Hello Jim,
Safety is important, however so is health of the forest. I was amazed at watching the Japanese timber framers at the couple workshops and rendezvous. They wore nylon/cotton ninja boots while they were working. All around them were local carpenters in their clunky steel toes, tripping over timbers and the like. The Japanese workers were so focussed and ever mindful of their position that there was never an accident or trip or bump. Working in the forest is no different. The working forests i've worked in go like this: Every one entering a working forest knows where the standing dead habitat trees are. They are shown them and they are clearly marked. They are not allowed to lean over working trails or roads, others are selected that pose the least hazzard. If I am working in the drop-zone of the dead habitat tree, I am working so as to always have it in my sight. If this is not possible (it usually is) then I will get a piece of heavy machinery (skidder/buncher) to do the work for me.
One reason for bug problems in forests is when these big habitat trees are taken away the large nesting birds leave to find another habitat. A biologist at the University of Victoria studied these large dead trees and found that EVERY bug in the ecosystem lived in the tree and did so at a certain elevation, EVERY bird in the ecosystem lived in/on the tree and did so at a certain elevation (usually from smallest (tit-mouse/chickadee etc.) to biggest (pilleated woodpecker, eagle etc.) from forest floor to tree top. This pattern occured without deviation throughout the forest. Once these big dead trees were removed, the "condominium/city" of symbiotic balance was destroyed, bugs spread to other living trees, and the largest of the bug eating birds left the ecosystem. Loss of diversity and health to the forest. Therefore a balance is struck. For safety all dead trees are to be removed except for one per acre, this being the one that is obviously the "condo" of the bunch. You start noticing this when you start looking for it.
Yes, it appears good to remove diseased, and deforemd trees to let the healthier ones compete for resources. It is also important to document what the disease was in the ecosystem map to see if any patterns emerge. It is also nice to leave some deformed trees for local builders (i.e. cruck frames, curved beams and braces) and to keep with the model of diversity.
Again unless someone can come up with an argument against diversity, it seems to be the fail-safe model to fall back on. If diversity is true, then some but not all dominant trees should be removed. In uneven stand management you want to have maximum diversity of age. It is usually the case that one of the largest trees is the nurse tree. Which means it has the seed bearing cone (not all cones produce seeds) and is responsible for reforesting the area. Merv discovered through his 60 years that these trees replanted the forest at a much higher success rate than him (and he had one less thing to do). He noticed that the squirrels and chipmunks would go to only certain trees and there would be piles of cone shavings around the base of certain trees. These trees had the seeds in the cones and were the "nurse/mother" trees replanting the area. They were marked and labelled so to never be harvested.
Sunlight needs to reach the forest floor, however it needs to be filtered and not direct. There can be some direct but filtered is always preferable for the health of the forest. Yes, the trees grow faster with direct light, however, this can be seen as the forests attempt to shelter the top soil. It may seem to be a good thing in short-term economics, however to the timber framer and wood worker, a tree with tight growth rings is much preferred over a tree with .25" growth rings.
I think overall the system is great, and the evolution of it is the right way to go. It is selection logging which is, as far as i can tell, the best long-term economic and environmental technology for the forest and the wood worker.
I agree in principal with all of your points, I feel i'm being less dichotomous in practice with the principals and finding the balance. After my too many years in University, I left with a head full of black and white, and over the years have kept coming back to one word: "both." Oddly enought it works, the answer to most arguments is "both." There is no right and wrong, outright. There is a grey area where the truth seems to like to hide. This i guess is the paradox the poets like to speak of.
