Replies

Staying totally out of these areas would make more sense.

No, it doesn't because of the problem with invasive species. I'll see if I can find the thread with the pictures of Conservancy land that has been destroyed by leaving it alone. Setting land aside is what is killing the land. You need to read further and get off the whole profit thing.

I'm not buying privatization as a solution. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

That right there tells me you have no clue what Natural Process is all about. Buy the book before you judge.

Let me ask you this, is the UL tag on electrical stuff "the fox guarding the hen house"? Is innovation in the health care system, Conservation of peoples lives, driven by profit or a desire to save people? Innovation in environmental conservation can be driven by profit and will be more effective if it is. Open your mind. Natural Process is a whole new way of thinking. You can't get there using old models.

Mark will get back to you this evening. He is out pulling weeds right now. Mean while, I'll look for those pictures.

Buy the book before you judge.

Wait, I don't need to spend my money to be convinced of an argument I am not likely to agree with anyway. That's the invisible hand at work again :)

The forests were fine without us. We're not likely to help them by fighting all fires, or "thinning" as much as we would by just leaving them alone. I don't think that's necessary, but it illustrates my point: less is more in the case of activity with regard to conservation.
People have to take care of themselves. They need to find ways of making a living without invading the preserved lands. If the conservation is constant, we won't need to worry about this. There is no "manifest destiny" of natural resource consumption.
I've camped and played in these areas, and I'm proud of the charter of the national agencies like the Forest Service and the BLM. If there's a problem, we need to solve it from within, not by tearing them down.

Sorry, but the problems we're having with the enviralists are not caused by public conservation in and of itself, and they won't go away if we privatize the lands and their resources. The resources would soon disappear, however.

Regardless of the extremists on the side of the corporations or the enviralist terrorist-wannabes, there is still a choice to be made: do we save the preserves for future generations or do we not. I favor limiting access, saving what we have left, and restricting profiteering. Sorry, but I think we have more at stake here than the current generation, and I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt understood that choice as well.

That choice will not go away. You can dress it up any way you like, but it's the same debate. And plenty of Americans are in favor of limiting use of these resources one way or another. And they're not all leftists.