[exabrial]

This comment got downvoted but I think it's an important question.

Answer is: probably not, for the other reason stated. But it is sort of the wrong question too. Is underbrush removal the problem? Not really. There are a lot of things fire removes, besides underbrush, and restores to a natural state.

What we need to wrap our heads around is _fire is natural_; it's been here eons before humans walked the earth, and the native trees and forest have long evolved to take advantage of it.

The question we might ask instead is: why are so we so opposed to a natural process? Fire is definitely bad inside things like cities. However, a prescribed burn has enormous benefits that have been detailed in science literature ever since we noticed a decline in forests.

[e4e5]

Yeah I get that. But removing underbrush (ignoring the impossibility of the scale of it) would make controlled burns again possible.

Currently there's so much that any controlled burn would get out of control and turn into a real one. At least that's how I understood it