I think the biggest problem is one of structural motivation. People can control property using political claims. That distorts everybody's decisions. Those with the most to gain and the resources to enlist political control do so in their particular and narrow interest.
They don't really advocate controlled burns and firebreaks?
No. They advocate letting nature take its course, as if it knows (or cares) how to "heal".
I've often thought that environmentalists have done their cause a disservice by not considering partnerships with hunting and fishing groups, or with a responsibly run logging industry, but that their cause was still good.
The leadership has been awfully corrupt for a very long time. The followers lack technical qualification, need something to bitch about, are greedy... there is a boatload of reasons these people do what they do. The problem is that they have little accountability for the outcome.
Are (you) arguing that the logging industry is more responsible than the environmentalists?
Often they are.
Certainly, reading some environmental literature, you'd think that loggers would never even consider a selective harvest, it's clear cut or nothing...
That's pure and unadulterated crap.