"It has been my experience having worked for local, state, federal government and now as an owner of a private company trying to deliver conservation that private business activity results in a capital multiplier affect. Our income is repeatedly re-circulated in the community by our use of local business that included contractors, nurseries, surveyor's etc. who after receiving income from our firm will circulate these funds to other local businesses. Our current public sector dominated system redistributes capital via taxation and investment in public sector programs that typically are narrowly focused, formulaic, and lack the flexibility to deal with individual needs of landowners. As new public sector programs emerge at the state or federal level, the typical response is to hire new employees and deploying them in communities without first evaluating the private capacity and their ability to support public programs. This response devalues conservation and implies that the practice of conservation is not an economically worthwhile endeavor".

"I encounter landowners who ask why they should use services of the private sector when the state or federal government does the work for free. I would suggest that we will never get close to a sustainable environment unless we convince landowners that it is in their economic interest to practice conservation. If natural resource agencies continue to provide "conservation for free" or use unrealistic user fees this allows the government (natural resource agencies) to undercut the prices of private sector providers thereby creating a "welfare type mentality" for conservation. This presents an insurmountable barrier for conservation business entry into this market".