There's a reason behind that. In California, the environmentalists threaten lawsuits to the local forest managers. Those managers have a choice; spend their budget fighting lawsuits or spend it doing some good. Which, by the way, is why the area got over grown and burned down in the first place. Their argument is that "nature" has a plan for standing burned forest that benefits wildlife. I don't think any judge has ever ruled in favor of that premise, but that's their stance.The logging seen in first photo shows commercial salvage of fire killed trees on privately owned land.
Subsequent photos of standing dead trees are likely on USFS public lands where similar harvesting and subsequent re-planting is uncommon.