The existence of old growth seems to contradict your idea that unmanaged forests burn down. They burn alright, but that's part of the ecosystem.
Forestry schools are full of chuds, so you gotta take them talking about management with a massive grain of salt.
You're right that the primary cause of the severity of forest fires in the last 20 years after climate change was that we spent a century over-fighting them, but a close second is all the clear-cutting and terracing done in the 80s. Fuel overgrowth is wayyyyyy down the list, and the timber industry has just latched on to the talking point as a way to get western libs to buy into more logging (including old growth, which absolutely does not need to be "managed" except for keeping the chuds from fucking it up).
What is? This is my observation. If you dont manage the forest it will burn down.
The existence of old growth seems to contradict your idea that unmanaged forests burn down. They burn alright, but that's part of the ecosystem.
Forestry schools are full of chuds, so you gotta take them talking about management with a massive grain of salt.
You're right that the primary cause of the severity of forest fires in the last 20 years after climate change was that we spent a century over-fighting them, but a close second is all the clear-cutting and terracing done in the 80s. Fuel overgrowth is wayyyyyy down the list, and the timber industry has just latched on to the talking point as a way to get western libs to buy into more logging (including old growth, which absolutely does not need to be "managed" except for keeping the chuds from fucking it up).