Again, engaging in active forest management is very difficult if there's not a revenue-generating opportunity. It's very easy to look at revenue generation as kind of a dirty part of what we do. I've argued for my entire career that when we remove a tree, we're making room for a new one. If we can't do that in a cost-effective fashion, then we just basically walk around and we get what we get from our forests and what nature will provide to us.
In terms of regeneration, forests have managed to regenerate themselves and have been very vigorous naturally, prior to any humans arriving in North America, but we can direct that in a constructive fashion, often far more effectively and efficiently than nature can and in a more timely fashion, through silviculture. We can end up with scenarios in which young forests burn and the seed source is then no longer available for regeneration. If we have an active forest industry and forest sector, we can invest in reforestation and put trees back faster than nature would in those circumstances.
In terms of our ability to regenerate forests, we'll be fine if we just walk away and leave them alone, but we won't get the kind of value that humans demand from them. Again, I'll just say that the loss of a vigorous forest industry means the loss of an opportunity to direct forests in ways that benefit society and the ecosystem.