At any rate, there seems to be no reason whatever, silviculturally , 

 for leaving fir trees, e:;cept in "breads where more desirable seed 

 trees are too far distant and fir must lie allowed to remain in 

 preference to non-forest growths. I:i actual timber sale management, 

 however, the desires of the purchaser usuall3/ run directly counter 

 to the idea of cutting the fir and it ic evident that many years 

 must elapse "before the timber marl-ret is sufficiently urgent to 

 warrant the practice of strict silvieiLlture. !" many cases the 

 production of the sorest may be materially increased even without 

 the enqpensive discrimination against fir, by getting new stands 

 of young growth started in place of mature or overmature trees. 

 Timing the cuttings, in order to have the ground brolren for each 

 seed year, is another obviously impracticable idea, but the shelt- 

 erwood system would seem to be most promising for the time when 

 conditions will warrant the protected cuttings involved in -chat 

 scheme. In fact, this system would be possible in some instances 

 at the present time, but the marlret is so uncertain that neither 

 the operator nor the Service would be wise in leaving large trees 

 other than seed trees, for subsequent cuts. In cr.se of ls.rge sales 

 3r:ten3.ing over five or sis: years, and not involving railroad leg- 

 ?l:ig , the shelterwood system might be i ased to the advantage of the 

 oorvise without imich loss to the operator. 



The question of diameter limits depends considerably on 

 "'::: :;;.:..:. :\ity of the site, but must trees under 18 inches have good 

 pojf- :.:jilities for rapid growth, and nany trees on the best lands 

 shov continued rapid growth even after a diameter of two feet 



