Originally posted by Keats:
Does conservation without securing livelihood of forest dependent people mean following a rough road and facing bumps ahead (May be not for US?).
there are lots of forest, but few national parks.
people whose livelihood are dependant on forest have plenty of places to work. on the other hand, national treasures like the national park, esp ones like Yellowstone are few and far between. IF people whose livelihood depends on forest wish to secure their future, then they need to practice conservation and proper use of the land.
the reality is, those who really do depend on the forest know this, and do this. its the people that demand more forest be open to their exploitation that are having trouble with the idea that some forest are beyond their reach. They care little for the future generations, and the beauty of the treasures, preferring the beauty of a well stocked bar and newest car. These are the ones that try to convience people that people are suffering without turning every forest into a desert or condomendium community.
its possible to put roads into places like yellowstone without killing off all the wildlife. what is difficult is having all the people that want to take suveneirs from the land, or who want to have a picture taken of them petting a bison and having them in close contact with animals and things that are easily destroyed by that contact.
everyone agrees that you need to limit the contact as long as its other people who are limited.
