Editing Wise use movement (section)

===Major organizations===
According to James McCarthy (2002),<ref name=mccarthy/> the most prominent wise use groups receive most of their support from resource extraction industries (Amoco, British Petroleum, Chevron, Exxon/Mobile, Marathon Oil) as well as the 
American Farm Bureau, Dupont, Yamaha, General Electric, General Motors, National Cattlemen's Association, and the National Rifle Association). The policies and political orientations of groups in the wise use movement range from some who self-identify as [[free-market environmentalism|free-market environmentalists]], to industry-backed [[public relations]] groups and mainstream [[think tank]]s, to some [[Militia organizations in the United States|militia]] groups and [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] religious groups. Major organizations promoting wise use ideas include Alliance for America, the [[American Land Rights Association]], the [[Cato Institute]], the [[Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise]], People for the West, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, and the [[Heartland Institute]].

Most members of the wise use movement, including the related County Movement,<ref>Rauber, Paul (1994), ''Sierra'', [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_n1_v79/ai_14707542 Wishful thinking: Wise Use cowboys try to rewrite the Constitution - County Movement against state and federal land use laws], Jan-Feb 1994, [[Sierra Club]]</ref> share a belief in individual rights, as opposed to the authority of the federal government, in particular with regard to the rights of land use. They argue that the environmental movement is both anti-private property and anti-people. While some in the wise use movement have strongly anti-environmental views, others assert that the free market, rather than government regulation, will better protect the environment.

====Wise use agenda====
Many wise use groups argue that [[rural]] residents suffer a disproportionate impact from environmental regulations, and that the environmental movement is biased toward the attitudes of [[urban area|urban]] [[elite]]s, ignoring the rural perspective. Opponents observe that the extractive forces behind the wise use movement harm rural residents more and prey on the independence of rural residents - preaching the "right to ride" when behind that is the desire to strip mine and [[clearcutting|clearcut]] using unsustainable methods.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}} Some environmentalists disagree with the Sierra Club's "no-cut forest" policy. Steve Thompson{{Who|date=February 2010}} wrote the goal of the policy should be to "provide greater flexibility to achieve true [[forest restoration]]. A blanket, one-size-fits-all 'zero cut' policy severely restricts the Sierra Club's ability to provide solutions to complex forest mismanagement problems."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.clarkforkchronicle.com/hbt.php?rewrite=20030730/sierra-no-cut-7-30-03.htm|title=旋乐吧spin8.com-www.spin8.com-旋乐吧spin808手机版旋乐吧spin8.com-www.spin8.com-旋乐吧spin808手机版|website=www.clarkforkchronicle.com}}</ref>
<!-- new section including other key figures needed here -->

====Wise use strategies====
Wise use groups depict themselves as (and seek to promote themselves as) true environmentalists with close ties to the land, and cast environmental groups as advocating radical environmentalism. Wise use groups also downplay threats to the environment, and highlight uncertainties in environmental science that they argue environmental groups ignore or conceal. Wise use groups also portray the environmentalist movement as having a hidden agenda to control land.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.nwcitizen.us/publicgood/reports/maughan.htm|title=Northwest Citizen – Independent Local News}}</ref>