the way I see it!

I think that would be what I would say.

HTH


Sheila

Here is a definition of managed forest:

All forests subject to some kind of human interactions (notably commercial management, harvest of industrial round-wood (logs) and fuelwood, production and use of wood commodities, and forest managed for amenity value or environmental protection if specified by the country), with defined ...
www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/lucas/glossary/glossary.html


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 18 minutes (2009-01-02 21:29:49 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Another possible translation might be: non-intact forest

http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0413e/a0413E07.htm


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 20 heures (2009-01-03 17:25:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

I'm a bit confused, to be honest. Your context - or at least the context you have given us - does not suggest mismanagement to me. However, if you have more context that suggests negative interventions, then it might be the right term to use. The Spanish definition you provided seemed fairly netural to me. Hence my suggestions of 'managed' or 'non-intact' forests. But it's hard to be sure without seeing the rest of your text. Sorry!

This suggestion builds on Rachels comments about 'mismanaged' in the Discussion section, replacing it with 'unmanaged'. Her 'random / casual incursion' wording is excellent for the context. But I leave it to her to enter that as an Answer for the points, if she likes. Meanwhile, Gesquivel, you could adopt it anyway if it fits your target readership.

In my suggestions above, the first is benign & more-formal while the second is very judgmental. For the first, I still contend that 'intervenido' does not infer organized management, even if that management were bad (= mismanagement), so I give you 'unmanaged'. In the second one, 'violation' comes close enough to the word 'rape' to satisfy most environmental activists, but without being either crass or figurative.

I also like the 'disturbed forest' suggestion from Patinba. It fits the context very well, but again is less-formal. 'To disturb' means 'to interfere with', 'to interrupt', 'to stir', or 'to change from the normal form'. It is the 'mental derangement' or 'emotional upset' connotations that are figurative, at least in U.S. English, and these are very-dated figures of speech in modern use. Thus, 'disturbed forest resources' could be an excellent option and it enjoys the advantage of having been used in the literature before, as Patinbas refs show while I find no use of my suggestions in my quick search.

Still, Gesquivel stated that this is a concept coined in Spanish recently which has no set English translation yet, so the option remains open for acceptance over time in the world community.
This is pleasant working together to coin a term in another language for a newly-created concept. I hope that our discussion will help you to settle on a term that will be adequate and expressive in your context. Please keep me in on the colloquey.
Best of luck.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2009-01-04 00:25:05 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

'Intrusion on forest integrity' as Tom suggested is also a good option for this.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day3 hrs (2009-01-04 00:27:59 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Though Toms suggested 'intervention' connotes to me a good contact with the ecosystem, which does not fit the context as Gesequivel has explained it.