[hattend]

I think both of our ideas have problems. Unless the entire west burns to the bare earth and hundreds of thousands of people start getting pissed off, you won't see the feds privatizing vast tracts of land, either. It took them so long to get them.

Just talking to my friends and family still left in the PRC, unless they see the flames licking at their homes, they don't care. "California burns every year" is a common reply. They don't care that blame for these holocausts ("fires" isn't an apt description) can be placed at the feet of govermental agencies who have been poisoned by envirals within and their environmental policies of the last couple of decades

I think you, me and Mudboy have our work cut out for us.

[Carry_Okie]

You don't start with vast tracts. You start with single individuals on several legal fronts, and VERY quietly. Get the precedent in place and replicate. That happens faster than one might think considering how long it would take to get the contracts for forest thinning in place through the Federal bureaucracy and the courts.

Remember: ownership is equivalent to control of use. Whether the Feds own it or not, this battle is about who controls how the land is managed. I argue (and can probably prove) that the agencies of government operate with motives that are structurally adverse to their respective mandates. OTOH there are individuals whose motives can be coaligned with the collective claim, and it starts with private enterprise.

Finally, you only have a few clues what my ideas are. Perhaps you shouldn't prejudge them until you have read the book.