Correct. The reality is it doesn't matter who 'owns' land if you're not allowed to manage it for fire prevention because of endless legal challenges. 'major disinfo with an agenda' is not appropriate language on HN. i live in Cal, I am extremely interested in solving the fire crisis and I have no business or political beliefs associated with the timber industry.

this is one paper that reads well -- Lessons for California Fire Use from Western Australia ; doi: 10.4996/fireecology.0902014 ; Fire Ecology Volume 9, Issue 2, 2013

in that, they discuss controlled burning among other things.. they reference Dr Scott Stephans who was lead author on

'Drought, Tree Mortality, and Wildfire in Forests Adapted to Frequent Fire' February 2018 / BioScience

where it is stated, summary first paragraph :

Massive tree mortality has occurred rapidly in frequent-fire-adapted forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. This mortality is a product of acute drought compounded by the long-established removal of a key ecosystem process: frequent, low- to moderate-intensity fire. ... The scale of present tree mortality is so large that greater potential for “mass fire” exists in the coming decades, driven by the amount and continuity of dry, combustible, large woody material that could produce large, severe fires. For long-term adaptation to climate change, we highlight the importance of moving beyond triage of dead and dying trees to making “green” (live) forests more resilient.

Thank you.

You are correct. The USFS does not need any kind of state permit to issue timber leases. The reason the national forests in the west are under-harvested is because of economics. It is much less expensive to obtain wood products from industrial tree farms in the US south, or abroad, than it is to cut them in the mountains of the west. Currently, national forest lease activity stands near an all-time low.

What would be the agenda? Profits for the death prevention industry?