Selective logging is not sustainable.

I accept the definitions brought forth by the Proposition, however I would like to point out that the definition of "Sustainable" can be interpreted differently by different people. For the purposes of this debate, I will act under the assumption that "Sustainable" means the ability for a natural resource to endure. Following this definition, I find that some of my opponent's arguments are off topic and unrelated. Sustainability in this debate refers to the ability for the trees to endure. The loss of animals or plants; though regretted, does not affect the sustainability of the trees. Furthermore, I am not aware if this is a Policy or Values debate or if those types of debate even exist on Debate.org. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if the Proposition cleared that up but I will act under the assumption that this is a Values debate as the Proposition has not already brought forth a plan. I would like to point out some flaws in my opponent's case before I get into my constructive arguments: In my opponent's first point, he mentioned how the felling of a certain type of tree in a certain area will lead to the decrease of biological diversity. But this is simply not true. It is true that selective logging focuses on a specific type of tree, but not every tree in an area is felled. For example, if loggers decided to log down oak trees they would not cut down every oak tree within a square kilometer. Animals will not lose their food supply as only trees of harvestable size are harvested. Any young tree is left alone to continue the biodiversity and to continue supporting the animals in the region. My opponent also mentioned plants living the tree that is felled would be damaged and undergrowth would be squashed. However, this is true with any sort of deforestation yet with selective logging the damage is reduced greatly compared to clear cut logging as not every tree is cut down. Furthermore, loggers attempt to guide the tree to the ground, minimizing damage to the undergrowth. In the second point, my opponent explained how the micro climate would be affected by the logging of certain trees. However, the climate change would be extremely minimal as only certain trees are cut down. Furthermore, after logging loggers generally will reforest the trees that they have logged down with the same species of tree providing more canopies to minimize climate change. Finally, my opponent mentioned the destruction caused by the building of roads. However, the construction of roads is prohibited in National Forests. There are various other ways of transporting felled logs out of an area that does not harm the environment in a serious way. For example, heli-logging uses helicopters to vertically lift the log out of an area. My opponent has also mentioned that areas that have been previously selectively logged have a higher chance of being logged in the future. However, that is the purpose of reforestation and selective logging and I will be getting more into this point in my constructive arguments. I would also like to point out that while selective logging is not perfect; it is a far better option than other forms of logging and far more sustainable. Though selective logging may remove an area the size of Connecticut, but clear-cutting would remove an area many times greater. I will now continue on to my first contention, which is that the main factor influencing selective logging's ability to be sustainable is the logging methods and reforestation. I will present my second, third, and fourth contention in the respective rounds. Loggers are aware of the environmental damage caused by clear-cut logging. That is why selective-logging was created. The idea is that some of the trees that are suitable for logging will be logged and the younger trees will remain untouched. The purpose of this is for those young trees to grow into the large trees that were cut down. This way, after several years the loggers can return to cut down those younger trees that weren't cut before. Once again, they don't touch the younger trees. Several years later, these loggers return. This cycle continues, ensuring a sustainable source of trees. We can compare the trees to the life cycle of a human. In the forest, there are middle-aged trees, young adult trees, and then teenage trees. The middle-aged are removed and new babies are inserted. The young adults grow into the middle-aged, the teenage grow into the young adults, and the babies grow into teenagers. The middle-aged are removed… Not only that, but reforestation efforts are increasing. New saplings are planted in the areas that have been logged already, thus the cycle becomes continuous. Brazil projects to have reforested 1 billion trees by the year 2013. Thus, we will have near limitless supplies of trees, clearly a living embodiment of the term "Sustainable". So what have we learned today? We learned that through logging and reforestation, we can achieve a balance between the rates of logging and the rates of growth in young trees. Sources: Science Focus 7 http://logging.about.com... http://www.redorbit.com...