The thing is that, yes, development in wildland areas has produced scraggly areas that are not good ecologies but are serious fire dangers. But logging isn't t

The thing is that, yes, development in wildland areas has produced scraggly areas that are not good ecologies but are serious fire dangers. But logging isn't the answer in the sense that logging companies have no interest in just taking small trees - they have no economic value. I live in one of these areas, btw (Nevada City). There are lots of stick-like trees, lots of scotch broom, lots of flameable underbrush. Removing that by logging is extremely expensive unless you do something like clear cutting, which uses a titanic lawn-mower thing. Cutting a single tall but thin tree requires a professional. Really, there's no solution for a situation of houses spread through the urban-wildland borders. The logging companies claim the fuel build up is the from logging restrictions but they will always claim that - actually, logging is no longer profitable in California because most large trees are gone, home owners won't let people clear cut and even clear cutting isn't economical given foreign competition and society's decreased use of paper.