The decision support methods most often used in timber-harvesting planning are based on a single criterion. In this study, a voting-theory-based method called multicriteria approval (MA) is introduced to the group decision support of timber-harvesting. The use of voting methods alleviates the problems caused by the multitude of decision objectives involved in forestry decision-making and by the poor quality of information concerning both the preferences of decision-makers and the evaluation of decision alternatives with respect to the objectives often faced in practical timber-harvesting planning. In the case study, the tactical forest management plan of a forest holding jointly owned by three people was specified at the operative timber-harvesting level. The task was to find the best actual operative alternatives for the harvesting that had been proposed in the tactical plan. These timber-harvesting alternatives were combinations of treatment, timber-harvesting system and the timing of logging. Forest owners established multiple criteria under which the alternatives were evaluated. Two versions of MA were tested, one of them based on individual decision analyses and other one based on a composite analysis. The first was markedly modified from the original MA, combining properties of MA and Borda count voting. The other was an original MA with the order of importance for criteria estimated either using Borda count or cumulative voting. The results of the tested MA versions produced were very similar to each other. MA was found to be a useful tool for the group decision support of timber-harvesting.