Isn't salvage logging entirely just to make money? Humanity reaps what it sows.
The economic effects of "the invisible hand", whereby voluntary exchange yields benefits to both parties and provides an economic surplus, is a "win-win" whereby both parties are better off.
This is not without possible negative effects ("negative externalities") but it is the most effective way to improve people's lives we've found so far.
Remember that nature and natural selection works by a more damaging mechanism - "take what you can" - and yet still manages to produce beneficial results - though obviously not better for every individual or species.
"You reap what you sow" is an idiom that simply says everything that happens to you is a result of your own actions. [1] It does have a religious context that has a more negative, connotation however.
Also, as I showed in the sibling post, we've known about the negative effects of salvage logging for at least 20 years. We're still doing it, by the way. [2]
Humanity will also "reap what it sows" in regards to our lack of action on regards to climate change. I intend to make no positive or negative claim. Simply stating the facts (I hope).
[1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You+reap+what+you+sow
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=salvage+logging&oq=salvage+l...
It leads to the liquidation of a valuable long-term resource for a quick short-term gain. A fishery that would be worth many billions over centuries is liquidated for millions in a few years, for example.
This is especially true in the US, where so many plants and animals did not live within a system of property. The American bison was saved only because one or two landowner had a sentimental attachment to a local herd and spared them from the carnage. The passenger pigeon was exterminated for cheap meat with industrial hunting methods. Markets create positive sum games, but this was just destruction.
The opportunity cost of billions of American chestnuts producing valuable nuts and timber over the last century is incalculable.
> "the term 'salvage' is appropriate for operations in which the primary objective of postfire logging is economic..."
From the link the parent posted, it sounds like there's little evidence that it does any of that (the things you mentioned). [1] [2]
The one paper cited on Wikipedia as being pro-logging goes against it in the conclusion:
> "We know enough about both logging activity and structural change to recommend caution. Although ground-based logging activity could mitigate for erosion problems under certain conditions, it is more likely that it will either have no effect or produce more sediment than that is produced by the fire..." [3]
This was published in 2000. I stand by my original comment. Humanity reaps what it sows.
I'd be interested to see contradicting evidence if there is any. My comment came from reading the Wikipedia article.
[0] pg 1. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/195...
[1] http://science.sciencemag.org/content/311/5759/352
[2] http://www.californiachaparral.com/images/Lindenmayer_et_al_...
[3] pg 21. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/195...
If 4 billion trees were affected in only a few years, people couldn't have chopped down so many trees, couldn't they? If there were natural resistant chest nuts at least a few should have endured.