> "Neither E's nor A's extreme position is tenable. Compromises
> must be made and that will only occur with dialogue."
If ONLY E's or A's were affected by land-use decisions, I would
be quite willing to agree with him. However, over the last
several decades these camps (and others) have compromised and
compromised and compromised some more, until we are left with:
Fewer and fewer wetlands
Little or no native prairies
Fewer pheasants in the Midwest
Fewer and fewer waterfowl
Fewer predators in the upper trophic levels (bears, wolves, lions)
Less breeding habitat for Neotropical migratory birds
Severe reductions in populations of amphibians
Massive over-populations of cowbirds, blackbirds, and English Sparrows
Over-populated deer herds along the Eastern seaboard
Less and less clean water, especially in the western U.S.
Less and less water in the Platt River for Sandhill Cranes
And what is the current estimate for the amount of old growth
timber anywhere in the U.S.?
So what else can we compromise on?
When are we going to reach the compromise that says NO to the humans?
When are we going to reach a compromise with the Earth, and not just
agree to disagree amoung ourselves in how fast we can defile the
The word "compromise" has a political overtone. The science has
been done to demonstrate the truth of the situations above. When
are we going to replace that which is politically expedient with
what promises to become ecologically imperative?
Maybe when it becomes ecologically compulsory....
Let the Earth cut us a deal we can't refuse .... that's a compromise.