I think the point a lot of people are missing is that we know forest management as it was done in the past 20/30-100 years ago was a bad idea. Forest management practices have changed significantly: prescribed burns, letting fires burn naturally (when possible), and other mitigation techniques are a part of the practice on a much wider scale now.

You can scream up and down that they should have done more to clear out the dry vegetation, but it's just not that simple. Remember, we are currently right in the middle of what is the prescribed burn season! You can't just do prescribed burns willy nilly. You need the right conditions of wind, cool weather, etc. If you never get that weather, you can't do them.

These aren't your typical forests like in NoCal, Oregon, Washington and BC. The area is pretty much desert with dry grasses and low brush. AKA, tinder. Some of the practices that caused forests to be susceptible to fires aren't even a factor here, e.g. clear cutting.

Dead vegetation needs to be removed with care and takes a lot of time. You have to be careful not to destroy the habitats of wildlife. We're not talking about a small area here. You can't just bulldoze all of southern California.

So, continuing to say "it's because of bad forest management" is a bit disingenuous. If you look at this particular case, as pointed out in the posted article (and backed up by what you posted), a confluence of factors are creating the current situation: particularly high winds, particularly dry vegetation, and particularly abundant vegetation (due to particularly high amounts of rain early in 2024). All of which are happening more and more often due to the climate changing. This doesn't give a lot of time to do wildfire mitigation, no matter how much you want to spend on it.