Forest Fires Part of Natural Cycle

A survey of fire-damaged areas in Oregon and Northern California found rich reforestation only ten years after the fire. This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who has studied botany or knows anything about the ecology of pine forests, since fires are required to release the seeds of sequoias and redwoods. However, this certain study has highlighted the problem with forestry policy in most parts of America: logging and forest fires don't mix. If one were to enforce the older policy of allowing natural fires to burn, while only protecting important structures, then one cannot allow logging companies in to remove trees killed by the fire, yet still intact. If one were to follow the insane policy of not allowing any natural burns, then you have to allow the logging companies in to remove small growth trees and a portion of the older growth. Removing trees damaged by fire causes massive drainage and erosion problems, while not allowing brush and small growth to help stabilize the soil. Not managing a forest through logging practices allows too much fuel to grow (sapping too many resources to fight future fires), changes the ecology of the soil and the local climate, and does not allow old growth trees to reproduce. You can't have both logging and natural burn policies for the same forest. Just because the forest "doesn't look pretty" for 25 years or so, is a stupid reason not to depend on natural regeneration.