That's a pretty subjective definition of "healthy." There are a number of plants that require occasional fire to replenish the post disturbance seed bank; else dormancy fails and the plant is extirpated (along with its insect associates and their predators). Others need to have the decadent growth removed in order to rebalance. An example is the way oaks need their root crowns exposed and lower branches singed to reduce end weight.
While it may be possible to emulate the effects of fire, the entire system has been accustomed to periodic burning for thousands of years. It isn't a matter of simple thinning.
I only hit upon the most commonly debated aspects of the management process, because those activities are what is most often prohibited, or made inordinately difficult to get permisson to do, and because I’m not intimately involved with those ecosystems to the degree required to address much beyond those frontline concerns. That’s not meant to deny that the deeper intricacies are important to achieving a management strategy that gets closer to 100% healthy, just that the uproar over what one might call “the basics” has eclipsed all discussion of the more advanced management needs that you bring up.
As the situation exists, with the ideas of the more radical elements of the environmentalist camp holding sway over the controlling bureaucracies, and much of the public mind, we can’t get beyond wrangling over the simplest, most obivous management tasks. If we could, if there were even a modicum of sanity and reason in the environmentalist camp, then the floor could be opened up for discussion of methods by which to address the more involved requirements of various flora. Perhaps if some rational agreement could be accepted regarding the clearing of underbrush and the cutting and disposition of deadwood, THEN there could be discussion of, say, controlled burns to revitalize oak trees, and other strategies for artifically replicating other necessary natural processes.
None of those needs can get any “airtime”, however, until the present impasse over artificial (non fire) means of clearing undergrowth and dealing with standing deadwood is broken up. And it doesn’t seem to me that those on the more restrictive side of that discussion are prepared to even allow REASONABLE measures, but are bent on maintaining an environmental absolutism that, ideally, wholly excludes man and human needs — much less “mere” human WANTS — at every turn.
Do you look at this in the same ways if you contrast a populated area with hardly anyone knowledgeable about these things, compared to a more “wild” area that is not inhabited with humans everyday, compared yet again to a place of beauty, such as your land, that has been studiously groomed and cared for with all due regard for the “Natural Process?”