flip
良かったね!
Many animals cannot survive in young forest (i.e., any forest that's planted and harvested on the typical industrial scale of 80, or more often these days, 30 or 40 years). This is to say nothing of plants, epiphytes and other kinds of life. Tree farms, without question, have their place. But they should not be confused with old-growth forest.
There's little doubt that the photos are of young trees; none of the stumps are huge.
You can gloss over the fact that only about 5% of the native forest in the U.S. still exists, but satellite data and ground surveys tell us that this is what's left -- if we are optimistic (those are facts). Personally, I hope we can keep at least that much of it (that is, of course my opinion).
Just to toss my political 2 cents in. I like trees. No question that we need 'em. However, intelligent conservation and forestry does not necessarily mean logging-free zones. In CA, much of the problems with summer fires is the product of years of 'protect at all cost' fire fighting and anti-culling policy. Periodic forest fires allow cones to produce trees, but only if the fire is not the raging (hot) type produced in unnaturally dense areas (as produced by over-protection). Seems to me that to restore the natural balance of X number of trees per acre, there's a middle ground to be found with selective culling of older trees that is to everyone's benefit. It is not convenient to log in this manner, but it is relatively sustainable.