Alright, I have figured out the problem.  WE ARE FIGHTING OVER THE WRONG ISSUE. Let's look at the real issue here, the devastating fires, not the big logging corporations, and not the extreme environmentalists.  But isn't any fire in the forest devastating, home destroying, river hoping, and dangerous volumes of smoke emitting? Absolutely not, in fact some fires can be very beneficial to the forests and tree health. Are'nt the extreme environmentalists, or the big log corps the enemy? Yes, but that is for a later date. The problem now is the choking abundance of underbrush, sucking all the water and nurturance out of the soil, drying up, and becoming perfect tinder for large fires. Protecting the forest will make it worse, but logging is defiantly not the answer either. The answer is some variant of forest management, to keep the underbrush that only magnifies the fires at a minimum.
The real question: how can we can prevent the magnitude of the fires, not how to prevent fires period.