[fhbdukfrh]

Well in western Canada we quite often clear cut blocks of forest for lumber, and based on European perspectives it probably looks like an entire forest, but there are a few considerations:

It's almost always younger trees (-100 years old) and often second growth (not taking old growth coastal trees)

It's pretty tightly regulated in terms of ecosystem impact, sensitive locations, buffers, though lots of people disagree with what should be acceptable

They understand it's in their own self interest to replant, as some of these companies are harvesting planted trees already.

It's definitely not perfect, but on the whole is sustainable, and in some cases like our recent insect infestation (mostly caused by aggressive fire suppression) the preferable method to limited scale thinning

[grouseway]

We almost always cut younger trees because there is basically almost no more old growth left.

Here's a video showing logging on Vancouver Island over the last 100 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9hTF2oxLjo

[gascan]

I have no problems with cutting second growth, especially timber that was planted by man. It's specifically timber companies interested in harvesting old growth that irks me, because there's hardly any left, especially in Europe.

Going a little further, given that second growth harvesting is widely performed & commercially viable these days, seeking to log old growth comes across as simply looking for "easy money"- old growth hardwood fetches high prices, and you skip the work of planting.