Modern logging does no such thing. These contracts limit the size of trees that can be cut. Prevent clear cutting and force replanting all as a part of good forest management. Clear cutting all trees in the forest are a thing of the past. Loggers have come to understand the need to manage and promote growth and long term usage. Not just clear and cut of years gone by.

That's not what I have seen the loggers in my neighborhood do in the last few years. They still just clearcut and don't even re-plant.

Are they logging public lands or private. Because those are two very different venues.

Fires are unconcerned with property lines.

Don’t confuse logging in a managed forest with what happens in a “tree farm”. The latter is much more aggressive at logging but also at planing new trees. It’s a business and the land is an asset they are taking care of.

Drive in a circle around Seattle and sigh at all of the rectangular clearcuts on hilly terrain. Worst of the worst.

Sounds like land clearing for building.

Nope. The PNW is prime logging territory.

Someone in another thread tried to make a distinction between public and private land, but last I checked wildfires don’t give a damn who owns the trees that are burning.

It doesn't matter if the flames don't reach to the tips of the largest tree's uppermost branches. These fires burn so hot it kills their roots and even little animals hiding in their burrows underground.

Driving through northern California on my way to Washington, a couple of weeks ago, I could see whole forests are dead where the fires went through. Large trees, scrub, everything.

This used to be true, but really no longer is with modern logging practices and regulation

Loggers can be directly behind some fires also.

Is well known that loggers in the south of Europe had been caught starting wildfires with the goal to buy the logs cheaper later (still suitable for paper pulp) or to have an excuse to steal the oldest trees that were perfectly viable but slightly charred. The practice stopped by new laws regulating the sell of burnt wood, but it was popular once (and can be still active in other parts of the planet).

Anything that could be claimed as an excuse type 'this tree was ill so it must be taken down' is a temptation for promoting wildfires.

And these survivor elder trees are necessary also. Some caterpillars are borers and kill trees in mass, creating a lot of extra fuel. Woodpeckers are among the only animals capable to remove larvae that dig deeper in the trunks. Respecting a few dead trees (here and there) where woodpeckers nest can reduce the final amount of fuel. More dense population of woodpeckers -> less larvae -> more trees surviving the attack -> less extensive patches of new dead wood ready to burn. Another reason to be very careful with the idea of a free unlimited pass to logging after wildfires.

Given human nature and economic imperatives, I think some skepticism is warranted.

Exactly, so we better do nothing at all and cower behind the maybes as the world literally burns down around us.

That would not be the right approach. What’s a maybe, or perhaps which maybe are you referring to, since there are several possible ones. (Suggest you include a sarcasm indicator if you’re being sarcastic.)

Just pointing out that since people are involved, it’s very reasonable to think that there are going to be bad actors acting badly along with any benefit that might come from this. In response to words that said bad actors are gone from the scene. Do you disagree?