hazgas--It's nice to see you putting some real thought into your post, some of the things you said, I wholeheartedly agree with, but others I think you over-simplified a bit. I'll elaborate. You said that an environmentalist uses emotion and junk science to guide their opinions and a conservationist relies on logic and reason, I don't think it's that cut and dry. Maybe I could understand you better if you would define 'junk science'.

I do agree (and I'm probably a bit bias here) that conservationists do use logic and reason, and speaking as one, I do have a problem with the paper industry (and surprise, it stems from logic and reason). I take no issue with logging, someone mentioned clear cutting before; and I DO have a problem with that, no the issue that I have with the paper industry is there are better alternatives. The manufacture of paper is a messy and chemical heavy process, where as if a company where to start large scale hemp (yea, I said hemp, no I don't smoke weed) paper production, it would be easier on the environment as hemp is a rather hearty plant, goes rapidly, is easy to produce sustainably, and (and I'm not 100% sure on this) takes less water to maintain than other crops. This would of course involve the legalization of hemp production which will likely never happen due in no small part to the ties between government and industry, but that's a different thread. I do agree with you about paper companies protecting their land and it's inhabitants, but this is really more of a convienient sidebar than and intention. Though I will take it over tract housing.

Second, I think we're somewhat on the same page here. Hunting does help control species overpopulation, though this is not likely their main concern. There are those overzealous indiviuals out there, some of whom I've seen overstepping their bounds (my dog has similar coloration to a deer, so I'm a little tweaky about his), but done responsibly, I take little issue here. Not to say I agree with it. Let me first define MY version of responsible: Eat what you kill, use it all. Stay within designated areas, and within season. And I know the prize is a big ol' buck, but don't kill the breeders. Oh and don't shoot my dog. PETA does cause quite a stink about all this, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only so they can whine.

I don't know if we see eye to eye about recycling however. I do see what you're saying, and I absolutily agree with you about aluminum (I think the last statistic I read was that America throws away enough cans every year to rebuild the entire fleet of every airline in the country), and yes, it does take fossil fuel to recycle, but what if that energy came from a renewable resource? The issue with recycling isn't just so we don't have to make new stuff, it's also so the old stuff won't become more of a problem than it already is. Yes you're right about landfills, well, probably not 100% right, but at least some right, but that space WILL run out. It is a bubble that is going to burst at some point. If the recycling program could be modified to incoroporate more sustainable energy methods, I think it might render your arguement moot. It is a big if, unfortunatly. And as far as someone just throwing away the new product, well, that's the "it's not my problem" mentality that we should all work to change.