Pointer, The fact remains that you used a terrible example to narrate the "states will sell" story. I'm fortunate in that I've been able to actually see these places, talk to the managers in rather formal contexts. What I resent the most is that many people will take your assertion at face value because it does take a lot of effort to actually verify reality. A good sound bite, passed on to lazy, ignorant "media" by a savvy fib-teller, does an incredible amount of damage over time. I've been on the press meat wagon, with credentials, and been horrified at what passes for professional conduct from bylined, credentialed people. You know about guns, right? And you know how "reporters" tell THAT story, who gets quoted or is treated like an expert? Do gun control stories in your view have ANY relationship to reality? Well, guess what? Natural resource issues are similarly distorted.
And Crick, I'm sorry you can't quite wrap yourself around the history of induced fire. Indians burnt north and south, east and west, everywhere it made sense for them. It was intensive, which is why whites found "Pauite forestry" so objectionable upon settlement. With no fixed infrastructure for the most part, for Indians, fire didn't pose a risk to "wealth" worth worrying about.
Finally, this thing about CONSERVING habitat. Does anyone here care to explain the difference between conservation and preservation posing as "conservation?"
I didn't make any "state will sell story". The post above me stated that Oregon was selling "parkland". I only posted that what was being sold is the Elliot State Forest. You are reading way more into my posts about that than what was written.
