streams nationwide, when it would have no economic impact on our society as a whole.The logging industry has made millions of dollars from the harvesting of old growth lumber over the past several decades. Recently, they have become more responsible about clear-cut logging. Harvested forests are often replanted to provide for future wildlife habitat and logging efforts. However, this doesn’t help the spotted owl. It needs old growth forests with their tangle of massive trees and thick dense brush. The logging industry is threatened by this small owl. Thousands of jobs have been lost. Families are starving. Lumber prices have skyrocketed.So this sets up a struggle. Loggers need the lumber for economic prosperity. Environmentalists want to protect this owl. How will both parties win? Can both parties win? There are many issues that arise out of this conflict. The public needs cost efficient lumber. The loggers need their jobs. The spotted owl needs a home.One of the largest concerns, dealing with the spotted owl / forest industry debate, is the loss of jobs. There were 21,000 jobs lost during the time that this debate took place (Ross, 1999). The amount of job losses in the logging and milling industry at this time were not solely attributed to the spotted owl controversy. The downward trend in the timber harvest volumes in the early 1980’s was attributed to significantly high interest rates and a decline in the number of house starts. (Freudenburg, 1998). Another cause for the loss of jobs throughout this period was technology. It replaced much of the labor in the sawmill industry as it did in most every industry during this time.Several people ask whether it is really worth attempting to preserve all of the species facing extinction. One concern that comes to mind is cost. Everyone has to decide what the value of preservation. One example of the monetary value of preservation is with the Mexican spotted ...
