I brought up the Juniper as an example of a species that, while native, is handled like a “weed”, and subject to expensive taxpayer funded burn-based removal efforts. This was to rebuke the claim the undereducated love to make of “native=good, introduced=bad”.
There are about 4000ft of difference here. The article shows Carefree AZ as an example of infestation, which is at 2400ft. Junipers grow at 6000ft.
I can't believe you're really trying to make the argument that this plant is great because it will burn saguaros or barrel cactuses and we burn juniper on purpose so that must be good for saguaros and barrel cactuses. Don't get defensive. I'm not upset at you. Just think about this argument. It's not a logical argument.
You're saying that if X is good for Y and B causes X' for Z, then B is good. But you have not established that X' is good for Z, and you haven't established that B causes X for Y.
So if this plant doesn't cause fires for Junipers, and if fires aren't good for desert plants, then how the hell are you arguing this plant is good because it causes fires for desert plants?
Don't take my word for it. Ask ChatGPT if this makes any damned sense. Maybe the matrix can convince you that this is an illogical argument.