Well!!

A few points Lib, without plagiarizing some others work.
3000 trees per acre is not wildlife habitat, in fact some of the best habitat comes after a burn. The bottom line is that I seriously doubt that there is anyplace on the east side with trees that thick. I hunted all over the east side of Oregon and I never saw anything remotely resembling that. The fact is Ponderosa'a, because of there growth habits would literally prevent that.
I lived on the dry side of the Cascades for 13 of the last 20 you're so fond of mentioning, I also lived in the country out among 'em, not in some concrete jungle with a TV view of nature.
There are places on the west side that probably are that way, in fact before thinning most private tree farms are that way. Its part of the farming plan, something you probably don't have a clue about.

You sit in front of a PC hundreds of miles away from the real timber country and then say that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I've been all over that east side, smelled the smoke, (something you probably don't do, but it makes good print), seen the glow on the sky at night and the lines of firefighting equipment on the roads. When you go into the real woods however you don't see the hyped up damage that people like you invent, you see some burnt trees, but mostly you see lots of grass, and healthy trees with some blackened trunks up 4-5 feet.
You're a "Johnny come Lately" to the area and an instant authority on forest health, in your mind.

Again, where was that wide swath of destruction? Surely if it was that bad you wouldn't forget where it was.