Replies

I know you have been studying this for a long time now. The questions remain the same. Is the policy being proposed similar to policies implemented in the past? If past policies have caused catastrophic wildlife barbeques and long term damage to the forests, what guarantees can another similar policy have to avert catastrophic damage? What is their goal here, to keep humans out, or let the conditions develop which will cause another holocaust to helpless forest creatures? What harms the creatures more, healthy forests, or firestorms cause by managerial neglect?

Something to consider for the long term: If the left gets its way and shuts down the forest, can a poison pill agreement be inserted? Let's say the policy is implemented and the usual expected firestorm results. Then, by negotiated agreement, the left will agree to let forest management policies be implemented like removal of dead trees, roads to act as fire breaks and for facilitating fire fighting equipment to fight the fires. If they cannot guarantee that anything different will happen, then try to pin them down to an agreement which is more sensible.