The distinction between clearcutting and selection cutting takes a lot of explanation.
Some times selection cutting is clearly inappropriate because wind will blow down trees with root systems that have developed under severe competition for space, as all trees in an unmanaged forest have. Trees in a dense forest stand hold each other up, so to speak, by dispersing the tremendous forces of wind. The soil can only hold so much root mass, so a dense stand has a lot of trees with poor root systems. Remove some, and the rest may blow down. The species, soil characteristics, wind patterns, topography, climate, amount of soil moisture, and many other factors have to be considered.
Some times selection harvest is inappropriate because the trees likely to reproduce in such a system are problematic. This gets to be pretty technical, but species of trees have different levels of tolerance for shade. The tolerant trees are likely to be less valuable and have higher defect than intolerant trees. So if you want to encourage intolerant trees, you are not likely to get them with the selection method, because the intolerant trees do better in full sun.
Some times clearcutting is inappropriate, but usually it is inappropriate for reasons that are other than scientific.
A managed forest is much more amenable to choices between selection harvest and clearcutting because you can keep the density at levels that support healthy strong root systems. Thus, when you ultimately do make a harvest decision you have a better chance to be successful with the selection method, or with the clearcut method, which ever meets your objectives best.
The problem is, most public forests are composed of unmanaged stands that developed under excrutiatingly high density. In order for a forester to work towards a managed forest, he must first harvest the unmanaged one. Often the best way to do that is with the clearcut method.
Within the clearcut method there are many variations. All of them have particular benefits and costs.
The taxpayers have funded endless debate over this topic. There is no way I can adequately discuss the subject, because it's a highly technical field that requires a lot of art to apply successfully, not to mention the political and social groundwork that has to go into every forest management decision.
It's fine for people to pack a picnic lunch and enjoy nature, but forests have a lot of uses, and everybody has an interest in his or her own special use.
All life involves death. Nature is ordered for some creatures to kill and eat others. If that weren't the case, we would be buried under tons of insects like a swarm of bees and standing on the shoulders of people three or four layers deep.
Picnicing with your dogs has its place. So does hunting. Without predation, populations of prey animals get out of control and eventually collapse. Hunting is one form of activity that is more ancient than history itself, and it has a valid place in our world. |
