BLM long-timers in the region were easy to work with and understood the nuances of the ecosystem well. Most of the conflict was when some recently transferred idealist with no experience in the high desert ecosystem decided that they needed to dramatically change how the ecosystem was managed, mostly just to show that there was a new sheriff in town, without understanding why things were managed the way they were. Normal human condition stuff. And yes, this occasionally produced real ecosystem destruction because they didn't understand the ecosystem interdependencies and weren't interested in listening. This always sorted itself out over time, they either quickly recognized that they didn't understand the ecosystem nearly as well as they thought they did and started listening to locals or they transferred back to the east coast, but there was always a steady stream of fresh young graduates cycling through to create new drama.
Citation needed. In my experience this has not been the case, but I was on national forest land, not BLM land, so there may be a difference in management practices.
> "I've lived here my entire life, so clearly without devoting any actual effort to studying the ecosystem I know what's best because hey, the trees look pretty good to me!"
That's not at all what my post said, you are attacking a strawman.
Where are your citations for anything you've said?
>The PhD environmentalists came to dominate the forest service
What forest exactly? Because this reads like a really bad forwarded email.
Most BLM "PhD's" are from the area they're protecting. They don't shift them around all over the country. Like, I'm not even sure what lead you to think that.
Your arrogance is not as good as someone else's knowledge. And that's all your post really gets at. "I've lived here my entire life, so clearly without devoting any actual effort to studying the ecosystem I know what's best because hey, the trees look pretty good to me!"