[summer]

Below is an interesting excerpt from a paper written by a scientist and an environmental planner: (click HERE.).

I have seen this same info elsewhere, showing FL has a high percentage of private ownership of its land, so I don't know where Henry Lamb (author of the posted article by JH2) is justified in complaining there is barely any more private ownership in FL:

A comparison of forestland ownership patterns with the southern U.S. states and neighboring British Columbia, Canada demonstrates the significance of these processes in shaping the contemporary mosaic of forestland ownership in Washington. The dominant commercial forest land owners in Washington are the Forest Service (31 percent) and the forest products industry (25.9 percent) with the remaining 43.1 percent divided between the State, other public sector owners, and non-industrial private owners (Waggener, 1990). In the southern U.S., 90.7 percent of the region's commercial forest lands are privately owned, with 70 percent owned by non-industrial private owners, such as farmers, institutions, and firms not involved in the wood products industry (Anderson and Olson, 1991; Waggener, 1990). This pattern is almost reversed in British Columbia where 97 percent of commercial forestlands are owned by the Provincial government (Waggener, 1990).

[Budge]

...I don't know where Henry Lamb (author of the posted article by JH2) is justified in complaining there is barely any more private ownership in FL...

I read between the lines on Lamb's comments about the "lack of private ownership."

Certainly there is "private ownersip," and a lot of it throughout the United States.

However, I cite my own experience in this that you have so kindly responded to.

[summer]

Of course I meant: privatized