Thanks, Hiker.
Funny thing about "land management"--it's only necessary when we humans want the land to be something other than what it is. There used to be this thing called "reclamation" that was applied to "swamps" (the Bureau of Reclamation has a long history of putting rivers into reservoirs to manage them better for humans with disastrous consequences to the river ecosystems). See, one could live and farm there if we just reclaimed the swamp by draining it (oh, and kick the Indians out). Well, that's great except that we neglected to recognize (shocker, I know) the ecological benefits that swamps (we call them wetlands now) provide to water supplies, water quality, fishery nursery services, flood control, coastal erosion barriers, etc. Florida is a great example of reclamation: We've created a paradise for retirees that is totally dependent on air conditioning that will be underwater by the end of the century.
From 1907:
The government reports show that there are approximately eighty million acres of swampy lands. It is alleged that if these were drained and made habitable, they would afford (divided into forty-acre farms) homes for twenty millions of people. Not only this, but the agricultural value would be large, inasmuch as these lands would grow profitable crops v.lth no difficulty, while their nearness to local markets would enable the owner readily to dispose of the produce. Aside from the agricultural value of reclaimed lands is the abolishment of their pestilential character, the elimination of mosquito propagation, and the riddance of malaria, resulting in the production of a more general healthful condition over the entire country. The remarkable transformation in the Panama zone obtained by scientific drainage is a shining example of what can be done to promote good health conditions.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... clamation/
We've done the same thing with forestry "management". We started off with clear cutting because it was the most economical way to get all of the trees cut down, processed and money into the pocket. The benefit from a fire control perspective is that cleared land provided significant fire breaks so a fire that started in an uncut area would peter our when it hit a cleared area. What a deal! Well, turns out this management technique resulted in unimaginable erosion of topsoil into waterways that started the collapse, at least here on the western side of the country, of the salmon runs. Runs were historically so thick, you could almost walk across rivers on the backs of migrating salmon. Runs that were so thick, canned salmon was cheaper than tuna or chicken.
Then we decided maybe we should replant the areas after we clear cut. Neat. Now we have a mono crop ecosystem where once there was a diverse one. And, believe it or not, squares of land with trees of the same height are more susceptible to destructive fires than diverse stands of trees that shade out the undergrowth and reduce crown fires. And it really didn't fix the erosion issues or unfuck the salmon. Did you all know that salmon function not only as as yummy meal, but also to transport precious nutrients (you know, where all the topsoil goes after it erodes off the naked mountains) from the Pacific ocean as far inland as the Rocky Mountains?
https://www.kqed.org/science/1915421/th ... -deep-look
Now we have "selective cut" logging where only the best of the worst trees are felled or small(er) scale clear cutting and it's all subject to environmental review permits. While considerably better than the past methods, it's still a managed, profit driven ecosystem. I'm sure removing environmental oversight will improve things for humans. Until it doesn't. After all, salmon really aren't all that important to the western state's long-term health and clearly have no relation to forestry management...
