37% Yes |
63% No |
21% Yes |
60% No |
16% Yes, but only selective logging, no clearcutting, and a plan for regrowth |
3% No, preservation of our forests outweighs the economic benefits |
1% Yes, but only if the profits stay in Canada |
See how support for each position on “Logging” has changed over time for 1m Canada voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Logging” has changed over time for 1m Canada voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from Canada users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9RBVFQQ5 days5D
Yes, but only if the profits stay in Canada AND there is only selective logging, with no clear-cutting and a plan for regrowth.
@9MC4BQL3mos3MO
We can have plots of land for logging with a good plan for regrowth. Respect the things that came before and should be able to live on after.
@9LJGNWT 3mos3MO
Yes, through selective logging and forest regeneration AND secondary and tertiary manufacturing within Canada. Sending ANY logs overseas or out of country for processing elsewhere is bad... but so are the closed shop union businesses that cannot be profitable compared to non-unionized production elsewhere.
@9JZP7TY5mos5MO
We should look at more renewable materials as alternatives to logging. Logging should be done in renewable forests and old growth to be avoided as much as possible
@9GPTJ2D9mos9MO
No, there are many alternative wood-engineered products that are now available that do not rely on the size/quality of old-growth lumber. Old growth lumber is used primary for cosmetic / vanity and should be banned from use. Furthermore, most old-growth logs are exported so they may be sold for the highest proffet, benefiting the seller, not the community in which the old growth forest was removed.
@9F3BQD811mos11MO
Maybe, depends on the forest
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Logging” news articles, updated frequently.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
