Hmmmm, why are wilderness advocates so dumb? That is a very intriguing question posed by Mr. O'Toole. It is certainly a question that, while maybe not intended to do so, is sure to advance the legitimate debate about user fees. Name calling is of course the universal form of debate used on all elemenatry school play grounds.

It should not be overlooked that the implication of the question is that O'Toole and motorized use advocates are NOT dumb. Furthermore, if wilderness advocates could just understand that user-fees were about "incentives" then they too would not be. . . well, dumb.

If your point is to preach to your choir, then you succeeded. If your point was to persuade those with views different than your own, you failed.

Is it not possible that those who are opposed to user fees (which is a category that is certianly not limited to "wilderness advocates") are well aware of the fact that federal agencies respond to economic incentives? Yet, they simply do not believe that economic incentives should be the determining factor in how federal lands are managed and therefore will not support the model??? Perhaps, despite their dumbness, they understand Mr. O'toole's incentive-based argument, but simply do not agree with embracing it because it perpetuates a system they believe to be fundamentally flawed.

I would venture a guess that they would put forth the idealist position that public lands are a common good and the Forest Service, as an agent of the Executive branch, should prioritize management of those lands based on statutory mandates, like say. . . the National Forest Management Act, not "economic incnetives." Or perhaps, as Mr. O'Toole proposes, they are just dumb.

Please help us fight to keep a nature preserve from being destroyed in Armenia!

http://www.blogrel.com/category/shikahogh/ for more information.

Maybe "dumb" was the wrong word. Maybe I should have asked, "Why are wilderness advocates so idealistic that they are willing to sacrifice the resources they care about most for the sake of principle?"

It is all well and good to believe that economic incentives should not determine how federal lands are managed. But whether they should or should not, incentives DO determine how federal lands are managed. If you really care about the wilderness, then you will use the tools that are available to save it, not live in a fantasy world and pretend that those tools should not exist. If your real goal is to create an idealistic fantasy world in which incentives don't matter, then you really don't care about wilderness.

In short, better get your priorities straight.

I imagine wilderness advocates would agree that it is hard to say which is more insulting; being told they are "dumb" or being told that they are advocating for an "idealistic fantasy world." Being told that they would rather be right than protect wilderness is equally as insulting. Even if these things are true, which I don't believe they are, your message is ineffective because it is insulting.

No doubt that you have more knowledge and understanding of how market incentives can potentially protect natural resources than the average "wilderness advocate." That would make sense since you have probably devoted considerably more time, effort, study, and thought to the concept than most. However, if you want others to understand what you know, AND why what you know is the key to natural resource protection, I would submit that you should not start by avoiding characterizing their position as dumb and stubborn.

I am sure you have been generously insulted by "wilderness advocates." Therefore you have probably had first hand experience with arguments asserting that not only are you misguided, you are so misguided that you are a sellout and therefore don't actually care about what you proclaim to care about. This kind of argument takes a lot less thought and care than actually laying out both sides of a debate and defending why your side is preferable. It also is more effective because it doesn't alienate the people you are trying to persuade.

Unfortunately, your characterization of wilderness advocates and their position on economic incentives tends to fit into the non-persuasive category. Asking why they are so dumb, or in the alternative, why they are so stubborn, to the point that they fail to see the light as Randal O'tool sees the light completely illegitimezes their position. By failing to acknowledge that other opinions on the issue - based on decades of experience, work, thought, and passion - exist and have had some success, you also fail to recognize reality.

More importantly, by ceding their position absolutely zero legitimacy, you fail to advance legitimate debate on finding the most effective strategy or combination thereof for protecting natural resources. Who is going to listen to someone that is basically spitting in their face? And lets face it, if persuading like minded folks was all you (or wilderness advocates) needed to do neither of you would need to write another word.