A few points before I fly out the door to an appointment:

There are groups that care more for animals than people. PITA is a classic example. But they aren't an environmental group.

There is a difference between "environmentalist" and "ecologist." The first is a political term, the second based more on science.

People can live anywhere they want if they can learn to do it without having to make their dwelligs fit a certain mold or up to certain standings. I don't think you'll ever find people signing forms saying they won't ask for fire protection, and I don't think you'll ever find municipalities or government entities that would agree to such a plan because of the lawsuit factor after-the-fact of a fire.

The prescribed burn at Las Alamos was started on NPS land; they called the USFS for assistance in the middle of the night, but the mid-level manager who was called wasn't in a position to undrestand the request and foolishly told them to call back after 8 in the morning instead of waking up his/her supervisor and asking for assistance.

DougR, that's a lot of political and inflamatory rhetoric that you've posted about fires and endangered species. Catch-phrases, reductive observations. It takes a lot of time to sort out all of that and I don't have it now. Perhaps later this evening I'll find and post a few links to lucid discussions of these topics. Just hold this thought: those endangered species you complain about are the equivalent of the canary in the mine. If they go, we won't be far behind them.

SRS