Of course they won’t allow logging to do the same thing their giant deadly fires will produce. They are making the forests a rotting disaster.
They have been letting fires burn for decades.
Bray said it best. Harvesting the healthy mature trees, clear cutting in some areas to create fire breaks, using small planned fires to clear out underbrush, re-planting the clear-cut areas with new trees to re-grow the forest. And going through the forest to collect fallen branches to grind up and turn into Dura-Flame logs or into wood pellets. Effective forest management would keep the forest healthy and free from horribly destructive fires. Also, there should never be a tree near a power cable. If a tree could fall on a power cable then the tree should never have been there to begin with.
Environment Canada estimates that for every acre of primarily coniferous forest burned, approximately 4.81 metric tons of carbon is released into the atmosphere—between 80 percent and 90 percent in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), with the rest as carbon monoxide (CO) and methane (CH4). In 2006, a record-setting 96,385 wildfires destroyed about 9.87 million acres of forest in the United States. According to the Canadian figure, then, forest fires accounted for 47.47 million metric tons of carbon emissions in the United States last year. For comparison, the nation’s annual carbon dioxide emissions are said to be around 6.049 billion metric tons.
This estimate, however, doesn’t take into account the carbon released by vegetation that decays once the fires have been extinguished. Nor does it include the long-term effects of losing forests, which absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and thus can help slow global warming. https://slate.com/technology/2007/10/do-forest-fires-have-a-significant-impact-on-global-warming.html
This theory should be fairly simple to validate with a one or two simple questions.
The first is: do areas previously burned by wildfires burn again? One assumes they do, then what is the scale of those fires?
Second....and most important WRT these fires and suppressing them is: How many firefighters are paid to suppress these fires? There seems to be a correlation to the number and scale of these fires, the number of firefighters employed, and a lack of timber management.
Less timber management = More fires & more intense fires.
More frequent & intense = need more firefighters to suppress them.
Sort of has a circular logic.
Exit question: If the timber is more effectively managed, are the fires fewer and easier to control?
Since I don’t live on the west coast and am not intimately familiar with this in granular detail. So just aking the questions.