The federal Endangered Species Act itself may soon be endangered.

Throughout the American West, the law now threatens to devastate entire economies based upon altering nature - logging, mining, damming rivers. And many environmentalists are gloating.

They are using the grizzly, the wolf and the salmon - symbolically some of America's most important creatures - together with one of the most obscure, the northern spotted owl, to hold development hostage.

But if pushed to its ultimate extreme, the Endangered Species Act could so disrupt economies that pressure to amend it - or challenge it on constitutional grounds - will become irresistible.

Environmentalists do a good job of explaining the prime rule of ecology: Everything is tied to everything else. We can never do just one thing; everything in an ecosystem is linked. This is why "indicator species" that measure the quality of habitat, such as the spotted owl, are important. A threat to them indicates the system is awry.

However, we are also learning that such interdependence applies equally to political and economic systems: There, too, it is impossible to do only one thing. We take one action and see unintended consequences.

Those of us who value the endangered wolf, grizzly or owl's habitat should ask the same question for any actions taken under the Endangered Species Act - especially when that law begins to affect private-property rights.

The political process inevitably links economics and ecology. People's ecological concern is directly related to their security and prosperity. Since economic as well as ecological systems are highly dynamic, proposed changes are likely to bring unintended mischief. We are seeing this unfold with the spotted owl.

The reaction from the timber industry and many Northwest politicians to preserving a habitat of 11.3 million acres was vitriolic. At a rally in May, Washington Gov. Booth Gardner told 3,000 loggers and their families: "The latest designation of habitat is unnecessary, unacceptable and inconsistent with the law, and we can't allow it."

On the same day, U.S. District Judge William Dwyer barred the U.S. Forest Service from selling any more timber in northern-spotted-owl habitat until it finished writing rules to ensure the bird's survival.

If there is any certainty in the spotted-owl saga, it is that the government will not voluntarily compensate private landowners for their losses in helping to save the owl. Like the spotted owl, property rights are threatened, if not endangered.

The critical habitat plan for preserving the spotted owl has many unintended consequences. Some of these, like the loss of timber-related jobs, are obvious. Others are less apparent. Among these hidden consequences is the impact on management incentives of property owners.

There is no doubt that the Endangered Species Act applies to private lands. Under Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, private landowners are prohibited from "taking" or "harming" listed species. There is nothing in the act that speaks to the taking or harming of private-property rights, but there is such a provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

The spotted-owl controversy is the tip of the iceberg of conflict between endangered-species protection and private-property rights. The Fish and Wildlife Service also is on the verge of listing the Columbia River sockeye salmon as endangered.

The sockeye is only the first of many anadromous fish runs being studied by the agency. The potential impact for private rights in land and water could make the spotted-owl regulations seem insignificant.

The Endangered Species Act specifically states that economic factors are not to play a role in the decision to list a species as threatened or endangered.

Many biologists even questioned the appropriateness of placing two economists on the recovery task force for the spotted owl. Once a recovery plan is written, the only incentive for public and private land managers to follow the plan is the threat of a lawsuit if they do not.

A far better solution would be to use economic incentives to help protect endangered species. One approach would create a Biodiversity Trust Fund, derived from a fixed percentage of the revenues from public land activities - such as logging, mining, grazing and recreation - that impinge on wildlife habitat.

If these resources were sold at fair market value, and 10 percent were paid to the fund, between $500 million and $1 billion per year would be available to protect critical wildlife habitat.

A Biodiversity Fund board of trustees, consisting of respected scientists with specialties in fields such as evolutionary biology and restoration ecology, could be nominated by the National Academy of Sciences to allocate this money.

They could buy conservation easements in the areas where disturbances might harm listed species. They also could pay "bounties" to land managers if an endangered species successfully breeds on their land.

The trust fund would completely change the incentives surrounding rare and endangered species. Private landowners would support, rather than oppose, the listing of new species because of the potential that they could get paid for harboring such species. In the end, protection would be possible for a wider number of species without all the political and legal turmoil that now surrounds the Endangered Species Act.

And the Endangered Species Act might no longer be endangered.