As someone from an area that gets wildfires, I support this. It's not good for the forest to put out every wildfire, we have been doing so, for so long that it will take a while to transition to proper forest management. While selective logging doesn't help the plants that rely on small fires, it at least prevents larger fires and reduces disease propagation, with an overall positive effect.
Just because something feels like the right thing to do, from an anthropocentric perspective, it doesn't mean it's actually beneficial to real-life nature and wildlife.
Old-growth forests are not susceptible to fires - or being chopped down - because either will destroy the forest. My grandfather made a career of "proper forest management" - including preserving some untouched tracts.
"Selective logging" in our times means cut-clear logging, leaving nothing in its wake. Anyone who takes a hike can see the effects, including the absence of wildlife.
Some old growth forest are susceptible to fur beetles which can destroy large areas of forest. In large fur forests you can easily do small select cutting in early spring to attract the beetles, in late spring you cut the tress and haul them out and the bugs get cooked in a kiln saving many trees.
Select logging is select logging, clear cuts is clear cuts. In general you cannot clear cut anymore, there are so many restrictions that guarantee trees are left standing. Wild life tree patches are required, bird trees, zones between water ways have to have a tree buffer zone. That does not include if you find a bear den, eagle nest or other similar things. You will be required to leave a large swath of trees around those areas.
If you have ever been around clear cuts or even select logging areas you will see a lot of wild life. It is much easier to see moose and deer around logging blocks. Lazy hunters often go to those areas to specifically hunt which is why a lot of logging roads these days are deactivated back to nature.
I have a done select logging in Canada for fire and bug control reasons. It can be done, the results were always great looking and also heavily reduced fuel for fires.
Forests need management it is simple, we let mother nature do it with fire or humans need to step up.
I was heavily protested in Canada while doing this, it was impossible to talk to protestors about why the thinning was needed.
Readit News
Just because something feels like the right thing to do, from an anthropocentric perspective, it doesn't mean it's actually beneficial to real-life nature and wildlife.
"Selective logging" in our times means cut-clear logging, leaving nothing in its wake. Anyone who takes a hike can see the effects, including the absence of wildlife.
Select logging is select logging, clear cuts is clear cuts. In general you cannot clear cut anymore, there are so many restrictions that guarantee trees are left standing. Wild life tree patches are required, bird trees, zones between water ways have to have a tree buffer zone. That does not include if you find a bear den, eagle nest or other similar things. You will be required to leave a large swath of trees around those areas.
If you have ever been around clear cuts or even select logging areas you will see a lot of wild life. It is much easier to see moose and deer around logging blocks. Lazy hunters often go to those areas to specifically hunt which is why a lot of logging roads these days are deactivated back to nature.
Forests need management it is simple, we let mother nature do it with fire or humans need to step up.
I was heavily protested in Canada while doing this, it was impossible to talk to protestors about why the thinning was needed.