jisherw wrote:cftbq wrote:A common misconception.
Considering how I used to be one of those individuals, I take offense to this statement.
No need to take offense. I refer to the population in general.
jisherw wrote:Not that it necessary pertains to this situation, but here is a quote that I would like to share with you:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead
And I certainly agree with Margaret Mead. However, the small group of thoughtful, committed people has never succeeded by playing by the rules handed to them by the self-empowered majority. Rather, they succeed only by breaking the "rules," and challenging the very basis of the majority's power. This is very different from trying to nit-pick away at the individual manifestations of the basic problem.
cftbq wrote:As to the "management plans" being "need[ed]," this, too, is only true under an over-bureaucratized vision of how things ought to be done.
jisherw wrote:I do not know your background, so I cannot determine if you are speaking from experience, knowledge, or just personal opinion, however, in my experience many of the current forest management plans are no longer relevant in the current situation. I will not go in the specifics why because I believe that I have already given a basic background on many of the important issues facing Colorado's forests. I am curious however, how did you come to this conclusion and what scientific facts do you use as support?
Call it personal opinion if you like. All the same, I am speaking from (decades of) personal experience. This is not a matter of science, but, rather, a matter of mode of approach. The science you reference may well all be quite valid. The transition to requiring the public to shell out monetarily is, however, not science, but politics.