I know from your other comments that you are knowledgeable in these areas, so perhaps you could explain further? I could be wrong, or as I think might be the

I know from your other comments that you are knowledgeable in these areas, so perhaps you could explain further? I could be wrong, or as I think might be the case, the situation might be different in different ecosystems. The Northeastern US has more forest cover today than it's had since immediately after it was settled by Europeans 300-plus years ago. We should stringently preserve the tiny remnants of old growth that remain, but we've got a lot of 50-150 year old regrowth to work with. While preserving it from development should be a goal, it's not clear that leaving it untouched is the best strategy. To focus the discussion, here's a very recent report by the group I linked above: https://wildlandsandwoodlands.org/news-and-stories/new-england-study-calls-for-dramatic-increase-in-sustainable-forestry/ https://wildlandsandwoodlands.org/news-and-stories/new-engla.... I just submitted it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39880257 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39880257. I'd be interested to read your criticism of it.