Dear Fred,

Thanks for forwarding my response to your "wild" paper, along with your response to my response. While I also appreciate a good dialog, I do not appreciate being mis-quoted or mis-represented. I feel that you did that with your statement, "Whether or not they are compatible depends exactly on the 'literary explanation' of their similarity which you say you 'cannot, and will not, dispute.'"

I did not say, or imply, that wildness and organics are similar. What I did say was that I cannot, and will not, dispute the importance of wildness. Also, I did not use the word "control" once in my paper, yet you repeatedly refute the term. I said that "organic is an agricultural production claim." It is a "management system." I fully understand, and revel in the fact, that we cannot control the earth. Organic certification is not about "control", it is about verifying ecologically sound agricultural management practices. Yes, an organic calf may get out of the pasture and ingest non-organic feed, but wild fish don't eat any certified organic feed. There is really no comparison. I really think there is enormous potential for "Certified Wild" as both a marketing term and an ecological protection strategy. Let's stay focused on the big picture here, which is something you and I agree on, Fred.

Please circulate this to all parties who received your response to my paper. Thanks,

Jim