Should the Forests throughout the USA be logged or not ?

Question

Lets assume that when they are logged that there is a replant program.

Answer 1

I would not suggest to log ALL forests, but it is a fact that heavy growth forests when allowed to grow extremely dense without being thinned out (logged), become fire hazards.  

That is a contributing factor in those numerous forest fires in California.  The environmentalists (greenies) will not allow thinning or logging of the forests and they have become prime areas susceptible to forest fires, which become wildfires dut to the vast and extensive underbrush.  

Environmentalism to this extreme is counterproductive and damaging to the very resource they seek to protect.

Answer 2

In a perfect world, the answer is no.

However, loggers and other timber workers have families to feed, and wood is a valuable commodity, so the answer is never black and white. Even if we could stop logging right *now* and protect every forest totally, those involved in forestry still have the problem of how will they feed their kids tonight?

You cannot log only dead and dieing trees, as these have a valuable role to play in the ecosystem (e.g. hollow trees are an important habitat resource and fallen trees break down and supply nutrients to the substrate). Here in Australia, logging operations typically leave large mature trees alone if they are hollow-bearing, because so much of our fauna depends on hollows for nesting or roosting such as bats, parrots, insects, possums, gliders etc.

Clear-felling is probably the worst sort of logging you could think of... erosion, loss of habitat, salinity, encourages weed and pest species spread, regrowth understorey typically far more dense than original trees... ugh. Selective logging is better where possible. I think a big issue is the length of time between logging the same place twice. I can't really speak for the US so much, but here, logging cycles are too short to allow many eucalypt species to develop hollows. Replanted areas take a long time to grow to maturity, and are typically logged before they do so, at least over here. There is also the problem of establishing a monoculture which can facilitate weed spread, or promote generalist species to the detriment of specialist or rare species.

Logging will continue- as one answerer noted, we need wood. But there are ways to make it more environmentally friendly. I just wish that at least the timber was used for a better purpose than toilet paper or woodchips. I hate to think of a _Eucalyptus regnans_ (this species can top 100m or 330ft in height) being used as toilet paper. It's degrading to such magnificent trees and I'm sure there are similar base uses for the wood logged in the US from your lovely conifers. At least in both our countries there are some really awesome national parks that protect large and spectacular forest remnants.

Bye!

Answer 3

the answer is only under a strict ecological program ,but this wont happen ,slowly but surely indigenous forests will be replaced by mono culture plantations ,this means that most of the animals will disappear,

But judging by the replies here in Answers ,this does not worry most Americans ,they are not exactly lovers of nature.And only see the monetary value.

Generally speaking,Animals have no value except for the pot.

If one objects to the deforestation ,the rewards are ridicule ,and insults ,So do what you like .

Answer 4

i agree with hiker.

Answer 5

That is not an either/or question.

Some areas should be logged, because lumber is needed and an owner should be able to have a return on investment, but clear-cut or not, and how often?

Some areas should not be, regardless of owner's opinions, because of too much water runoff, the trees are a national treasure, e.g. Sequoias, Redwoods, Olympia rainforest, etc, etc., because of fragile environment or rare species, because other areas are adversely affected in some way, and so on.  Maybe simply because it looks good.  Who wants to hike, take pictures, or live, on deforested, bare land?

Use GoogleEarth to look at Haiti/Dominican Republic border.  Nothing so clearly shows deforestation.  Haiti pays every year as landslides and floods destroy roads, farmland, buildings and people.

The US does not have poverty-induced deforestation, it has a different problem - Big Money deforestation.  

There is a constant battle between those who would take it all now, and those who would save for future generations.  Also considerable controversy over the US Forest Service's apparently below-market sales of logging, and their free build of roads to do it.

But lumber is needed.  How to balance?

Answer 6

Log the dead and dieing trees only. That should take 100 years