Talk:Selection cutting

Selection Cutting is more about the silvicultural goals rather than the logging methods, so if it has to be merged, perhaps it should be merged into the forestry page. -The Gomm 02:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also known in Britain as 'thinning'. I dispute the assertion that it is a method of maintaining timber production only in uneven-aged stands, I am currently thinning even-aged spruce stands in northern Britain. I agree with The Gomm, should be merged with forestry. The Boy that time forgot 20:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should separate the concept of even and uneven age selection. The Gomm 20:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I don't advocate a merge, but if we are in merger-mania, then the merge should perhaps be into forestry.

deleting merge tags?

How long should we keep the merge tags before deleting them? The Gomm 00:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DBq Method

Would it be impertinent to suggest that this material would be better suited to an article of it's own, to be linked from here. I may of course be wrong. Still keen on a merge to forestry.The Boy that time forgot 22:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be possible to make an article about the DBq method. However, I'm not convinced that any article aside from this one (or the one that this is merged into, if it is in fact merged) would need to link to it. At least in WI, DBq is synonymous with Single-Tree Selection. As such, I'm not sure that making a separate article makes very much sense. As time permits over the coming weeks, I had planned on expanding this article with references, examples, photographs of harvested stands. Hopefully enough such that it's less of a stub, and more of an article. crh 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, but: " a form that is known to be sustainable." - What does that mean?- Also lean against merging KAM 12:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is the new wording? A technical definition of a sustainable distribution would be one such that D(i*n+eps)+H = D((i+1)*n-eps) where:

D(t) gives the diameter distribution at time t
H gives the amount of the harvest
n is the cutting cycle
i is any whole number
eps - a very small number +eps -> just after, -eps -> just before

To be technical, there are quite a number of combinations of D and H that satisfy these conditions, not just DBq style ones. In some forest types, even diameter limit cuts are sustainable (eg, cut everything bigger than some X). crh 03:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the separate DBq page idea. And lean against either of the proposed merges. The Gomm 04:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is diameter limit considered a method? If it is common, and I think it may be perhaps it should be added. KAM 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter limit is a common management technique in large areas of continental Europe, however I am not sufficiently familiar with the method to accurately outline it here.The Boy that time forgot 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the midwest US, on the other hand, diameter limit cuts are highly unpopular. The feeling here is that they degenerate too easily into high-grading. Joseph Buongiorno, a prominent forest economist from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, once published a paper in which he pointed out that the harvest which satisfies the criteria I listed above and gives the maximum economic value is a diameter limit cut. He had a lot of data to back this up, and a simulation model demonstrating that it was in fact sustainable. Nonetheless, there were still letters sent to the dean demanding that he be fired for recommending "the destruction of Wisconsin's forests". crh 06:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a line about diameter limit and included a source here: http://www.dnr.cornell.edu/ext/forestrypage/assistance/pubs/infobroch/Just%20Say%20No.pdf The name of the source is "Just say no to high grading" it is from Cornell how is removing a source POV? KAM 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'm still new to this and it looked to me like it was just a line of text shoved in at the end of the article. No offense intended.The Boy that time forgot 19:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the difference between DBq and BDq; this should be clarified in any such article. I had assumed that DBq was a typo for BDq and a bit of Googling seems to confirm it, but here are a couple of apparently sensible folks using DBq and considering creating an article with that title, so maybe i"m totally out of it.--Wcoole (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

even and uneven aged

I may be missing someing but I not sure if we all mean the same thing by "maintain" My understanding (may be local terminology) is that if you start with an even-aged stand and select cut it you are "thinning'. At some point it will either be a stand with mature trees all the same age or regeneration is going to slowly change the stand to an uneven-aged stand. If you clearcut a stand (even or uneven) you will end up with an even-aged stand. If you select cut a stand (uneven or even) it will stay uneven or you will eventually end up with an uneven aged stand. [1] KAM 13:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent, depends on your situation however and this I think is one of the major difficulties in attempting a balanced article on a forestry related subject, particularly when the contributors come from diverse backgrounds and parts of the world. I'm sure our Brazilian colleagues could add something to this mix. My personal obsession with even-aged stands arises from the fact that these are the conditions within which I work, spruce planted in the 1950's with the single objective of being clearfelled, well, now. Our objectives have now changed (thankfully say some) and where conditions permit we are attempting to convert areas to continuous cover multi-aged complex stands. The objective is therefore to become uneven-aged but at this early stage in the conversion process most stands remain even-aged.The Boy that time forgot 19:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a second look I see it does not say maintain. I think it is ok but could be more clear perhaps. KAM 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High Grading

Should there be mention of using some form of independant certification to legislate against the practice of high grading. I'm not aware of the current situation in North America regarding certification however in northern Europe (FSC, PEFC) actively prohibits this type of activity.The Boy that time forgot 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures!

This article should have pictures. Who is with me!128.101.70.112 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? The Boy that time forgot 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article implies that high-grading is done only by some logging companies because they, and their foresters, want more profit. While this is undoubtedly true, it is very often the case that private owners insist on high-grading because they want more money from the sale. This is especially true in the eastern U. S. where much, if not most, woodland is in private hands. Hiring a private forester, or a state forester does not guarantee that high-grading will not be done since it is the owner who descides the stipulations of the contract, not the forester. The forester can advise but the owner has the final say. My husband has been in the timber business for 40+ years, mostly in the easter U. S., and countless times has seen an owner make a high-grade sale without much regard for the future of the woodland. People should be aware that private ownership does not necessarily mean wise husbandry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlightphilsopher (talk • contribs) 20:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

plenterwald

is the right term for this. it comes from german, where the technique was developed. perhaps an expert could add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.80.190 (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selection vs. Selective

The redirect from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Selective_logging&redirect=no leads to a fairly confusing experience. "Selective logging" is often used in contexts where is is assumed to be a poor practice. It seems like there are 3 ways in which logging can be done in a picky way:

1) cutting only the valuable species (ick) 2) cutting only the valuable sizes (ick) 3) cutting to preserve a distribution of species and sizes consistent with long-term management goals(yum)

If there is a consistent terminology that is easily used to refer to those 3 methods, it isn't clear from the existing articles. I would love it if someone who knew what they were talking about could create an article that explained it and fixed up the links, so that they all made immediate sense.--Wcoole (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implementing A Selection System

The is an element not very clearly explained in this section: "a curve representing the state of the residual stand is computed" seems to imply that "residual" means "desired", so I can see how you'd compare the existing to desired distributions, but it isn't at all clear how one comes to choose appropriate values for B, D, and q. In any case, I'd like to see a more detailed explanation for how the financial considerations (or other goals of the owner) interact with the known properties of the biological systems and the existing inventory.--Wcoole (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]