[RWebb]

The big deal is that we don't -- the size, severity and number of such fires is increasing. The article to which I posted a link explains this.

Although forest fires are a natural part of the "evolution" (succession) of the forest, the fire return interval has changed as has the severity of the fires.

A part of the problem is that the forests are becoming a ticking time bomb, as brush and litter, and ladder trees such as white fir accumulate (that normally would have burned already) and creates a fire that cannot be contained once started. - a few edits here, whipped

But the big issue is the hotter summers, warmer winters and low humidity (see above post). That is what weakens the trees no matter what you do to the forest. Much of what is now forest will not be in the future.

There are some things to do and some things to avoid:

Clearcut logging eliminates relatively fire "proof" forests, and then brush and "dog-hair" (numerous small trees) grow in. These are the tinderboxes that fuel crown fires. You can do selective cut logging, but this usually makes for lumber that costs more, but is higher in quality (tight grain).

The Indians did burn forests and created open park like areas with smaller numbers of bigger trees (and lot and lots of deer - yumm!). The grass in between the trees burns and kills most of the brush. Without low lying limbs, that fire cannot climb up into the canopy and crown out. This leads to low intensity fires that are easy to control and do not do much damage (they also kill insect pests).

USFS has made thinning forests a top priority - but it is expensive and takes a while. Maybe we can burn the tiny trees that are thinned out as biomass fuel to make electricity. Another way to mitigate death and damage is to try and control the so-called urban-wildland interface. People don't like being told it is dangerous to build a house in the pretty forest (or on a cliff above the pretty ocean), so it is unclear what will happen there. The "prohibitions" on logging are there mostly to prevent entire species from becoming extinct. I agree tho, that thinning when done right, is helpful. I have not seen an enviro group try to stop a pure thinning logging project - the ones around here are usually promoting thinning. USFS likes to try and pay for the thinning by logging out the few remaining old growth trees, and the envl. groups oppose that.

Bottom line: unless you destroy the forests entirely by logging them all, they will eventually burn. If not thinned, they will burn hot - crown out and destroy buildings. If you do thin and do other things, you solve only part of the problem, since the bugs, heat and aridity are going to wipe these forests. But you buy more time, and lessen the damage per year or per decade.