Lesa raises an important issue regarding how much time many threatened species have. My view is that we are naive if we think we can halt the rate of population decline completely (at least in most cases). Often, the short- to medium-term goal has to be to slow the rate of decline as much as possible, so that there are still populations of animals and tracts of forest left when prevailing attitudes, values, and incentive structures have changed in a way that is more favorable for conservation. There will always be tensions between alternative land uses, as there are in other countries, but a more level playing field will ensure that endangered species and ecosystems are more appropriately valued in those calculations. Altering perceptions and priorities does not happen overnight, of course, but things are moving in the right direction.