cnelk's Link
The full study results are in the link within the article
I'd rather see millions of dollars going into proactive forest management than fire suppression. The article blames fire suppression and logging near the turn of the 20th century as primary driving agents for the beetle outbreak. Fire suppression is correct. It is not logging at the turn of the 20th century that drives the dense overpopulated conifer stands as much as LACK of subsequent logging and management since the initial harvests at the turn of the 20th century. There is plenty of blame between poor logging practices of the past, sociological changes in public perception of consumptive forest use, NEPA requirements, Smokey, economic downturn of the logging industry, lack of mills, etc. to blame for the lack of management.
But if we're going to write an accurate article purportedly grounded in scientific-method and ecology, let's also acknowledge that lack of continued management on the landscape is equal to, if not more important than, the original logging 100 years ago. How many thinnings, or patch cuts, seed tree cuts, or shelterwood cuts have failed to take place by the managing agencies, regardless of the reason (economic or socio-political).
Just seems this point was entirely missed in the article as it wants to blame loggers and climate for the outbreak. No - it was lack of follow-up management after the initial harvest that allowed the biomass to be grown into doghair thickets susceptible to insect attack rather than that same biomass spread out on 1/10th the number of healthy trees that are better able to withstand temporal weather patterns (drought) and biological attacks.
The linked report in the news article is very slanted to the continuance of the religion of global warming and anti-industry.
Sad that there is not more credibility given to logging industry that is maintaining healthy, sustainable forests.