Should Canada allow the logging of old growth forests?

The definition of old growth to be older trees, and there should be selective logging and no clear cutting

Yes but with regulations

Yes, through selective logging and forest regeneration AND secondary and tertiary manufacturing within Canada. Sending ANY logs overseas or out of country for processing elsewhere is bad... but so are the closed shop union businesses that cannot be profitable compared to non-unionized production elsewhere.

No, there are many alternative wood-engineered products that are now available that do not rely on the size/quality of old-growth lumber. Old growth lumber is used primary for cosmetic / vanity and should be banned from use. Furthermore, most old-growth logs are exported so they may be sold for the highest proffet, benefiting the seller, not the community in which the old growth forest was removed.

Maybe, depends on the forest

Yes, but with restrictions.

Yes, but only selective logging, no clearcutting, and a plan for regrowth. The profits should also only be within Canada.

Yes, but only if the profits stay in Canada AND there is only selective logging, with no clear-cutting and a plan for regrowth.

We can have plots of land for logging with a good plan for regrowth. Respect the things that came before and should be able to live on after.

We should look at more renewable materials as alternatives to logging. Logging should be done in renewable forests and old growth to be avoided as much as possible

Maybe. Only with the approval of First Nations if the land is theirs (ie crown land) and NO clear cutting.

Canada doesn't cut down old growth forest's. We plant trees and then harvest them.

Only with indigenous permission

Yes, but only selective logging, no clearcutting, and a plan for regrowth AND if the profits stay in Canada

Yes, but certian/sacred lands are to be kept untouched. and a plan for regrowth.

ask local comunities and experts

Not in preserves, and areas more than 25 kilometres from cities, towns, villages, and hamlets except for road, placer mine, water treatment plant, golf course, and campground construction

Old growth trees are no more important than young trees and consume way less CO2 than the young trees. The natural process in the forest is for fire to destroy mature trees so the forest can be renewed with young healthy trees.

Yes but at a sustainable rate

Depends if its a hindrance or a disturbance to natural cycle of the nature or environment, and to people, or even animals.

Yes but only if it profits stay in Canada and no clear cutting and a plan for regrowth

Selective logging, if trees are still living healthy they must be left to survive, if trees are deemed as dead or dying, they should be removed and replaced with newly planted trees.

Yes , but keep profits here in canada ... do it with a plan for regrowth, and selective logging , clean up the mess , repair environmental disruptions , reduce prices on canadian lumber for canadians

Yes, and re-plant as soon as you remove a plant

Logging is a large part of Canadian resources, but it should be controlled and there should be no clearcutting and in areas where logging has occur there should be regrowth plans

Yes, Canada needs to reduce amount of burnable wood in forests where forest fires are natural.

Yes, if wildlife is not impacted and there are no adverse environmental impacts

Yes but only if the profits stay in Canada AND ONLY selective logging plus plans for regrowth

Yes, but only selective logging, no clearcutting, and a plan for regrowth and the profits stay in the country.

Yes as long as there is replenishment

Must replant

Decentralize. It should be decentralized to the communities that rely on these industries to manage. People who know the area, needs. Most especially private property owners.

Limited harvest with approval of indigenous owners if they own the area.

No, depending on age and health of the forest. Although, for every old- growth tree cut down, two new world be planted.

Depends on the location and the definition of 'old growth'

No and jail all loggers

Yes, but only silvicultural systems (not selective logging or clearcutting), and a plan for regrowth.

Yes, but only selective logging with a plan for regrowth at the approval of the indigenous peoples

Companies cannot log anywere until they are willing to leave it nearly as prestine as when they found it

Don’t know enough about it

Yes controlled logging should be permitted. No logging in Canada should be exported as raw material, only milled and finished lumber.

Logging down of old growth forests would be bad for the environment, and we need trees to survive. We can't keep killing them.

Yes, assuming they replant the trees

Very little but yes, selective logging, with a already in progress regrowth plan. Funds must stay in canada.

Old growth forests should not allow logging, however logging should remain legal in second-growth forests.

No, these forests contain ancient trees that have lived longer than most people, these trees should be a symbol of nature and left to naturally fall on their own.

Forestry is a provincial matter

Any true old growth forest needs to be left alone and preserved. However there’s no issue with selective logging any other healthy forests that aren’t as old as long as the forest ecosystem is stable enough

Yes, but the trees must be replanted immediately after, and they a have to be of the same species of the tree that was cut down

No, unless we need to.

Plant deciduous trees, not dry pine to protect us from rapid wildfires.

Yes but only selective cutting and profits stay in Canada to replace to trees with new ones

Only if the land owners agree. Including Indigenous lands. And only selective with a plan for re-growth.

There are plenty of forests that are managed by forestry companies. However, we should also preserve a lot of our old growth forests as well/and other public lands to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.

Yes because decomposing wood creates a lot of carbon

only if its absolutely necessary

Yes but it must profit Canada and there is selective logging, no clear cutting, a plan for regrow and a percentage of old growth that is never touched in each region.

if it’s an environmental threat of old lumber/ foliage logging and clearing fire hazard areas only

yes but only when the trees are on the verge of collapsing

Yes, but the profits must go to Canada, and the logging must be selective including a plan for replanting.

Yes if they have a plan for regrowth and put it in to action immediately after removing the trees. Don’t take them out all at once

No the old growth can never be replaced… logging has to be done with regriwth plans to ensure to protect the forest for generations to come

yes , if they replant the plants

if their is a way to replenish the forest then yes

Log old if there is a risk of destruction by rut and fires

no, deforistation is bad for the environment meaning that the trees can no longer help us in battle in climite change.

Canada's greatest tool to combat climate change is our natural tools like trees so if we are not replenishing our forest while using said resources we are in trouble

Only to preserve the old growth forests

We need to preserve our forests and that will benefit our future more than the economic benefits. All lumber companies in Canada should stop all destructive harvesting like clearcutting, adopt a selective logging plan, and submit a plan for regrowth before being allowed to cut. The government should follow up on logging sights every year to ensure the regrowth plans are being executed.

Yes, but use all kinds of wood then leaving some junk wook that can be used as wood chips and other appliances.

Complex. Must respect need to preserve viability of old growth forests but also rights and collective needs of first nations in ancestral lands

Yes, but only if the profits stay in canada, our forests should be controlled and used by local citizen owned businesses and the federal and local governments.