The standard usages, singling out unpopular people or institutions rather than accepting part of the societal blame, all the better if they are gone (dead) and can't respond. Kinda like the movie Avatar, nothing works better as a bad guy than "the government" and the MIC.

Political expedience; there are always people in extractive industries who would love to have their business models be seen as serving the greater good.

Difficulty executing original thinking; easy to see flammable "trash" buildup on the forest floor and assume it accumulates solely through a policy of fire suppression. Not so easy to ask, " Why wasn't this a problem before the massive intervention of near total clear cutting of ancestral forests?"

A widespread inability to understand scale; if you've never grubbed a deer cart path to the single tree you're harvesting you may have difficulty visualizing the amount of work involved in thinning a thousand acres of wild land, let alone tens of millions of acres.

Don't know if you have spent much time in the Rockies, the Sierras, the Cascades...if you have then you can better understand the extent of red dying conifers and silver dead ones.

I'd have to know the "forest managers" to know their biases. Everybody blames the Forest Service. for fire suppression, very few mention the forest industry that insisted on the policy. Fewer still understand the time scopes required to restore a forest which has had its canopy lowered to the ground to a high canopy, fire resistant forest, something neither you nor I nor probably our grandchildren will live long enough to see.