constraints as precisely as possible so that neither 

 excessive safety margins nor inadequate guidelines 

 dominate. Where management techniques affect only 

 wildlife or fish resources, the major need is to develop 

 cost-effective approaches. 



What is the expected gain from spending dollars in 

 different ways? If the physical consequences of 

 expenditures can be predicted, what are the social 

 and economic implications? Such questions are rele- 

 vant to those who must decide how limited funds are 

 to be distributed among many apparently worthy 

 possibilities. The state of the art in conducting such 

 evaluations of programs centered on wildlife and fish 

 resources is far behind that concerning commodity 

 values because the nonmarket aspects make it a more 

 demanding task, and because the resources devoted 

 to making such evaluations have never approached 

 the scale of the many efforts to evaluate water devel- 

 opments, timber harvesting, and similar activities. 



Expressing ecological values in a manner that is com- 

 parable to market values of commodity resources is 

 particularly difficult. 



There is also a need to define the values of trade- 

 offs. As recognized in the Fish and Wildlife Coordi- 

 nation Act, it is appropriate to charge certain mitiga- 

 tion costs for wildlife and fish to water resource 

 development projects. Similarly, it may also be 

 appropriate to charge foregone values due to restric- 

 tions on timber harvesting along streambanks to local 

 fisheries. In such cases, foregone values should be 

 charged as costs against the anticipated gains of imple- 

 menting a particular management strategy if rea- 

 soned decisions are to be made. 



As the pressure for a wide spectrum of goods and 

 services from forest and range lands increases, the 

 need for more comprehensive information on the full 

 range of wildlife and fish species will intensify. 



152 



