[countrydummy]

sounds like a plan, but after his last post on the other, I think we are pounding our heads against a concrete wall! lol lol

[farmfriend]

Go back and read the posts both Mark and I posted.

[risk]

No, they aren't my friends. I mistrust these guys way more than I mistrust corporate fair/common use advocates. In fact, I think the Republican party is going to have the power to make some of the choices we're discussing here very soon. My position remains in short:

1. There is a silent majority of Americans who agree with conservation, and they're not ecoterrorists. I consider myself one of them. We don't agree with either the ecofreaks or the privatization advocates.
2. There is no formula for disaster in public conservation. I believe this is disinformation with an obvious corporate bias. It's as transparent as a drop of dew.
3. Teddy's conservation is worth preserving. "Problems" we have now are not necessarily caused by his legislation. We simply have new datapoints to use in future forest management.
4. Our redwoods, sequoias, and true old-growth are worth protecting 100%. Thinning is OK if it really works, but I don't trust those who profit from the practice to limit their consumption.

The right is much more likely to be setting the tone of these debates in the next 20 years than the left, and so I care a lot more about what you all think than I do the econuts! I'm a non-corporate fair/common use advocate, and I have nothing to gain or lose by this except a deeply-held commitment to conservation.