[brityank]

While TR and others since have expanded the reach of the federal 'responsibility' for the national forests, it's only been in the last two decades that the watermelon orgs and UN policies for 'sustainable development' have enhanced the destruction of the environment.

Conservation is not a dirty word; environmentalism and their priests are.

[Carry_Okie]

While TR and others since have expanded the reach of the federal 'responsibility' for the national forests, it's only been in the last two decades that the watermelon orgs and UN policies for 'sustainable development' have enhanced the destruction of the environment.

TR inherited a problem. FDR brought us massive national programmes to fix it. Then it was a problem from the Program for America's Forests of the 1950s. Now it's a problem because of AlGore/Clinton/Babbit. All I hear on these threads is whining about Federal mismanagement. It's symptomatic of a systemic problem, intrinsic to socialism: the managing agent has no motive, means, or accountability to provide detailed, productive, and diverse methods of habitat management to the limits of technology. It's a product the public wants and a government monopoly can't seem to deliver. In fact, as government ownership fails, funding increases; witness the two billion dollars Babbit got from Clinton after the seven million acres they burned in 2000. Wait until they learn about the scope of their weed problem!

So why aren't we talking about doing something about it? A free market system is ready for trials, there is an implementation strategy. Free citizens should not be asking for permission to fix this mess; we should be taking the contract because the managing agent is blowing it. So, how do we organize that? Isn't anybody interested?