The government of Tasmania is still allowing logging of the forests which is utterly insane. See for example this current court case: https://mailchi.mp/wilderness/swift-parrot-court-case
Environmentalists trip over themselves on what “old growth” means.
It is a renewable resource, and Tasmanian forestry is one of the most advanced and sustainable industries in the world.
Did this planted forest (used for logging) replace another forest that was used as a habitat for animals? Is it counted as an equivalent to non-logging forests to justify the destruction of non-logging forests?
Can this sustainable industry sustain suitable living conditions for animals in the forest? Or can the industry only sustain itself and its own interests in future resource extraction?
There is nothing 'advanced' and 'sustainable' about clear felling old growth forests supporting endangered species, if you are lucky enough to have them as Australia is (they are vanishing globally at an insane rate). It is about as nuanced as shooting your children in the head.
And yes, animals could go live in it, even if it was planted.
What's your alternative? boycott wood? Let the trees fall and rerelease their carbon as they rot?
you can always plant more forests but you cannot resurrect what went extinct, extinction is forever, new forest is 20 years