Would a fine of $250.00 to the US Government for each tree cut down stop people from cutting down trees?

No, not at all.

First of all, lets look at the number of trees that are now diseased and must be cut down to preserve what few are left, such as the Ash tree. Maples are also suffering from bores, and an infected tree needs to be disposed of. So it is with some fir trees.

As for a tree in your backyard, if the tree is such that it is destroying your house or septic system, then it no one should be penalized for preserving their property. Roots can clog up septic systems, and leaves and branches can destroy roofs and proches.

Then, there is responsbile forestry. Forests need to be cleaned periodically out so room can be made for new growth -- nature does it, but a healthy forest often needs help by responsible logging.

Not ever tree is desirable. If you look at some of the really ugly, invase Sumac trees (which are also poisonous) then you'd agree that they need to be eradicated.

Trees are also lumber and fuel for the fire. We can't easily replace that.

Then, there is the cost of policing this action. What more government interference in our lives do we need? It would cost much more than $250 per tree to police this, and then the "income" would never cover the cost of policing.

What about tree farms? These are important, not just for Christmas trees, but from keeping the land from being turned into a shopping mall or a housing development. If it wasn't for the ability for a Christmas tree farmer to cut down trees, he wouldn't be able to plant more, and the farm would be no more.

Since I am so anti-gummyment about anything, even though I'm something of a tree hugger, no fines, no way.

Stopping the harvest of trees

The bottom line, we need to lose trees so we can make room for new ones. Not cutting down any trees is not going to save our earth, unfortunately, and unless diseased trees are culled out, all our trees are in danger.

It depends on why the tree is being cut down. If someone could make more than $250.00 from cutting down the tree they would likely cut down the tree and pay the fine. If fact if the tree was just something a person no longer wanted a $250 fine would not be a likely deterrent.

Prison time or the death penalty would likely get people to stop cutting down trees.

The Government doesn't own the trees. You can't fine someone for cutting down something they own. That's unconstitutional. It'd be struck down before the ink on the paper were dry.

Taking this really dumb idea and pretending it were a law, what will happen when trees start becoming diseased, or grow too tall and start affecting power lines, or airport flight paths or get too big and fall onto a home - who will pay for that damage? The Government? I think not. Who is going to patrol EVERY tree in the US every minute of every day?

When forests aren't thinned it makes forest fires worse which is one reason that forest fires are so much worse - not thinning the forests and we're living closer and closer to them because we have overpopulated the earth... we need to reduce earth population to a sustainable amount before we worry about a $250 fine for cutting down your own dead tree...

An ETHICS class -not an ethicals class.

prepare for a failing grade. You have nothing to back up your argument that would even begin to prove that this would save our EARTH. You may be making an environment/ozone argument but theres more harming the earth than paper companies cutting down the forests they plant to cut down to make paper....

Can't cut down trees - what are you trying to do - ruin Christmas?

Edit: Oh and by the way you're welcome for all of us doing your homework for you.

No. - Dumb simplistic idea.

1. How do you prove who cut down the tree?

("If a tree is cut in the forest...", and there's nobody around, who gets whacked with the fine?)

2. Dead or diseased trees represent a hazard, and need to be cut to make place for new growth.

3. How would you accommodate responsible 'timber farming',

(proved to be environmentally beneficial)?

4. What about 'thinning' to promote better growth? (A standard beneficial practice.)

5. A mature tree is worth a heckofalot more than $250 in lumber.

Where I live, the fine is more than that for cutting a tree without a permit. Other than that, there are lots of reason to cut trees. To allow for development, clean sightlines, harvest the wood. Looks around you, there is wood in much of what you see. You'd rather we use toxic chemicals to make plastic chairs? Or maybe dig massive holes into the earth and use more toxic chemicals to make metal?

Human advancement means we need resources. Cutting trees is one way we do so, and not, by far, the worst.

NO.

Your ethics class? There are more trees here now than when Columbus landed.

Trees are a crop. They are replanted when they are harvested for paper. Trees hurt and kill people when they fall if they are not trimmed and cut down. Use plastic instead of paper! Brilliant! They are made from OIL and environmentalist hate oil and they pollute and choke cows horribly to death when they blow free. Paper can be digested and decomposes readily. Grow trees! You cant eat most of them and then the land is used up so you cant grow food. Every communist country has starvation. Stop listening to your communist teachers. Your ethics class? Are lies ethical?

Do you know there are more trees in the USA now than there was 50 years ago? Its fine to cut down some trees as long as its controlled and they are replaced... which they have been.

It might reduce the number of trees cut, but it would definitely increase the price of every product made from wood or wood fibers including lumber and paper products, and everything derived from them. The $250 fee would essentially be a tax passed to consumers, because wood is an essential product for so many industries. Also, quite a few jobs would be lost as the demand for wood declined due to cost.

Sounds like a law that only a tree-hugger could love. Trees are a valuable natural resource, and it's a renewable resource as well. Not to mention the products made from them. Think of all the wood, paper, etc products out there. What would you make writing paper, furniture, kleenex, toilet tissue etc out of? You could certainly propose such a law, but good luck getting anyone to vote for it!

The US government would have to cut more trees to print all the money to pay the fines. Just imagine how much additional paperwork would be created. Politicians and lawyers would benefit.