[risk]

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 :)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

[farmfriend]

Wait, I don't need to spend my money to be convinced of an argument I am not likely to agree with anyway.

That is the most rediculous thing you have said. IT's not an argument, it's a process. A new way of doing things. A better way of doing things.

do we save the preserves for future generations or do we not. I favor limiting access, saving what we have left, and restricting profiteering.

Hello, have you been listening? Limiting access is what is killing the forest and perserves in general. Whether or not someone makes a profit should be irreleven if what you are conserned about it preservation.

The forests were fine without us.

NO they are not, that is why the Biscuit fire burned a National Monument not PL's land.

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.

And as the daughter of a registered forester, I grew up in the Los Padres, Lassen, and Tahoe National Forests.