I think paying for "conservation" on public lands is not nearly as straightforward as the article implies. "conservationists" are not always doing things in the

I think paying for "conservation" on public lands is not nearly as straightforward as the article implies. "conservationists" are not always doing things in the interest of better land use. In Bozeman there's a wealthy neighborhood ($3m+ per house) that outbid the logging companies for the BLM forestry contract adjacent to their land. They claimed it was for natural habitat conservation, but the land has become completely impassable with bramble. It used to be a fantastic place to hike and ski tour in the winter, but it's become so overgrown it's hard to access by human or wild animal. We were really looking forward to the improved access to the land once the forest was harvested. The director of forestry for the area had a really thoughtful plan for harvesting the land. Completely aside from the economic loss from not harvesting, there wasn't a conservation benefit either.