[Genuine Realist]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

When I wrote the first post on this topic, I wasn't pushing for any particular remedy, simply making the prosaic point that when you eliminate every natural constraint on a species (in this case, fire, insect infestation, and human industry), the species will run wild. And that is exactly what has happened.

Controlled burns have to happen. Also, increased logging and timber activity. 

Someone (maybe Goose) cautiously said that might be OK, with a BLM official on site, and regulatory constraints. With all due respect, that sort of regulatory framework exists right now. No one is simply going to lease a tract to a timber company, and let 'er rip. They have to file EIR's logging plans, etc., etc.  What you do have to do is make the regulatory process simple and straightforward, and prevent a hold up by any officious person who can afford a lawyer.

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.

[Genuine Realist]

Apparently we've had Governor Newsom all wrong.  He's a genius when it comes to crises:

https://news.yahoo.com/newsom-proves-hes...50084.html

When I wrote the first post on this topic, I wasn't pushing for any particular remedy, simply making the prosaic point that when you eliminate every natural constraint on a species (in this case, fire, insect infestation, and human industry), the species will run wild. And that is exactly what has happened.

Controlled burns have to happen. Also, increased logging and timber activity. 

Someone (maybe Goose) cautiously said that might be OK, with a BLM official on site, and regulatory constraints. With all due respect, that sort of regulatory framework exists right now. No one is simply going to lease a tract to a timber company, and let 'er rip. They have to file EIR's logging plans, etc., etc.  What you do have to do is make the regulatory process simple and straightforward, and prevent a hold up by any officious person who can afford a lawyer.

Someone else remembered pictures of decimated forests after timber companies got through with them. I'd lay odds that's propaganda. The photos are almost certainly of (a) 19th Century logging, when things were a lot different; or (b) domestic stands, with trees raised for the purpose of harvesting, and then logged. In the latter case, the reduced field should be no more surprising than the stubble in a wheat field after reaping.