I'm a suburbanite completely naive about these things, but why can't the dead trees be cut down and removed? Wouldn't they have some value, if not for lumber, then at least pulp or even fuel? Too expensive? Product not worth the effort?
In local areas, around structures, yes. Overall, no -- we're talking about thousands of square miles of forest.
You are very close.
The trees could be cut down economically. There are middle class working folks who have been removing trees for centuries.
There are many small, rural communities who have depended on the forestry jobs for generations. These jobs kept schools, medical facilities...open for generations.
After the beetles kill the trees, the economic time clock starts ticking. The economic value is best if harvested promptly.
The trees not only provide jobs, payroll taxes to the government, lumber for homes, a renewably resource to heat homes and cook food, pulp for paper...but also a healthier envirnoment.
The deer and elk prefer to eat grass in the open fields that are often left by the tree harvesting. They do not eat bark and needles much.
Thus, not to expensive...rather a profit center for all.
So why is all this good prevented !
That is the rest of the story.
If you ask, I will explain...Sorry for the tease, but I wanted to limit the response.
Speaking of the Yellowstone/ Targee forest:
Because A) the forests consist of hundreds of thousands of acres, B) the eviral mentalists have spent the last two decades destroying all the access logging and fire roads, C) the logging regs make the operations too expensive, D) the dead trees (which could have been logged sensibly with limited clearcuts) aren't worth it.
Nature designed the lodgepole pine to have cones that open in high heat conditions. Those occur in wildfires, or in open sunbaked meadows created by fires or clearcuts. No meadows, no seedings. All mature trees, bark beetle heaven.