Posted on 05/29/2003 12:13:48 AM PDT by Stultis
Carry_Okie's system would make it profitable for them to limit their consumption. The best of both worlds.
I have nothing to gain or lose by this except a deeply-held commitment to conservation.
Then I take it you will be looking into Natural Process on a deeper level. I suggest buying the book.
Again, please get the books, this will help you to see both sides of this coin!!! If you will look at my bookmarks, you will also understand that I stand to lose my home, my way of life, my heritage all because of a "view-shed" that is not even a "view-shed" yet, but will be if the NPS has it's way and gets a scenic parkway built along the New River from I-64 to Hinton, WV!
To improve ecosystem health, invest in shares of private enterprises selling uses of natural processes that are priced by their ability to offset environmental risk.Again, why does anyone need to profit from our conservancies at all?
It's counter-intuitive to suggest that someone who makes a profit from stomping around in the woods will suddenly acquire a conscience and decide to limit that behavior. Staying totally out of these areas would make more sense. But we don't have to do that to learn from previous forestry mistakes. I'm not buying privatization as a solution. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.
It's good to know you guys are conservationists. I also agree that you should have the right to choose how to conserve your own resources as long as you don't impact people downstream or cause mudslides, etc...
But the land Teddy Roosevelt saved is not your private land, and I don't have to trust you personally to do what's best for it. I'd prefer to keep it that way, and if there are issues with habitat damage caused by poorly managed agencies, then we need to solve that problem directly, not with privatization.
As soon as you privatize, the resources will go to the highest bidder, and we know who that is.
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.
That makes it sound like we are in the same place, we are not. He had just told me he was going to pull weeds.
I support Mark's work in an official capacity. I supported it when I was Legislative Director for the California State Grange and I continue to support it as part of the Conservation and Environmental Affairs Committee. I advocate Grange policy. This work fits very well and covers policy from both the left and right of our organization. All Grange policy is drafted by local Granges. It is truly Grassroots. Founded in 1867, the Grange is the oldest general farm and public policy organization in the United States.
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 :)
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.
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.
The forest have been manage by aboriginals for thousands of years.
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.
Wrong, I know, I've read the book. The whole point is to better improve the environment. The process has been patented to protect the investment he has made researching and writing the book. Read the stuff in that last link, then get back to me. I'm starting to believe that you won't read the link. I doubt you went and looked at the pictures of destroyed conservation land and you seem more conserned with profit than the environment.
Teddy Roosevelt was one of the most prolific land grabbers ever.
First of all, whatever land the Feds manage to put on welfare, becomes ruined. Fires, floods, invasive species etc. Examples are all the ruined lands out west and the ill Everglades National Park.
When the crackers and Indians had it, it was all well groomed praries with tons of small game and in turn large game. Now it's managed by disinterested bureacrats from Rhode Island or the Northwest or wherever. Nearly all species of warm blooded vertibates have been depletd in the last 50 years.
The government is the worst possible steward of natural resources, you're a damn fool if you think otherwise.
Crackers? Crackers? You are going to have to brush up on your political correctness. ; ^ )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.