environmental interests would be a great step. There is a lot of good movement among environmentalists to be for something, instead of against everything.

Now if we can get the republicans and the natural resources exploitation crowd to sit down at the same table with the pragmatic environmentalists we can get more win/win situations like that cobalt mine. Could it be that we are finally entering an ERA of sane environmental policy? Probably not, but it will at least get closer.

ARSON ARSON ARSON

Ignorant fools and wild-eyed devils are burning the hills down.

Lets hope that the Feds in charge of the money see the proactive value in thinning around communities as the first step in forest health restoration. I would also like to see more local involvement and leadership to promote FireWise practices by property owners. One of the most important things our local leaders can do is to incorporate Defensible Space and FireWise practices into current building codes.

Initial attack is still important in most situations because we don't need these mega fires they are bad for the environment. We need the money spent more wisely (by cutting out the waste) on fighting fires where they need to be fought.

If Mr. Barker meant that members of the Democratic Party are forming think tanks, then the headline should read "Democratic think tanks..." The use of the term "Democrat" in describing an organization that features members of the Democratic Party is a slur generally perpetrated by Republican operatives all over the country to try to imply that the Democratic Party is not democratic in nature. I'm not a Democrat, but when I hear anyone using "Democrat" in an adjectival form, that is a signal to me that that the idea being pushed has a right-wing, often disrespectful cant. I don't think that this is Mr. Barker's intent, but he might want to consider whether he is watching too much Faux News.

I'm not sure I've ever encountered a "pragmatic environmentalist" in the sense that Political Junkie seems to be using the term, but YPmule would certainly seem to be that sort of person in my book.

Our forest environment has been degraded, abused, and made ugly and dangerous during the past few decades, thanks in very large part to the "environmental movement" and their lawyers. It is time for common sense, love of nature, legitimate resource management experience, and applied science to turn things around.

People can say what they want about "rape and run logging," "rampant resource extraction," or however they want to characterize it, but the pre-Wilderness forests of the 50s, 60s, and 70s, were safer, prettier, more abundant with wildlife, and far less dangerous and polluting than the firebombs of today. Then the politicians (read: "environmentalists" and "ecologists") began hiring lawyers, and now we have today's mess.

Ever since this latter grouping of "forest preservationists" Animal-farmed the word "conservation" (which used to mean "wise USE"), we have to be careful with our terminology. There is no reason that our forests can't be managed while producing tax-producing jobs and stable rural communities, rather than sucking up all available dollars for weeding ("thinning") and "fire suppression" theater, as now occurs.

Is "forest restoration" truly meant in the Tom Bonnicksen sense of the word? What is a "pragmatic environmentalist?"

It is past time for a turn in a better direction, and YPmule describes how that can be started. Pragmatically.

I would not call Western Progress "moderate"-- I would call them progressives, which is what liberals like to call themselves these days...you know, kind of like how environmentalists call themselves "conservationists."
As for Tom Kenworthy's call to change a headline, come on, Tom. I'll bet there isn't a single Republican on staff at Western Progress, nor any GOP donors among the fiscal funders. Perhaps Rocky should just change the headline again to Liberal think tank, no leaning. That would be most honest of all.
Or better...."Progressive" think tank.
As for the proposal, given the originators, their professional academic associations, ERI's terrible performance on its contract to analyze the litigation problem with the Forest Service, et cetera, I look upon ERI product with a weather eye...even if they DO say cutting a tree can be okay once in a great while.

Let me flesh out a point that DaveSkinner made in passing in his rant above-

If you study the history of liberalism, you find its primary values were freedom from big institutions, especially government; individual rights; and support for private property. I am talking about liberalism dating from the 1700s onward through the 19th century.

When the giant industrial combines developed after the Civil War, inequality became rampant, many liberals began to look to the government as a counterweight to the monopolistic corporation. Other liberals disagreed, fearing government power. Those who favored what they called "positive" government action, action they said could increase freedom by bringing the corporations under control, took the name "progressive."

Gradually the oldline liberals began to be called "conservatives." Progressives finally won the day with the coming of Franklin D. Roosevelt. They took the name "liberal," and use of the word progressive disappeared.

Those "conservatives" (formerly the old liberals) fought back for many years, trying to demonize the word "liberal." They were slowly successful even though there was, and is, good evidence that Americans still favor the economic policies of liberals (social security, minimum wage, overtime, safely regulations, a guarantee of some kind of health care, government action to maintain full employment, control of corporate excesses).

Given the successful demonization of a word rather than a viewpoint, a political philosophy, liberals were correct to reclaim the word "progressive."

is BINGO.