Exactly what counts as "selective" is a little ambiguous. There is every reason for loggers to cut more--especially if, as I understand it, US taxpayers will foot the bill for the helo that extracts the logs--and very little incentive for them to cut less.

And there's a long history of "cutting for health" that turns into a clear cut, from what I've heard. 

These cuts need to be planned, and executed, on the ground, by silviculture specialists and arborists charged with protecting the public interest, and the integrity of the woodlands. Nothing else makes sense. Neither side trusts the other, for good reason, too.