingly greater demands for information on agencies while 

 keeping a tight rein on the purse strings and personnel ceilings. Thus, much of the 

 research is crisis oriented, done on a short-term basis, and increasingly farmed out to 

 consultants. 



In order to enable the agencies to meet their mandates. Congress and the 

 Administration must recognize their need for an increase in research funds and 

 personnel ceilings. Further, the role of the universities in research must be 

 strengthened, especially in the area of basic research. The National Fish and Wildlife 

 Resources Research Council, a voluntary group of concerned scientists, is working 

 with the Congress and the universities to explore ways to bolster their role in fish and 

 wildlife research. 

 SUMMARY 



According to White, ^^ "To deal effectively with the whole range of environmental 

 problems that are evident or emerging would call, ideally, for perfect knowledge of 

 the natural systems to be affected." However, the resource manager and decision- 

 maker is faced with a dilemma. According to Thomas:" 



"The knowledge necessary to make a perfect analysis of the impacts of 

 potential courses of. . .management action on wildlife habitat does not 

 exist. It probably never will, but more knowledge is available than has yet 

 been brought to bear on the subject. To be useful, that knowledge must be 

 organized so it makes sense. . ." 

 Realizing that, in a world of imperfect knowledge, decisions will, of necessity, be 

 made regarding the allocation of resources and the trade-offs between species and 

 other resources, Thomas" goes on to say: 



246 



