Logging an area doesn’t necessarily decrease the fire danger. If you go to cut blocks in the PNW you’ll notice huge piles of slash in every cut block.

There are ways to log that do decrease fire risk, but generally those are not the techniques used in industrial logging since they are less profitable and tend to leave quite a few trees standing.

Here’s a good primer that lays out the basicshttps://davidsuzuki.org/expert-article/will-logging-more-in-...

Fuel reduction for wildfire mitigation, if that's what you are referring to, doesn't focus on mature trees, which are pretty important for the long term health of forests.

This doesn't so much address the health of forest ecosystems so much as remove them, which really fucks stuff up. Habitat destruction, changes to waterways and luvial fauna, soil erosion. We already do a lot of timber farming, like a lot of DT policies it's hard not to read this as a simply spiteful move.

Timber harvest doesn't work as an alternative to forest fires. This is timber industry propaganda. It produces shallow ecosystems and monoculture forests. Forest fires work just fine, and we continue to have them every year whether we do controlled burns or not. Many species rely on the natural fire cycle and we shouldn't try to prevent fires through timber harvest, it just makes fires and erosion and biodiversity worse.