Abstract The problem of public regulation of cutting on privately owned forest lands is confused by failure to distinguish dearly between the economic objective of sustained yield and the silvicultural objective of maintaining the productivity of the forest. Many proponents of regulation, faced with the difficulty of legislating economic sustained yield and moved by fear of destructive cutting, have turned to advocating the universal application of "selective cutting," or the elimination of clear cutting as a silvicultural system. But partial cutting is not adapted to the intolerant species which dominate in many stands, and to force its application where dear cutting is the natural method will prevent reproduction of desirable species and optimum growth. If regulation means legislating bad silviculture, the author is skeptical of the benefits.
H. H. Chapman (Mon,) studied this question.