Compare the two articles/papers here and see what you think.

http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...3/biscuit1.htm

http://www.fire-ecology.org/science/Beschta_Report.pdf

Both are from the University of Oregon. The Beshta report has been
around since 1995 and is used to this day as the greens' primary
source to appeal/litigate against salvage logging.

The "biscuit" article flies in the face of the Beshta report in that
it maintains that without rapid reforestration the area will never
regenerate into a natural coniferous forest. To accomplish the
reforestration salvage logging must take place first. This article
dates from this July.

Any comments on the two articles or salvage logging in particular? I
for one think the Beshta report is 1) outdated; 2) Has applicability
mostly for PNW forests and not PP and other dry type forests; 3)
Proposes a Utopian approach to forests which just isn't workable or
realistic and is wrong, or less than adequate, on other counts as
well.