Conservation/Preservation

We look at the difference between conservation and preservation and see that they can mean almost the same thing but in reality, they don't. John Muir was the "founder" of the idea of preservation when he opposed the idea of building into national parks or preservation areas. He thinks that they should be left alone and not touched at all...except by a few to appreciate what nature has to offer but to keep it clean. Gifford Pinchot on the other hand thought similarly but not exactly the same. He believed in conservation which means to allow the use of nature resources but not overuse them. Use what is needed and conserve the rest to produce more. To describe a little history between the two, they were once friends fighting for the same cause until the case of Hetch Hetchy. It was up north in California and Pinchot was supporting the idea to build a dam to allow water for the residents in the Bay Area. Muir thought the opposite and desired for the land to stay as it was, untouched. Since that point, the two became enemies so to say and went their different ways. Pinchot went on to work with the government because of his connections and by so doing gained more power and authority. Muir fought until his ultimate death to preserve hetch hetchy but the dam was built and Muir passed away.
So I found an article from the Greenpeace website that has been talking about timber in Alaska and the illegal use of it. Companies that are being subsidized by the U.S. government are lying on their reports to exceed the allotted use of the timber in the northwest. And as a result, animals are becoming extinct and it messing up the ecosystem up there. Not only that, but we, the taxpayers, are covering the costs for these companies to make money. But the issue is the topic of conservation. It's pretty hard to support the idea of preservation as a whole because I believe that we have been given natural resources to use for our survival. So I tend to lean more on conservation when it is used properly. In this case, the companies are using way more than what is necessary. This is causing many problems that the companies are not seeing and creating more animals on the endangered species list. When the animals have no place to go in the forests, they find other places to go like local neighborhoods, etc. That in turn causes problems with humans and so forth. The courts are now starting to take action which can be a good thing if these companies are proven to be doing what they are accused of. So we'll wait to see the outcome.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/greenpeace-sues-to-protect-rar
My opinion is that it needs to be controlled. I don't like to pay for stuff like this while others are getting rich and breaking laws. It is causing tremendous problems for the natives as well as the before mentioned ecosystem that needs to exist. Conservation is necessary to remember for what it really means...use only what is necessary and leave the rest alone. I hope that justice will be found.