Uhm, no? Stating Alaska works differently from California with the BLM shows I am not conflating the two.
I might be wrong in your position, but I think you have it backwards. The BLM has a list of rules and they have to interact with each state on a state by state basis, without breaking their rules. Each state interaction is different - each state is different. But I do not see the BLM going, you know what, let the state fucking burn for all I care.
I am being very broad and short - and
I am conflating the USFS and BLM to save time. The Federal Government vs State Government, and who owns and controls what, is this part of the discussion because the original claim
as proposed is Trump was wrong to state this in a tweet:
To support that this statement is wrong, the supporting comment is the State can't do the work because the US Gov is in control of most of the land, and not under state control. And that Trump can just fix this if he wants to.
To clarify, my comment
is counter to that: The BLM/USFS as arms of the government work
with the state to manage land, but often the state dictates what happens to an extent, not the Fed Gov - it requires all parties in this, but due to restrictions and taking this as a state by state basis, the State of California chooses to manage differently than states like Alaska.
So I would say we are in agreement there?
As shown here before California has policies that limit burning, limit forestry, and limit fire brakes, and the long history of those limits has built up a lot of underbrush. And that they know that internally. That is politics over forest management, and
that was at the direction of the state of California.
Your position that the federal government and it's agencies do not act as a monolithic whole would support my position a wee tiny bit, since the proposed position is that the feds are in majority control and Trump can just tell them what to do, and the state can't do anything on it's own for most of it's property.
Which is a bit absurd.