Not only are there many existing forests where absence of small trees
will permit clean cutting without sacrifice, but the same condition
is likely to occur eventually in stands following selective logging
if the second cut is long delayed. Although a good representation
of all ages under the diameter limit remains, the density of this
may become too great to allow further reproduction, and in time
the dominant trees will shade out all smaller growth. To allow this
purposely, choosing heavy cuts at intervals long enough to mature
the crop from seed rather than frequent light cuts of a constantly
replenishing stand, thus reducing the necessity of fire prevention,
is the aim of those who favor clean cutting as the most practicable
system. They assume that additional investment in seed trees, or
planting to insure prompt starting of a new crop after cutting,
will be unnecessary or at least offset by the smaller fire charge
and greater economy of logging.

Theoretically, such practice with a species adapted to the selective
method is uneconomical, for the ground is not fully utilized. Accidental
open places in the stand are not occupied by young trees which would
otherwise fill them. Time is lost by not starting the second crop
until after logging, for were there no fire previously there would
be considerable seedling growth which, although perhaps dormant
because of shade, would begin to amount to something much quicker than
that supplied by seed trees afterward. Nor is the system feasible
where there is much fir or other species less fire-resisting than
pine. It is dangerous in practice except where there is very little
combustible matter on the ground and fire is generally easy of
control, and exceedingly dangerous to advocate because serves as a
pretext and example for indiscriminate carelessness with fire under