Once again people apply thinking to more northern forests to the chaparral around LA, where it doesn't apply much.
In Southern California (except perhaps in the higher mountain forests) these "forests" are of zero economic value. There are no lumber companies desperate to come in and cut down chaparral that are being blocked by rabid environmentalists.
It costs money to clear out these trees and brush - there's no way to make money off it.
We had forest fires that burned this year for months (Hancock, Rush, Uncles Complex.) Almost all the money for Forest fuels treatment and management goes to the south. Because of all the environmental regulations in my forests - Klamath and Shasta-Trinity - it costs more to manage the forest than is made from any sale. (Spotted owl, salmon, wild and scenic.) So they don't manage it and its full of hundred of miles of overcrowded, diseased and dying trees. We have to fight for every fuel reduction project in our urban interface.
If Congress can't see fit to allocate money to properly manage these forests, they should be sold into private ownership.
Even in areas that have economic lumber value, the sierra club lawyers fight to deny small family operations a permit to harvest a few dead trees.
The big lumber companies already own their own forests, thus they are not "desperate" to access the public lands . The bigs like to have the high lumber prices...more profit for them.
So denying small family operations a permit on public lands actually raises the costs to build a home for middle class working people.
Rural logging communities and families made a nice living for decades until the sierra club lawyers shut them down. They all made money and could do so again if the lawyers would back off. The lawyers will not back off because of the big fees that they make.
The lumber can be removed in an envirnomental manner.
Burning many millions of acres of trees, killing fire fighters, destroying peoples homes and businesses, polluting the air, polluting the water, killing wildlife, and killing the soil is not good.
There are many good possible solutions.
Doing nothing should not be one of them.
What was the ecology of this region 300 years ago? Did the Indians regularly burn it off to clear the scrub? At one time prairie dogs tended the area around their holes and wouldn't let any trees grow, they only allowed short grass to grow. It kept the plains grasslands from turning into forests. Was something like this at work in California? Can we blame it on the indians killing off the giant sloth or something?