I'm just telling you what they did. And now, in the same terrain, they clear cut. And the reason why they clear cut is because it's cheaper and easier for them to do it that way. That's according to an old hand forester with whom I'm acquainted, not just my opinion.
Back when felling a tree was much more labor-intensive, they used to selectively log the more hilly areas, too, and drag the trees to the top of the hill. This was not particularly kind to the land in the drag line areas, but logged areas were also not so prone to the erosion and flooding problems that accompany clear cuts, either.
Beyond that, it's not honest to imply as you have that clear cuts are used only on unhealthy stands. Standard practice these days is very often to clear cut everything in healthy stands -- take a flight into Seattle to see that this is the truth. They do this because it's technically easier for them to do so, not for any forest health reasons.
That "fact" differs depending upon local circumstances. Like any tool, a clearcut has its place. They do reduce blowdown problems where there are high winds in mountainous areas. They reduce the frequency of re-entry times and therefore leave areas undisturbed for long periods where growth rates are slow. In some situations the clearcut is the preferred form of silviculture, and in others it can be an outrage.