You're an idiot for even falling for this trap. That article is some straight up misinformation.
First of all, the bill just talks about doing timber salvage on the burned lands, and perhaps thinning operations within the park so as to make it less susceptible to another 200k acre fire, or anything catastrophic of that sort.
Second of all, there will be no sale of national park lands as the article basically tries to tell everyone. Any sale of land will be in other states (none in california) and in areas that are not really being used by the federal government (in states such as Utah and Nevada, where more than half of each state is federally owned land and is underused as hell - states have been asking for this for years)
As for doing THINNING (not fucking logging as the damn article states... jackasses) operations, it's absolutely necessary, not only to make a more fire-resistant forest, but to also promote biodiversity within. As of right now, it's so thick and dense that bears, who need a forest mosaic (meaning different areas of clearing and younger forests, not just old growth) to really live right. Their food consists of things that grow in the understory, and when the trees allow little to no light in for the understory to prosper, the bears and other animals that rely on that will not do so hot, and will go in search of food elsewhere IE: PEOPLES CARS.
So no, this is a very fucking good thing, and this article is putting it off as bad because they are a bunch of hippie idiots who are basically running a litigation company (Sierra Club and Greenpeace both do the same horseshit)
Have a nice day, Bluename.