I've never heard the term National Forest before.
National Parks run by National Park Service. Federally protected lands. There are lot fewer of them. They are more tourist-oriented and are treated like natural wonders for the public to experience. Very high restrictions to protect the land (staying on trail in certain areas, pets, campfires, leave no trace, camp and wilderness permits, manicured roads and trails). Has an entrance fee. Patrolled by park rangers. Often has crowds.
National Forest run by US Forest Service. Also federally protected and managed. There are a lot more of them and aren't marketed with much grandeur as a national park. They often contain a maze of rough, less-maintained forest roads. You can camp anywhere in them for free mostly without any fee or permit requirement, so it's sort of like wilderness. Less stringent rules of what you can and can't do. Very easy to drive into a national forest and see no one around. If I'm ever on the road, I'll sleep in a national forest or other public lands
The whole thing went to another level when he lifted the plane out with e helicopter. There’s essentially no possible way he was going to get away with that part the mind really boggles with what he was thinking there.
On the other hand, National Forests, managed by the U.S. Forest Service, follow a multiple-use and sustained-yield approach. They're designed to support a variety of activities, including logging, grazing, mining, and recreation. These activities are carried out under sustainable practices to ensure the resources remain for future generations.
A national park is a place for humans, and to some extent, wildlife, to enjoy,
A forest in this context is a natural resource to be exploited. For the most part it’s a place where lumber is harvested.
"National parks focus on protecting natural and historic resources "unimpaired for future generations." Park rangers work for the National Park Service (NPS) under the Department of Interior.
National forests, on the other hand, emphasize not only resource preservation, but other kinds of use as well."
Given that wildfires are, as you note, common, why is that supposed to be an aggravating factor?
You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire. The more frequent fires are, the less fuel there is for each fire to burn. And in the other direction, if you suppress a fire, all that means is that another fire later will be worse.
I’m not saying it’s what I’m advocating for it’s just an explanation of the difference.
The US forest service is quite literally a division of the department of agriculture.
“You can't actually make the wildfire problem any worse by starting an additional fire.”
What if there wasn’t a fire in the first place in this location