You apparently don't know squat about reading posts and citations before you respond to them. I don't propose leaving diseased trees standing, nor do I propose leaving excessive numbers of logs laying around to form an excessive fuel overburden. What I'm pointing out is that logging companies want to cut living, healthy trees, which is the least of the problems in the forests, and whose removal does little to alleviate the fire problem. If they would remove diseased and dying trees and take out the excessive downed trees, and do so without digging a bunch of logging roads all over the place, I'd be glad to welcome them into the forests. But they're not going to do that, and I don't blame them. What the forests need is conservation, not logging, unless the loggers can and will incorporate conservation practices into their harvesting techniques.
The price of logs won't pay for your preferences. Until you confront that fact you won't realize that removing some larger trees (note I didn't say all) will be necessary to pay for the rest of the cleanup.