Assuming the worst of what you say is true - would it be better or worse off than current state? Long and short term?
Theres some wild blowdown this year in MT from the spring we had - to the point that access through it becomes challenging to be possible - independent of time consuming. It isnt capable of sustaining much wildlife when its widespread.
I have seen very good...really better for habitat than if it had been traditionally logged...and very bad salvage operations.
On average...dealt with a lot of them over my years...Id say hopes they will "clean up" all the damage never are accurate. For one, it can be very difficult to get at let alone remove much of the down timber. Part of that is logistical, part due to legitimate safety concerns for operators.
Ideally they take some of the damaged timber, clear paths through it where needed, and take some healthy timber (typically some is needed to entice loggers to do the work) in a manner that creates good habitat.
Worst case they take way too much live timber, including large areas with no or minimal damage, and ignore past required habitat considerations while doing so.
I've seen both happen. The key is whether folks looking out for habitat have any say or not in how, where, and what timber is taken.
And thats my concern...it is no secret that the current administration is not allowing foresters and biologists they allowed to remain to consider requirements that detract from top dollar maximum resource extraction.
Its also no secret that some in the timber industry, and administration friendly politicians want to turn forests over to the industry and allow unrestricted logging. To achieve that they continually blame the lack of logging as the cause and solution to forest problems.
So...I suggest not blindly jumping for joy at salvage plans and encourage doing so responsibly, with habitat considerations in mind.
