I wonder why no one has thought of that before? Please, elaborate. You make it sound so simple.
Sorry, not to be a dick, but I can't help but cringe when I log-in and see that the keyboard warriors and city slickers are now experts in forest management. Internet forums are the bastion of the ignorant experts.
If you are familiar with California, you'll know that you can drive up any road in the Sierras and see log truck after log truck. Logging is alive and well in California. Here's the thing; logging does nothing to stop wildfires. In fact, the largest and most destructive fires in American and Canadian history have occurred in recently logged areas.
Why isn't logging effective? Because logging entails harvesting large diameter trees. Large diameter trees are not the main carriers of wildfires. Fine fuels are (what we in the industry call 1-hr, 10-hr, and 100-hr fuels. In fact, after a wildfire, the boles of these large trees are mostly unburned-the moisture content is too high and the surface area too low.) Logging is often counter productive due to the amount of slash left behind, and the overtaking of smaller trees and brush where large diameter trees once stood.
Controlled burns? They are great, except California is in perpetual drought and it just keeps getting hotter and drier. You can chalk it up to climate change or not, but what is happening is indisputable. When conditions are that unfavorable, we just can't conduct prescribed burns. Add into that the complexity of decades of lax zoning regulations that allowed Californians to build houses in any and every asinine spot they could. We just can't burn on any appreciable scale in California due to development, fuels, and weather. And tack onto that the continued support for re-building via Federal disaster funds.
Its a mess without a solution.