Note the phrase "after chopping down trees on his own property." Obviously he does not "own" the property if he does not have exclusive control over its use, enjoyment and disposal. That exclusive relationship to the land is what constitues ownership. In this case, it appears that for all intents and purposes, the public or community owns the land for use as a nature preserve. This over-riding community interest appears to be common in socialistic countries.
In the USA, regulation is only supposed to prevent substantial injury to public health and safety from an individual's use of his own property. If it ends up creating a state of public ownership, that would be a 5th Amendment takings in the USA, justifying a claim for just compensation.
The way environmental regulation in the USA is going, it will not be long until we are on par with the Norweigan view of ownership, if we are not there already.
I believe the Endangered Species Act has, in effect, taken away control from quite a few property owners.