Yes, clear cutting is the norm in the West -- it is, of course, the least expensive way to harvest trees, and it generates the most revenue. Prescribed burns send some of the trees up in smoke. Thinning is more expensive than clear cutting.
But now let's assume that we are talking about an area with some scenic value -- such as the various mountain roads in Western Washington, where millions of folks (and their tourist dollars) go to hike, fish, mountain bike, ski, etc.
The forest service probably does not want to clear cut in those places. You can see that decision process in action when you climb a little way up Mt. Rainier on the Paradise side and look south -- the areas of the forest near the mountain but outside the park are not clear cut, while the land further in the distance has that distinctive patchwork look of a forest that is periodically subject to logging. Not pretty, but cost effective.
So let's narrow the question -- in the areas that are not to be clear-cut, is there a reason to favor prescribed burns or thinning as a fire reduction (not prevention) technique?
I do understand that the west side is too wet to burn most of the year -- does that mean that the NFS uses thinning in the areas that are not clear cut? Or do they sometimes use prescribed burns?
