As Terborgh (this issue) points out, the controversy that is the topic of this exchange is not parks. We all agree that nature reserves with minimal human influence are an important component of any conservation strategy in any country. Rather, the point of controversy is how best to achieve a much broader, more comprehensive conservation of nature in a region such as Amazonia, where four-fifths of the forest are still standing. In this setting, it is counterproductive to insist that the only nature worth preserving is pristine, with no human influence, as Terborgh (this issue) and Redford & Sanderson (this issue) seem to be saying. To pursue this narrow interpretation of nature conservation is to ignore the scale and timing of human threats to this forest. By the end of the 1997-1998 El Ninio episode, for example, 1.5 million km2 of Amazon forest-a third of the forest remaining in Amazonia-was desiccated to the point of flammability. Most of the forest didn't catch fire because it is far from the agricultural frontier. With the paving of >4000 km of highway into the core region of Amazonia, large-scale forest burning will follow, as will 100,000-180,000 km2 of additional deforestation (Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental na Amazonia and Instituto Socioambiental 2000; Nepstad et al. 2000). This scale of threat to Amazonia and other large tropical forest formations must frame our approach to conservation. Even if, for the sake of ar-