4 ms·
It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduc
by trentnix 8y ago
It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.
- tonyedgecombe 8y agoSo your anecdote trumps is better than some actual data?
- dao- 8y agoAs the article says, different species are affected differently. It's really not that hard to understand that you observing snakes and birds and rabbits in your yard doesn't disprove an extensive scientific study covering all kinds of natural habitats.
- knight-of-lambd 8y agoI would expect such a strong assertion to come with well laid out and persuasive reasoning. Maybe spoil me with relevant data (even second hand). Instead, you reject both premise and conclusion by some extremely weak heuristic, that has trouble even approximating reality in the first order.