Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword
- 1 The Nature of Endangered Species Protection
- PART 1 BIOLOGICAL NEEDS
- PART 2 POLITICAL REALITIES
- PART 3 ECONOMIC CHOICES
- 10 The Endangered Species Act and Critical Habitat Designation: Economic Consequences for the Colorado River Basin
- 11 The Revealed Demand for a Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species
- 12 The ESA through Coase-Colored Glasses
- 13 On Current Approaches to ESA Analysis: Comments on Watts et al., Coursey, and Anderson
- Replies by Authors
- 14 The Economics of “Takings” in a Multiparcel Model with a Powerful Government
- 15 Investment, Information Collection, and Endangered Species Conservation on Private Land
- 16 Protecting Species on Private Land
- 17 Compensation for Takings under the ESA: How Much Is Too Much? A Comment
- Replies by Authors
- PART 4 SUMMARY AND DATABASE
- Index
Replies by Authors
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- About the Authors
- Acknowledgments
- Foreword
- 1 The Nature of Endangered Species Protection
- PART 1 BIOLOGICAL NEEDS
- PART 2 POLITICAL REALITIES
- PART 3 ECONOMIC CHOICES
- 10 The Endangered Species Act and Critical Habitat Designation: Economic Consequences for the Colorado River Basin
- 11 The Revealed Demand for a Public Good: Evidence from Endangered and Threatened Species
- 12 The ESA through Coase-Colored Glasses
- 13 On Current Approaches to ESA Analysis: Comments on Watts et al., Coursey, and Anderson
- Replies by Authors
- 14 The Economics of “Takings” in a Multiparcel Model with a Powerful Government
- 15 Investment, Information Collection, and Endangered Species Conservation on Private Land
- 16 Protecting Species on Private Land
- 17 Compensation for Takings under the ESA: How Much Is Too Much? A Comment
- Replies by Authors
- PART 4 SUMMARY AND DATABASE
- Index
Summary
Although Dr. Loomis' comments on our chapter are generally favorable, he points to the omission of nonmarket benefits associated with critical habitat designation as an area for improvement. We agree. From a pragmatic perspective, however, incorporating such estimates into our analysis would be difficult. As Dr. Loomis noted, benefit studies associated with preserving such species as the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, bonytail, and razorback sucker were not available at the time our analysis was performed. Furthermore, time and resources were not available to develop benefit estimates for preserving these species using contingent valuation or other nonmarket valuation techniques. Dr. Loomis suggests that we could have surveyed the literature on the economic value of other T&E species and incorporated such nonmarket values into the CGE model using benefit transfer techniques. That suggestion, however, ignores the unique and controversial way in which some native fishes of the Colorado River system are viewed by various segments of the public and fisheries management professionals.
Prior to passage of the Endangered Species Act, many native fishes in the basin were considered “trash” fishes that competed for habitat with salmonoid species that were introduced for sport fishing purposes. In fact, various species of suckers and chubs were routinely poisoned in the 1950s and 1960s in an attempt to enhance recreational fisheries. Perhaps the best example of such actions is the use of rotenone in 1962 to remove almost all native fishes from Wyoming's Green River system above newly constructed Flaming Gorge Reservoir.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Protecting Endangered Species in the United StatesBiological Needs, Political Realities, Economic Choices, pp. 258 - 260Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2001