20:29 Jan 3, 2009 

Actually, I didn't think that there was a negative stance either, I was rather trying to point out the difference between concerted efforts at management that were done badly as opposed to more random/casual incursion into the forest by people over the course of time. However, the Asker seems to say it means the former in this context.

16:40 Jan 3, 2009 

To Richard: The term in question: ***bosque intervenido*** is a spanish term that could not be translated literally into English. Please see the text in Spanish.
Later on I myself found a term ***mismanaged forest*** which is suitable to me, and is exactly the contrary of what Sheila suggested. So, I wrote to her: * I just figure it out. The phrase I'm looking for is: **mismanaged forest** instead of *managed forest* If you agree, please make the correction to give you the points. Thanks.

Rachel: Thanks very much for the explanation. That’s exactly the situation here. And that’s the term in English I was looking forward.

Do you agree or you suggest any other better translation? Thanks you a lot.

14:36 Jan 3, 2009 

Can you add a bit more of the context and general argumentative angle of your source text? I see two basic guesses by our colleagues at the meaning, depending on assumptions of two possible political/ecological starting points; neither is supported here.

14:27 Jan 3, 2009 

With the context that we have in the Query, I don't see the negativity that you suggest with MIS-management, Rachel, just the fact that the forest has been altered from its natural state. What do you think?

12:22 Jan 3, 2009 

To me this would mean forest/woodland that has been managed inadequately or poorly rather than forest/woodland that has merely had individuals or groups of people cutting down a few trees here and there or removing vegetation in a non-organised way.