What is this guy trying to say:

“The worst possible thing to do now is to install gates, close trails, remove recreation facilities, and declare 192 million acres of forest service land off-limits to people. The problem has been created. Closing eyes and minds to it is not the way to address it."

http://freedom.org/news/200703/07/ryan.phtml

So what he's really saying is the federal government needs to spend tens of millions of dollars to construct roads into the remaining roadless areas so a few private entities can profit from taking out marginal timber that has heretofore always been unprofitable to attempt to extract.

"Let it burn (fires of natural origins)" is not such a bad-policy and control burns can work.

Is this article talking about Sequoias or Redwoods?

Edit: Clarice might not be a guy.
last edited: 3/08/07 6:19:13 AM”

“We've waited too long for mother nature to find a good location for a new Nascar track, indian casinos and some new prisons.”

“HMMM.so let it burn is a good idea....WOW....but But...won't that put off smoke which contributes to Global Warming Consensus Disaster?”

“Watt's the problem? Trees are just an inconvenient form of pollution.”

“LOL..what was the story a few years ago when the hiker was badly injured in one of the NATIONAL WILDLIFE preserves and they couldn't send a Forest Service Helicopter in to get him.....”