I did not suggest someone wants to log the parks (although there are some politicians that would given half a chance). What I said was that because of different mission statements the two agencies do different things that result in different landscapes. You decide what you want and care about but I will lean toward national park protection nearly every time. People seem to want it all from our public lands - access, conservation, convenience, low cost, services, and fewer people to share it with. It is not the fault of government that those demands are often at odds. With respect to wilderness specifically there is basically no difference between management by the NPS or the USFS. The default position on trails, fires, etc is mostly a hands off approach with some exceptions. Because of user fees the USFS often provides some "services" to wilderness users as on wilderness rivers in Idaho. Wilderness was never about access - it was about preservation of wild lands. Now, various user groups (mt bikes, climbers, boaters) want special rights to those lands often at the expense of wilderness values. Unfortunately, those same user groups are now willing to jump in bed with a slew of conservatives who see expanding access as a way to weaken wilderness protections on FS lands. That is a dangerous game so be careful what you ask for.