Are logging companies required to plant trees whenever they cut down a tree in the rain forest?

Question

I never thought that they were supposed to, but I've recently heard that they're supposed to. I thought that we are losing rainforest so quickly because they don't replace the trees they cut down. So, do they have to replace the trees? Thanks.

Answer 1

I don't know about the rain forewst but I'm in northwest Florida and we have local paper mills etc..and they are required to plant 2 to 1 pine tree they harvest

Answer 2

if they aren't required to then they need to be. trees help the environment in more ways than i can list

Answer 3

I wish they would but they are too evil that not to plant the trees they had cutted down.

Answer 4

Tropical or temperate rainforests?   In Washington state I believe they have to replant national forests that they cut.   The companies replant their own lands too after cutting to show how environmentally responsible they are.    They never mention that they sell the land off to developers after replanting it though.

Answer 5

No, even if they did, once they had cleared the trees they would probably be planting monocultures, cash crops which negatively impact on the environment. You can not replant old forest from scratch without massively damaging the eco system for generations, through loss of habitat for flora and fauna.  

However, they do not replant anyway and more land is being deforested daily. It is cleared for cattle grazing for the West's overconsumption of meat and dairy products.

The link is from the Vegan Society please put your prejudgement aside and bear with it through the first few frames, it will answer your question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWWNLvgU4...

Answer 6

Actually most of the rainforest is being cut down to develop new pasture land for beef cattle.  The trees are not being replanted.  The soil will be depleted and they will need to continue cutting to find richer soil.  One alternative is to pay Carbon Credit $s specifically to preserve and protect the rain forest.

Answer 7

I think that in most places they are required to replant, at least 1 for 1. It might depend on the laws of the particular region.

Answer 8

I am afraid that "premaculture" is right.  Depeding on the country, a logging company may be required to plant trees.  The problem is that even if they do plant the trees(highly unlikely in many places due to lack of conservative resource management) they are planting trees that will be beneficial to them in the future so that they can come back and cut them down in another 40 years.  Another problem is that often in rainforests, the ground is depleted of nutrients once cut due to either erosion of soil(they get alot of rain) or in the fact that most of the biomes nutrients are locked in the biomass.  The biomass is the trees they cut and sent overseas.  Also, rainforest dynamics are a little different in other ways.  Natural forest develops in stages of succession and planting monoculture trees unbalances this natural order and therefore the forest, if left alone(unlikely), will take over a hundred years to reach its natural state.  You have to remember that the countries where more rainforests lie are very poor or relatively poor and therefore are more concerned with feeding their families than replantation.  So it would not surprise me at all to see a forest cleared and left to erode.  However cynical it sounds, this is the reality.

Answer 9

Depends on where you are.

In Asia,South America and most of Africa there are no requirements.

Everywhere else I think 1 for 1 is the minimum

Answer 10

In the United States all Federal lands(USFS, BLM)are required to be reforested when harvested.  As far as I know all state lands have the same requirement.  On private lands the state requirements vary from state to state and vary according to the size of the harvest.  I don't know any requirements as such in South or Central America.  In fact I have seen many articles about the land left to erode.

But there are many exceptions to planting  of land when it was not logging activity that bared it.

1.  On fire scared lands, both state and federal, the managing agency must come up with funds to replant.  Many burns go bare for years without planting because they don't have the funds.

2. Commercial operators on commercial lands are very aggressive in replanting burned areas because they view it as future income.  At time some business have been irresponsible to get as much revenue then sell the land.

3. Small land owners have been the worse because they don't think of the value 50-100 years from now, they only see the cost.

Answer 11

yes,they do