[Goose]

I'm in favor of reforming government agency forest management practices and increasing funding for treating vs firefighting. However, I am quite skeptical that capitalism (which I think is a good solution to many things) will help this problem.

I would agree that capitalism will not SOLVE this problem, but I do believe it can/will help with this problem.

My rationale is:
1) The forest thinning practices seem to mostly involve removing brush and small trees, which have limited economic value for timber companies.

True, but it may have economic value to companies that specialize in doing this kind of work. My gardener would take it on, but he would need a few more people -).

2) Clear-cutting to maintain fire breaks requires clearing down to the dirt and keeping it that way forever. The initial clear cutting might be profitable, but the maintenance seems unlikely to be.

May be true, so contract out the initial clear cut (under careful supervision) and maintain it some other way. Maybe a direct BLM job or maybe somebody can figure out a reasonable use for the fire breaks.

3) This last one is more editorial than factual, but companies are by definition profit-seeking, so even if a reasonable compromise is worked out in the beginning, I have my doubts on keeping it that way into the future when paid lobbyists will perhaps have a disproportionate influence on whether the fire breaks are 2 miles wide or 5 miles wide.

It is important that everybody involved maintain an active interest in what happens. If the environmentalists "go to sleep" on the issue, bad things will happen. If the BLM caves in to every possible conservation idea, bad things will happen. If loggers are frozen out, dead trees are just left there. Everybody has a role to play.

[Goose]

I'm in favor of reforming government agency forest management practices and increasing funding for treating vs firefighting. However, I am quite skeptical that capitalism (which I think is a good solution to many things) will help this problem.

I would agree that capitalism will not SOLVE this problem, but I do believe it can/will help with this problem.

My rationale is:
1) The forest thinning practices seem to mostly involve removing brush and small trees, which have limited economic value for timber companies.

True, but it may have economic value to companies that specialize in doing this kind of work. My gardener would take it on, but he would need a few more people -).

2) Clear-cutting to maintain fire breaks requires clearing down to the dirt and keeping it that way forever. The initial clear cutting might be profitable, but the maintenance seems unlikely to be.

May be true, so contract out the initial clear cut (under careful supervision) and maintain it some other way. Maybe a direct BLM job or maybe somebody can figure out a reasonable use for the fire breaks.

3) This last one is more editorial than factual, but companies are by definition profit-seeking, so even if a reasonable compromise is worked out in the beginning, I have my doubts on keeping it that way into the future when paid lobbyists will perhaps have a disproportionate influence on whether the fire breaks are 2 miles wide or 5 miles wide.

It is important that everybody involved maintain an active interest in what happens. If the environmentalists "go to sleep" on the issue, bad things will happen. If the BLM caves in to every possible conservation idea, bad things will happen. If loggers are frozen out, dead trees are just left there. Everybody has a role to play.