Tom,
I have to disagree on the spotted owl issue. I agree we need to save the ecosystem and it is necessary to control logging for the common good, but consider this situation.
Someone wants to buy some land that has $1,000,000+ worth of timber and a $100,000 house on it. The seller wants $1,100,000 for the land and house. The buyer puts $100,000 down and goes to the bank to finance $1,000,000 over fifteen years planning on slowly timbering the property to pay back the loan. Then the government rightly decides that the property should not be timbered "for the common good"
The government has essentially "TAKEN" $1,000,000 worth of value from the buyer of that land. Also, because they can not timber it they will not be able to repay the loan and their property and house will be repossessed by the bank so they actually would lose the entire $1,100,000 and could end up homeless.

The government SHOULD compensate for the $1,000,000 value of the lumber they have taken.

You could have many different scenarios for something like this to happen. Say a young couple buys 1000 acres and pays for that acreage over the next 30 years planning on timbering it when they reach 65 to pay for their retirement. Then the government says they cannot timber it and the couple loses X amount of money and all of their retirement money. Again the government has TAKEN that value and the couple should be fairly compensated.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
Thank You,
Kevin McCaffery