Old growth doesn’t work like this. Logging companies are constantly trying to take bigger swaths than they’re allotted because there’s no active enforcement leaving orgs like BARK OUT et. al. To do the ground truthing and sue in court, often after the damage is done.
Often logging companies want this wood because it’s much higher quality than second growth. The dense wood is a higher grade and sells for a higher premium. If you’ve seen wood in an old house versus modern you’ll notice the ring structure much more tightly packed and less knotting. It’s much stronger.
Here’s a maps image of old growth in the mt. Hood wilderness:
And here’s the Oregon coast range:
notice the patchwork? That it’s roughly 1/3 unplanted clear-cut now?
The first image is 100% old growth in a national forest. The second is 0%, in mostly privately owned land owned by logging companies or less so under BLM/FS. Patchwork logging doesn’t sustain biodiversity. Replanting is almost always done with a monoculture of trees that make logging easier in later harvests. These second growth forests hold less water, sequester less carbon, and are less drought resistant. This in turn makes them more prone to wildfire, flooding, erosion, and desertification. They are also less food abundant so they can’t sustain as much wildlife.
Most of western Oregon looks like the second image, and the old growth is only 10% of the original area nation wide. We don’t need to log old growth at all. There’s plenty of second growth. Just manage it.
E: structure
Having learned a language where dialect often means you can barely understand each other if at all, I’m more inclined to consider Mexican vs Castilian an accent much the same way as English’s American vs Australian/british/etc…