Scientists have for decades tried to figure out why moths are attracted to lights and flames to the point of self-destruction or immolation.

Perhaps they could visit Alabama and study a similar phenomenon: Why state and now local governments can’t stop trying to get a piece of Forever Wild.

We’ve praised that land preservation program repeatedly and loudly and will continue to do so, and not just because its “father,” Jim Martin, lives in Gadsden.

We don’t think we’re alone. The original constitutional amendment that authorized Forever Wild was approved with 83 percent of the vote. The amendment that reauthorized the program passed by a 3-to-1 margin.

Refresher time: Since 1992, Forever Wild has used interest from the state’s oil and gas trust fund (no more than $15 million each year) to buy and preserve more than 248,000 acres of land in Alabama.

Most all of that land is available to the public for fishing, hunting or just experiencing nature and watching wildlife.

People who think government has no business being involved with such things hate Forever Wild. So do those who can’t get the dollar signs out of their eyes when they contemplate the beauty of this land. (As in the past, we’ll note the impeccable conservative and pro-business credentials of its founder.)

Two years ago, an attempt to end funding for Forever Wild and direct that money to the state parks system, which was threatened by Alabama’s perpetual General Fund woes, was withdrawn following a huge public uproar.

Now, there’s a bill in a House committee as the 2017 legislative session winds down that would allow counties to mooch off the program.

Sponsored by Rep. Mark Tuggle, R-Alexander City, it would present a constitutional amendment to voters next year that would require Forever Wild to pay ad valorem taxes on the land it owns to the respective counties where it lies.

Tuggle claims Forever Wild hurts local tax bases when it buys land (like an 11,000-acre wildlife management area in Coosa County, which he represents). He says he doesn’t want to hurt the program, he just wants to “make counties whole.”

The problem is, the amendment wouldn’t just mean tax bills moving forward. Forever Wild would owe money retroactively for all the years it had gone untaxed.

Gunter Guy, state conservation and natural resources commissioner, estimated to AL.com that the past-due bill would be $3.6 million, and the program would owe a half-million dollars a year in the future.

If those numbers are accurate — and the actual tab would have to be computed based on local tax rates — there’s no way Forever Wild wouldn’t be adversely affected and future land purchases threatened.

That would be a negative for Alabama. Tammy Herrington, director of Conservation Alabama, told AL.com that a recent study shows that every dollar invested in Forever Wild is returned fivefold to the state in natural goods and services.

We understand counties wanting a piece of that pie — Etowah County isn’t the only one facing budgetary issues at present — since no one wants to hear the word “tax.”

Still, Forever Wild is too important and too special to be a convenient “bank” to raid to solve such problems. It should be viewed as a lockbox that bears a large, flashing sign: “HANDS OFF!”

We hope this bill never leaves the committee. If it does, it’ll be a waste of time because we’re confident voters will reject it.

People in Alabama like the outdoors, and they like Forever Wild. Perhaps at some point, that will register with folks in Montgomery and elsewhere, and they’ll quit flying toward this particular light.