Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the Forest Service, said that our public lands should provide for " the greatest good for the greatest number". He came up with this vision for our national forests over a hundred years ago. Today, Pinchot's goal is as meaningful as it was at the turn of the last century. Tens of thousands of Americans across the country and here in Colorado took up his cause this past Saturday, National Public Lands Day, by helping to plant trees, repair trails, clean campsites and pick trash out of rivers and wetlands. While it's always inspiring to see people take an interest in our public lands, it is important to consider how our view of public lands has changed over the last 104 years. The land-use practices on our public lands that bring the greatest good to the greatest number are different than they were a century ago. In Colorado and around the country, our public lands are of increasing relevance to us because of the accelerating rate at which we are losing our land and water to development. At this time, the available scientific evidence suggests that all major ecosystems are dominated by humans. That is, humans have altered the landscape so much that we're impacting the diversity of fish, plants and wildlife -- we are changing the very processes of life essential for human welfare...read more
The problem with "the greatest good for the greatest number" is who determines what "good" is. In a free society you determine what is best for you through the choices and purchases you make. In today's society too many of those choices about what is "good" are made by 536 people - The President and the Congress. In other words 536 ignorant government creatures are telling 308 million people what is "good" for them and it has been a prescription for disaster. So spare me the "greatest good for the greatest number" bunk.
1 comment:
At one time the congress agreed that a definition for "the greatest good" was the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act. That worked until the "ecologists" decided that it was do working to their favor. Then all of the so-called environmentalists got together and decided the F.S. should write forest plans that reflected the local sentiment rather than the law. And, that was the end of the F.S.
Post a Comment