Logging also employs a great deal of people, and is essential to many regional economies. On the other hand, in some places, logging tends to be a rather static industry. People who own large tracts of land with timber have swaths of their land clear-cut every few years, and this is not necessarily a recipe for sustainable economic growth. Ultimately, though, logging is absolutely essential, and the way I'd go about making a case for it is by emphasizing that it can be done in a responsible way if the political will exists to do so.

One pro is that logging is at the heart of ancient arts and industries. I for one would be loath to lose goods made from wood. One con is that the global footprint is such that the demand is far higher than the ecological captial's ability to provide.

Another con of logging is that it is not sustainable.  Eventually, the trees will run out.  Even if you plant one tree for every one you cut down, the tree you planted does not really replace the tree you took.  The tree you cut down might be 200 years old, so the new one won't be big enough for a long time.  When the trees are gone, the logging will be gone too.  Then the economic incentive is gone.  Whole towns can dry up, because they depended on the logging industry.  So the economic advantage is relatively short-lived.

The pro is economic.  Logging gives us the wood we need for various things, the most important of which is building houses.  The con is environmental.  Logging destroys forests.  It reduces the amount of animal habitat and it reduces the number of trees that can take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.