Question
People need healthy forests to thrive. Do you
agree that the Zoological benefits of forest
exceed the value of the commerical timber
that can be halwested from them and
help people to live a
healthy life
Justify
your statement. (In 300 - 375 words)
Answers
Answer:
Yes,I agree deeply that the zoological benefits of the forest as they serve as a habitat to millions of animals. Forests help in the regulation of ecosystems. Forests help reduce certain types of pollution such as noise pollution. Forests provide many important natural medicines.
But commercial timber is also having its own benifits and disadvantages
such as:Commercial logging, simply put, is timber harvested from forests with the intent to sell (as opposed to small-scale logging which is more often for domestic or local use). While not representative of all timber products harvested and traded, in 2014, global industrial production of roundwood (felled wood, prior to being processed for sawnwood, pulp, etc.) totaled 1,837 million cubic meters, with the majority of production from Europe, North America and Asia and the Pacific (amounting for 31%, 28%, and 24% of global annual production respectively). Production of in Latin America and Africa were lower, representing 13% and 4% of global industrial roundwood production in 2014. In North America, commercial logging and large-scale timber extraction began in the mid to late-1800’s, with increases in technology for cutting and processing timber, and transportation networks. Today, much of the world’s demand for timber and timber-based products comes from industrial logging.
Despite its importance for global demand of timber-based products, commercial logging is often perceived as unsustainable, and appears to have particular negative implications for tropical rainforests. Even if selective logging is used to remove only certain trees, most high-value timber species are slow-growing and occur at low densities, needing large continuous areas of intact forest to maintain viable populations, such that sustainable harvest would be economically impractical for logging companies. Also, as long-term harvesting of forest areas is less economically viable, there is increased likelihood of forests being clearcut and converted for commercial agriculture. As seen in the example of the tropics, the particular risks of commercial logging is perhaps less due to the particular logging practices or machinery being used, but instead the economic forces at work which make certain kinds of harvesting or forest management choices (such as large-scale clearcutting or short harvest rotations) more likely.
pls mark me as brainliest