A replanted or managed forest is better than none at all, but it is not the same. The biodiversity is greatly reduced and many original species are lost forever or eplaced by imported, or more manageable ones. They also require intensive management to keep them productive, and are vulnerable to pests and fire. Still, it's better than clear cutting, and a mix of tree farms, managed forest, recovering native growth and pure wilderness is probably even better for pure productivity, sustainability, and multiple land use than just wilderness alone. Professional foresters are trained to do this, and should be making those decisions, not business majors in cities thousands of miles away, ESPECIALLY when they're doing it on public lands. Pinchot championed the multiple land use concept a long time ago for public lands, until James Watt showed up and turned it into food stamps and welfare for the timber industry. He even built roads for the loggers so they wouldn't have to spend their own money to get to the trees they were stealing.

It's been a long time since I've kept up with this, maybe its been reformed since then, but the last time I looked at landsat imagery of the
forested mountains between California and BC it looked like a handful of confetti scattered on green carpet. There should be no logging on public lands except for species, and numbers, which can be renewed in human time scales. If they want redwoods, let them plant their own on their land and wait for them to grow big enough to cut.

These aren't entrepreneurial heroes TB, they're rapists. Quit making excuses for them. The problem isn't a few tree huggers in bandanas and tie-died tshirts. It's corporate greed.