First off he needs to spell a bit better.
The blame game is starting. Fires happen. However, science can go either way. Someone will bring up a study showing that timber harvest increases fire risk and intensity. Somebody else will counter with a paper that harvest can lessen fire size.
Both are correct. How's that for an answer.
I've worked in that area. I was not there for any big fires. We were trying to put out timber sales, and the environmental groups were starting to go to court when I left.
A friend said the Rodeo (I'm not going to attempt the second part of the name) fire laid down when it got into areas that were thinned and had had the slash treated. Then the fire would get into untreated areas and blow up. You be the judge.
With less logging, there are less people in the woods to stop fires while they are small. However, some loggers don't want anything to do with putting out fires. Up here, they'll be more likely to be moving their equipment than putting a line around the fire. It all depends on the crew.
Yes, political figures are making the decision on which study they believe.
The Spotted Owl has little to do with it. The Mexican Spotted Owl lives in canyons where there is Douglas-fir growing. We didn't log those areas because they are steep and yarders were not a common piece of equipment there. Yup. They burn up.
Why do we allow this to happen? Because "we" are outnumbered and out educated. Timber folks are generally not as well educated as the environmentalists--degree wise. I see it on our local "collaboration" group. The enviros have folks with PHDs, or Master's degrees who know how to write well, and present an argument. The folks who want to see timber cut well, one makes a point of saying, "We should clearcut it." and that's it.
You've now got a generation and a half of people who will not want trees cut in this country. At least that. The timber industry is usually portrayed as the villain, if it is portrayed at all, in the entertainment industry. Movie stars are against cutting trees.
The enviros are smart. They've got good lawyers. They've got money. They've got part of the Forest Service by getting folks hired. The wildlife biologists, botanists, fish bios, soils bios, and 'ologists in particular outnumber the Foresters in the agency.
Public Affairs specialists decide "talking points". Pictures of logging that were up in the front part of the offices were taken down and replaced with photos of happy people and cute animals.
The Timber department was likely renamed as The Forest Products or Forest Operations department. Timber is a dirty word in many offices. Yet the 'ologists can be funded by it.
Things won't change until the urban public changes their mind, and from what I see, that will not happen. The politicians keep passing more laws. Our state brags that it has the toughest forest practices laws in the nation. Why should that be something to be proud of if it isn't needed?
You've got folks from Phoenix who don't know what an overstocked stand is. They have summer homes up high and want to save all their trees because trees are hard to come by in the valley. I saw little suppressed seedlings staked up to try to save them. This was in a Summer home area. The FS was trying to convince one community that a thinning was needed to protect their homes. The people didn't get it--cutting trees to save trees?
And so it goes. Prepare for the blame game, then the politicians will announce fire prevention measures to be taken, they will not fund it, or support cutting timber to help fund it, and the fires will come again and the circle will go on.
By the way, how many mills are there in that region now?