>>1870712>>1871109>>1871114continued
>humanities effect on forestsso, let's go over once again how humanity manipulates the forest:
>introduces pests>introduces climate-borne habitat shifting>introduces irregular species composition due to market needs>introduces areas where natural functions cannot exist (keeping fire out of areas humans live, for example)now, you brought up the example of a section of forest that you claim has been exempt from management, outside of light recreation and military use. this forest has allegedly reached some form of stability, has retained all of its keystone species, and is perfectly good to your eye.
comparatively, you bring up some form of managed landscape that is suffering from a variety of ailments, which has resulted in mass dieoffs.
while yes, we can assume that the management methodology of the second forest has directly led to the various health problems, that does not mean that managing a forest ALWAYS leads to problems.
let us look again at california
>federal government owns large amounts of land that is near private timberland>private timberland regularly reduces fuel load, maintains species diversity, maintains water quality, maintains wildlife habitat, maintains soil stability, etc., and is frequently inspected and licensed by third parties to verify adherence to environmental protocols>federal government has none of this, lets forests just grow "naturally" and does not harvestsuddenly, a fire breaks out on the government land because campers left their fire overnight and a spark ignited a pile of leaves
>fire blows up overnight in massively overcrowded government forests>thousands upon millions of acres burn>fire crosses over into private land>thousands upon millions of acres burn>fire dies offcontinued in next post.
