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.
What? Forests were there for thousands of years before we got here, but they'd be better off with our "well-researched" (i.e. a couple of generations of data, not much else) techniques?
I'm not buying it. It's obvious to me that the whole point of this "patented process" is to get the resources into the hands of those who can profit from it. The American people will say no thank you. So do I.