Lib, just responding to your argument that the government should not do what the Constitution says it should; i.e., your statement that there is nothing that government does that the free market cannot do better.

The "fairly pristine" lands to which I refer are those that are still fairly intact, pretty much like they were 10 years ago, 50 years ago, 200 years ago - take a week or so and walk up to lakes along the Continental Divide in the Wind River Range and catch a cutthroat or up deep into the Absaroaka east of Yellowstone and watch bull elk graze at treeline - those are the lands I'm referring to. These places aren't "untrammeled by that evil man species" as you say - people like myself and many others - more every year -go there, and we spend good money to do it. But the land functions much like it always has and is, therefore, "fairly pristine." Of course, its a good thing for us that most of the Lower 48 is not pristine, as we need places to live and we need to access and utilize natural resources to sustain ourselves. But, unless you think that there is absolutely no value at all to a few remnant wild places, then it seems a reasonable compromise to leave well enough alone and to preserve intact the few remaining relicts of our natural heritage. Less than 5% of the Lower 48 is protected in national parks and National Forest Wilderness areas - its not unreasonable to let that be. And its not unreasonable to hold our National Forests in trust for ourselves and future generations - if you believe otherwise, witness the devastation visited on the Ozarks in the late 1800's and early 1900's by a "free market" logging spree. If you want our entire country divyed upon into 10 acre ranchettes, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Seems your position may be as unreasonable, uninformed, and as poorly thought out as the most misanthropic extreme tree-hugger - just on the other side of the spectrum.