The recovery of the gray wolf may stand as the pinnacle of the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) success. This summer the wolf will probably be "delisted" as endangered in Minnesota. At a meeting on June 2 called by U.S. Senator Conrad Burns, Republican from Montana, Ed Bangs, wolf recovery coordinator of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, indicated that the Agency's proposal will recommend reclassifying wolves in the western U.S. as merely "threatened", a step more secure than "endangered".

Aside from stockgrowers and the animals they husband, nearly everyone appears to win from this success. Ranchers, however, view government's aiding the wolf's return as one more step in the ethnic cleansing from the West the subcultures that built it.

The battle over the wolf provided a forum for politicians and lobbyists to posture for their constituencies. Environmental groups had a great cause to advance, the media had dramatic stories to cover, and the taxpayer suffered only modest expenditures, about a nickel per citizen in direct outlays.

But this is not the end of the endangered species story, only a high point. Congress passed the ESA in 1973. It directed the federal government to devote whatever efforts and resources necessary to avoid further loss of the nation's biological legacy. Further, all federal agencies "shall seek to conserve endangered species....to the point which the measures pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary".

The ESA exemplifies problems of unintended consequences. The law as stated is absolute; there is no recognition of the costs implied by the Act or of varying support for species to be saved. When the target species moves from dramatic, photogenic animals such as eagles, grizzly bears, and wolves to creatures most people consider noxious, things change. Yet, the ESA strongly implies that each species of beetle, rat, or toad, has infinite value.

Most environmental professionals understand that citizens weigh many values and that green doesn't trump all others. Savvy environmental advocates understand the pervasive, inescapable reality of the real costs, the opportunities foregone, implied by the ESA. They know that as costs escalate, support evaporates.

But back in 1973 politicians and conservationists were naive. They recognized a deep reservoir of good will for attractive or fascinating beasts and birds. After all, who could possibly be against saving the bald eagle, wolverine, and ruby-throated gnat catcher? The wolf was more problematic but it had only a small, remote, inconsequential group of enemies. And they assumed saving lives and habitat would be nearly costless.

While the easy, low cost environmental victories have been achieved, Americans remain deeply supportive of environmental protection. Ironically, however, the ESA itself may be endangered. While there is widespread verbal support for saving species "at any cost", when tradeoffs become obvious and values compete, support erodes.

People first consider the personal impact of decisions: How will a decision affect me and those people, beliefs, and things I care about? For example, subjecting hundreds of homes to recurrent fire danger to protect a subspecies of rat may protect that rat, but it erodes support for the ESA.

Second, the only costs people count are those they actually face. When a person is insulated from the consequences of his actions, costs are ignored or discounted. For example, people who do not graze livestock can easily advocate wolf protection. To these people, increased protection seems free.

Others, however, face the costs of such protection. For example, the construction of a hospital in California's San Bernadino County was postponed and relocated for the sake of protecting eight Delhi Sands flower-loving flies inhabiting the property. The cost was time without that hospital and $4.5 million, about half a million dollars a fly.

Regardless of claims, species preservation is only one of many competing values people actually seek. Scarcity-the fact that virtually no resources are sufficiently abundant to satisfy all human demands at zero cost-dictates that choices must be made among competing values or goods. It is intellectually and ethically impossible to pretend away the necessity of such choices when dealing with endangered species.

The ESA is probably at its zenith. As the cost of choices becomes more obvious, and the species to be saves less attractive, support for the ESA will erode. The success with the wolf will likely stand as the high point of today's ESA. While cherishing the goals which motivated its creation, it's time to rethink the Act's implementation.