Actually, steelhunter, these are THREE governmental entities that disagree with each other!
I am biased toward the Cal Fire model (mostly thinning) simply because the thinned forests (such as Jackson and Mountain Home) look so great -- green, open, healthier trees. But I am speaking from ignorance. Just because it looks good does not make it right!
I guess the answer depends, in part, on the goals of the forest managers -- is the forest there for museum-like preservation, as in the national parks? Is the goal to maximize logging revenue, without worrying about esthetics? Is the goal to "fireproof" the forest, to avoid catastrophic crown fires in a drought-prone era?
If thinning is the answer, how does one avoid damage to the soil (compaction) and the watershed? And would prescribed burns be any less damaging, given not only the ashy runoff but also the soil damage caused by falling trees?
I've hiked through recent "prescribed burn" areas many times, and it can create quite a mess -- lots of freshly turned soil, clogged stream-beds, etc. But on the third hand, that is kind of what happens in a natural burn, too!
