[ctdonath2]

So charitable of you to say so. So kind of you to wish ill upon me instead of trying to get my point.

Nature gets pretty screwed up when we try to control it. Declare a "no forest fires" policy, and enough tinder & fuel build up to devestate everything (see the great Yellowstone fire about a decade ago). Eliminate a critical predator, and overpopulating prey similarly screws things up.

Point is that when you start seriously trying to redirect nature, you usually regret it...and perversely forget what ultimately caused you grief in the first place.

[Fish out of Water]

You now I often hear the same argument that we should not interfere, only it is applied to foreign affairs in places like Iraq and elsewhere because there are often unforeseen consequences.

[Delphinium]

Maybe I missed your point, did you agree that the wolves are detriment to the enviroment as the writer is trying to point out?

I really wouldn't wish a wild fire on anyone.I thought you were saying the let it burn philosophy is the the one you agree with? It was the let it burn mentality that caused hundreds of homes to burn in Hamilton Montana, and other places a couple of years ago. I am pretty sensitive to that because living in the west we see too much of it. It is too bad that man ever started messing with nature, but they did, and have to in order to live with it. When Yellowstone burned it was terrible no one had cared for the garden, but overprotected it. There was too much fuel, and the fires burned too hot. Where we live the forests are seriously ready for one of these catastrophic fires. I am not saying that the let it burn isn't ever called for but I'd like a real forestor to make that decision rather then some wacko.