>This is not a good thing though.

Serious question. Why does the government have any business telling me what I can and cannot do with my own property if it does not impact others?

I'm not saying i support clearcutting, from a purely environmental and aesthetic point of view, but I really disagree with government or any other associations telling me what I can do with my own property.

Because the presence of trees effects others. In an urban/suburban area they effect temperature, air quality, and rainwater runoff, among other things.

In a rural area in bulk, they effect air quality and carbon capture. Also erosion and water run-off. Clear-cutting a forest completely changes the local ecology, and not for the better, in a way that is irreversible.

We all need trees, and they take many years to grow to maturity. they should not be cut down en masse capriciously. And to do so effects others.

It doesn’t, but it usually does impact others. Whether or not you think it’s sufficient for government intervention is obviously political, whether it be maintaining a neighborhood’s design to prop up resale value and keep out riff raft via HOA, or not letting people cut down trees for environmental or even aesthetic reasons, etc.

Almost everything we do impacts others though, in some way.

Ah, you might have guessed I lean decidedly libertarian on the topic :^). I'm certainly with some things (esp pollution, or destruction of other's property), but I have precisely no interest in catering to someone's 'property values' or aesthetics. I'm usually ok with reasonable stuff like adhering to city codes, but I would never by a detached home with an HOA.