I don't disagree, at all. Clear felled forest is a dismal thing to see. Hence my support for selective logging.The problem is that "selective logging" remains quite rare, and clear felling is overwhelmingly the approach used. This has a few negative impacts:
- forest water catchment areas no longer absorb the water which would have a) helped the soil retain moisture, and b) reduces inflow into reservoirs;
- after clear felling, they do what are euphamistically called "regeneration burns" on the site, which add to fire risk and further reduce water catchment utility;
- trails through forest are built solely to assist with timber removal, they're generally in the wrong places to protect communities against fire; and
- selective logging tends to target high value (large) trees for further processing, whereas clear felled timber is overwhelmingly sent to be wood-chipped for the export pulp/paper market.