> You're missing the point.. I'm not sure how providing statistics that dispute the point is "missing the point"... > These forests have been logged multiple

> You're missing the point.. I'm not sure how providing statistics that dispute the point is "missing the point"... > These forests have been logged multiple times over history, and many were replanted with terrible replanting practices. SOME of these forests have been logged multiple times over history. The bulk of forests in Canada have never been logged. Simple math tells you that, 0.2% * 200 years is still a maximum 40% of the forest and, as the original article points out, we drastically increased logging the past decade. If these forests have been logged multiple times that means it's much less that 40% of the forest is/has been logged. Logging where I grew up is ALL being done on land that was previously logged, not old growth forest and the bulk of that logging is on natural regrowth, not plantations. I won't argue about the replanting practices since a lot of these are no longer done because of the problems you point out. There are terrible pine plantations where I grew up were the pines are 80 years old but only 6 inches in diameter because of how close together they were planted. There are no new plantations like this. > What all this leads up to is way more fire frequency and a MUCH higher fire magnitude. Fire frequency increasing is overwhelmingly caused by climate change. Most of the fires this summer were in unlogged, remote areas.