Clear-cutting does a lot of damage with respect to erosion and watershed issues. The better method is thinning the trees (with emphasis on the dead and decaying, or dying trees) and removing the smaller, but abundant fuels (underbrush, branches, etc.). Obviously, some dead trees decaying on the ground are a good thing, as they provide food and shelter for animal life, and nutrients to the soil, but too much in one place is a problem.
I've seen this work in AZ on the Apache-Sitgraves. Healthier trees due to the thinning, and nice clear paths and meadows for grasses to grow for critters to eat.
Clear cutting works just fine and done properly actually serves as a firebreak.
Where I live in Idaho we have been hollering at the idiots in the USFS for 10-years that the forests are dying from beetle infestation. They refuse to do anything, and if they actually do come up with the rare timber sale, the record of decision is always appealed by some a**hole environmental organization from two states away.
The US forest service is responsible for the poor condition of the forests in the west, and now they are trying to get loggers to show interest in a few break-even puny timber sales to bale out decades of lousy management.
What a joke. I could go on.