We were talking about Bush’s healthy forest bill in my Gov class today, and my teacher said its called that because apparently clear cutting strips of forest will stop the spreading of forest fires. While there seems to be some merit in this, i was always lead to believe that selective cutting was best overall, since you make the forest less dense and clear out the brush it makes fires spread less quickly and can even stop them from catching some trees on fire, in addition to not promoting erosion or destroying habitat. So which is better? Is there some advantage to clear cutting im not being told about? Or have i been lied to about how good selective cutting really is?
Selective cutting that is not “high grading” – harvesting only the most valuable trees – is better for the forest in that it leaves a reasonable facsimile of the forest ecosystem in place. Clear-cutting in strips will also do this, particularly in areas with a single or a very few dominant species – they fill in the gap with seedlings – and is of course useful in preventing forest fires, as you note.
Clear cutting of large areas that are not meant for development normally leaves a scrub environment that is neither fish nor fowl, and is not a particularly healthy ecosystem, as well as aesthetically ugly.
And on the other side of the coin, many tree species require open neither-fish-nor-fowl scrub land to propagate, scrub is valuable habitat for many species, etc.
I think the most general answer is, it depends. It depends on the exact variety of clear cutting (in strips, or everything for miles around) and selective cutting (high-grading, or not) you’re comparing. It depends on the type of forest (lodgepole, mixed deciduous, other) in which you’re comparing them. And finally, it depends by what you mean by better (human safety as in no fires, increased ungulate populations for hunters, faster regeneration of economically viable tree species, close mimicry of natural'' processes, close mimicry of natural’’ outcomes, etc.) for the forest.
Also think about “better for the forest”… better for the ecosystem sans humans involved on the whole over the long haul or better for the ecosystem with our (reasonable) interests fairly high on the totem pole?
If we were never here or disappeared there’d be no advantage to preventing forest fires; only thing wrong with them is that they make smoke, burn a few houses, and most of all send a lot of valuable timber up in smoke - we’re by far the most adversly affected group. Then again if we weren’t here to affect the forest the whole question would be redundant…
Selective cutting is better for the forest ecosystem, and if you look at it in a certain light, can also be economically better in the long run too. Here’s a link to an article about a fairly well-known forester who I’ve met and visited a few times on Vancouver Island, who knows much more about the subject than me. I’ve been to his commercial forest, and it’s quite impressive. I read he was given the Order of Canada last year - should be easy to find more stuff about him on google.