I know this is a passioned subject, but IMO, certain timber should be protected. I don't enjoy seeing trees like that cut down, those are irreplaceable.
And yes, I have hugged a tree.... :msp_ohmy:
It was a rare old-growth for these parts, now since protected. Several feet dbh.
Idiots have tried to burn it down, had to be concreted, surprised no one had cut it by now, probably because no one had a big enough saw. I need to get out there and get some pictures of it.
But there has to be a middle ground somewhere between unregulated clear-cutting and a complete ban on logging.
I do think timber management has improved since WWII, but that doesn't mean its perfect either. Yes, there very well may be more trees now, but back then, there were portions of East that were clear cut for hundreds of miles. In fact, where I am at, the entire state, save for a small hundred or so acre portion, has pretty much all new-growth timber. That really isn't an accurate comparison on whether or not we have perfected timber management.
Timber is one of our most valuable resources, one that is completely renewable. I probably differ on opinion of most here on how we should go about to protect that resource, but hopefully, we don't differ on the opinion that we need to sustain this resource for ours and future generations needs. :msp_smile:
Besides, us greenies need the trees to counteract global warming.. :biggrin: