The fish and wildlife resource is an 
example of why markets and current 
institutional arrangements do not 
respond well to changes in demands 
and supplies. Here as in many other 
countries, wildlife and fish are 
considered public property even though 
it is difficult or impossible to control 
their movement across property and 
jurisdictional lines, including 
international boundaries. Most changes 
in supplies of fish and wildlife depend 
upon publicly financed programs. 
Thus, levels of supplies and supply 
responses to public demands tend to be 
based upon political rather than 
market-driven decisions. 
The general lack of market prices for 
access to and use of fish and wildlife, 
water, wilderness, and many forms of 
outdoor recreation opportunities results 
from the broad societal nature of the 
benefits. It is also due in part to the 
mobile nature and public ownership of 
the resource. Thus far, despite 
considerable research, it has been 
difficult to develop market prices for 
scenic beauty, water quality per se, 
songbirds, or the enjoyment associated 
with nature walks (fig. 50). 
Some tangible products of forest and 
range lands, especially timber and 
livestock forage, do have established 
markets and prices. But the market 
response for these goods (particularly 
timber) is affected indirectly by 
inadequate knowledge about the 
resource-management opportunities 
and the failure of capital markets to 
recognize fully the present net value of 
future resource outputs. Private owners, 
who control nearly three-quarters of the 
timberland and about one-half of the 
rangeland, are greatly affected by these 
markets. 
Various studies have shown that the 
millions of America’s private owners 
of timberland have widely diverse 
Figure 50—It has been difficult to develop market prices for nontangibles like the scenic beauty of 
this view from the Appalachian Trail in Virginia’s Blue Ridge Mountains. 
ownership objectives and attitudes, 
limited knowledge of existing 
management opportunities, and varying 
willingness and capacity to make 
investments that could increase timber 
growth. Ownership tenures are 
typically short, and most owners are in 
the older age groups. Thus, for timber, 
where the time between investments 
and harvest is long, there is the 
likelihood that direct benefits, such as 
income from timber sales, will not 
accrue to many current owners. There 
is also substantial public ownership of 
forest and range lands, and 
management decisions made by public 
institutions are only indirectly related 
to changes in market prices. 
The same kinds of considerations— 
different owner characteristics, 
objectives, and attitudes; lack of 
knowledge of existing technology; lack 
of capital; and varying willingness to 
make changes—also constrain 
improvements in utilizing timber and 
timber products. 
The factors that affect investments in 
management and utilization programs 
also affect investments in research on 
renewable resources. The broad 
societal nature of the benefits, the lack 
of conventional markets and market 
prices for research knowledge, and the 
large numbers and characteristics of the 
owners of forest and range lands 
effectively cause research in the private 
sector to be limited to that of a few 
large industrial ownerships. Even this 
private-sector investment has declined 
in recent years. Thus, most of the 
