I can't see burned timber as much of an asset for any purpose. - Unless those forests are logged enough to break the crown open, sooner or later thay will burn destructively.
I believe it was you that posted an article some months ago that exposed how much western forests have densified in the past century or so. - It is that crown density that makes the fires impossible to fight on a small scale basis. ( that's not my idea, it comes from rank and file CDF smoke eaters)
Or burned wildlife, for that matter. I have not seen (probably because it wouldn't promote the leftist envirals' cause) any stats on how many spotted owls, gnatcatchers, etc., etc. have been killed by the massive wildfires that have recently (and still are) ravaging the west.
I'll wager it's a helluva lot more than those lost to logging.
There are other ways to thin an old forest without logging or inducing a crown fire. My comment to this depends upon too many factors to be practical for this forum.
I believe it was you that posted an article some months ago that exposed how much western forests have densified in the past century or so.
Might have been. If not I probably commented on it.
It is that crown density that makes the fires impossible to fight on a small scale basis. ( that's not my idea, it comes from rank and file CDF smoke eaters)
Only if the fire gets into the crown and depending upon the type of forest. That depends upon those "too many factors" to which I was alluding. It makes a big difference if you are talking redwood versus Ponderosa pine for example, factors include slopes, composition of understory fuels, the progress of the fire, the distribution of meadows, whether the forest is mixed, the presence of pathogens or infestations, weather history...
It's too complex for the pat generalizations endemic to political discourse.