Is logging trees necessary for forests to remain healthy?

Question

a conservative family member of mine was laughing at all the environmentally conscious 'tree hugger' hippies because they don't realize that the trees need to be cut down...otherwise whole forrests will get sick from the old trees diseases

Is he right?

Or do we cut down way more than we need to, and we should still make an effort to cut back?

Answer 1

Every area has a maximum amount of each type of species it can have in each area. Basically like the capacity of people at the local pool.

Lets say we have a plot of land, and this plot can hold 50 trees. If the plot has 49, another tree can easily grow. If there are 51, the plot does not hold enough: space for sunlight, soils space for roots, or nutrients in the soil; for all 51 trees to grow there, so one of the trees will die.

Trees do not need to be cut down for their own benefit. Trees are cut down for human benefit alone. Yes trees become diseased at times, and can infect trees that neighbor it, but it is all part of it's normal process. You are forgetting that there are sill areas that have never been touched by humans. These areas have grown for very very long times, and have been able to sustain growth within the correct balance for the area.

Trees get sick when they are all the exact same genetic copy (like when you see rows upon rows of planted trees that all stand in their own little perfect row). These trees are MUCH more likely to get sick, and ALL die, because they don't have the Genetic Variation required to prevent a wipe out from disease. It goes along with Survival of the Fittest. If all the trees are the same genetic copy, they are all the same (not same type, but the exact same. Clones), and then if the one thing that they don't have a defense for is around, they all die, and there are none left to carry on a stronger structure.

Answer 2

In my own opinion, yeah old unhealthy tress should be cut down, BUT it need to be replanted... in order for the forest to stay alive... your family might seen illegal logging on tv right? maybe there is such thing as legal logging too? authorized loggers to cut down trees maybe they considered unhealthy and old, but then after cutting, they replant another new plant...

Answer 3

Forests do not need to be cut for their own health.  In fact, removing old trees or dead standing trees and fallen dead trees retracts from the overall habitat quality of the forest.  Many birds rely on standing dead trees to make their homes and gather food.  Salamanders require decaying dead trees for their homes near the ground.  Finally, some forests will never pass into a the next successional stage because some old growth tree species require decaying logs or tip-up mounds (the bare soil exposed after an ancient giant falls) in order to germinate and grow.  This phenomenon has been notices (and scientifically documented) in northern Wisconsin.  New logging practices are being enacted to deal with these issue: some dead wood is intentionally left behind and trees are harvested in large circle to mimic natural forest gaps.  These high-light gaps also promote natural tree regeneration ensure the longevity of the forest with minimal human intervention.  So forests can be harvested in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner, but they do not need to be cut for their own health.

Answer 4

It isn't necessary.  Forests started in a big way during the Carboniferous.  That's from about 360 million years ago.  For most of those 360 million years human logging didn't happen, the forests didn't die of flu or whatever they're supposed to drop dead of, or would he like to maintain otherwise?  Somehow or other forests survived without that supposedly necessary logging.

That said, sustainable logging does a forest no harm at all.  It can have the benefit of helping conserve a forest as there's a useful product.