Nope, you conflated two clauses into one line. The first clause before the comma is language DIRECTLY from the internal "Our Vision, Our Values" memo that was leaked out about the agencies' long-term strategy for Land and Water Conservation Fund monies.
That might not be going on at YOUR level in whatever agency you're at, Tinman, but the leadership certainly thought about this strategy.
Only the "specifically targeted" part was MY writing, a logical conclusion being that buying a "small number of very large ranches" with desirable base properties and associated grazing rights is a very cost effective means of controlling use on larger tracts. No ranch? No grazing. No ranch, no residents, either.
Sorry you can't accept that. It's true, I wasn't sued over the article.
As for the rest of you, who just might like a West that still has Westerners around to help pull you out of the gumbo, this internal paper was entitled "Our Vision, Our Values" and should be floating around somewhere on the Internet. I recommend anyone here interested in the truth read my article and then the memo, very carefully.
You're pretty damn delusional if you really think that.
I'm no fan of upper management in various federal land management agencies, because of some incompetent management decisions, and those in Washington specifically, but no private ranches are being "targeted"...law enforcement, both BLM/FS/USFW and local law would be all over it.
That corrupt BLM LEO in Salt Lake City is a true POS, and he is being dealt with accordingly. That's the only example I have ever heard of with a crooked ranger.
I don't know where your "
I wasn't sued over the article" comment came from...or what relevance being sued because of an opinion piece has on the topic.
