4 ms·

are you saying there are no beings who live in those woods and are displace?

danielbarla 6y ago
I generally agree with your direction. That said, this is incredibly hard to quantify (and also: [1]); because wildlife is not uniformly negatively affected in a clear-cut area. Any "artificial" intervention by humans will favour some animals and harm others. Ignoring the fact that it was probably humans who first cleared out primordial forests, the very act of re-planting a forest probably negatively impacted those species who don't thrive in a forest setting. I'd say having such forests which are relatively unmolested for several years before being harvested are less negative than clearing them out and placing say farms in their place. So, overall it's not the biggest thing to go after, but then, I'm no expert. [1] also depends greatly on what type of cutting we're talking about. I would say it's clear that illegal and / or legal but permanent deforestation is a negative. Above, I'm talking about forests which are planted and re-planted to obtain their wood.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  good points.
varjag 6y ago
How do you think? https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-center/Thailand_Eucalyptus_shutterstock_104751164_web.jpg https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-cent...
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  looks cozy. i'd live in there. :)
  - varjag 6y ago
    So guess the animals would too… if you had them food brought in. Not much undergrowth to feed off.
    - forgotmypw17 6y ago
      Where there's soil undisturbed, there are insects. Where there are insects, there are larger creatures. Of course, undergrowth would help.
demosito666 6y ago
I think it's safe to say that there is no wildlife in Europe, so this is more or less correct.
- forgotmypw17 6y ago
  Are you sure about that? This page suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Europe
- qayxc 6y ago
  > I think it's safe to say that there is no wildlife in Europe, so this is more or less correct. You don't go out too much, do you? In my municipality we have wolves - at a population density of 214 ppl/km² no less. Since there's no recorded killings of livestock by wolves and they have to eat something, it's save to assume we're OK on boars and deer, too. Not to mention the rabbits, hares, badgers, various songbirds, birds of prey, insects and other critters I encounter on a daily basis when walking the dog. Through the local woods. Which are very much filled with wildlife. edit: I got the population density wrong - it's actually much lower if the entire area is considered, not just the town :) the correct figure including all land would be ~45 ppl/km².
chrisseaton 6y ago
In a commercial wood farm? Not really, no. That's a big problem with them - they're dead apart from the trees being farmed.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  (Seeing Like A State, etc)

I generally agree with your direction. That said, this is incredibly hard to quantify (and also: [1]); because wildlife is not uniformly negatively affected in a clear-cut area. Any "artificial" intervention by humans will favour some animals and harm others. Ignoring the fact that it was probably humans who first cleared out primordial forests, the very act of re-planting a forest probably negatively impacted those species who don't thrive in a forest setting. I'd say having such forests which are relatively unmolested for several years before being harvested are less negative than clearing them out and placing say farms in their place. So, overall it's not the biggest thing to go after, but then, I'm no expert. [1] also depends greatly on what type of cutting we're talking about. I would say it's clear that illegal and / or legal but permanent deforestation is a negative. Above, I'm talking about forests which are planted and re-planted to obtain their wood.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
good points.

varjag 6y ago

How do you think? https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-center/Thailand_Eucalyptus_shutterstock_104751164_web.jpg https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/_1260x709_crop_center-cent...

forgotmypw17 6y ago
looks cozy. i'd live in there. :)
- varjag 6y ago
  So guess the animals would too… if you had them food brought in. Not much undergrowth to feed off.
  - forgotmypw17 6y ago
    Where there's soil undisturbed, there are insects. Where there are insects, there are larger creatures. Of course, undergrowth would help.

demosito666 6y ago

I think it's safe to say that there is no wildlife in Europe, so this is more or less correct.

forgotmypw17 6y ago
Are you sure about that? This page suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Europe
qayxc 6y ago
> I think it's safe to say that there is no wildlife in Europe, so this is more or less correct. You don't go out too much, do you? In my municipality we have wolves - at a population density of 214 ppl/km² no less. Since there's no recorded killings of livestock by wolves and they have to eat something, it's save to assume we're OK on boars and deer, too. Not to mention the rabbits, hares, badgers, various songbirds, birds of prey, insects and other critters I encounter on a daily basis when walking the dog. Through the local woods. Which are very much filled with wildlife. edit: I got the population density wrong - it's actually much lower if the entire area is considered, not just the town :) the correct figure including all land would be ~45 ppl/km².

chrisseaton 6y ago

In a commercial wood farm? Not really, no. That's a big problem with them - they're dead apart from the trees being farmed.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago
(Seeing Like A State, etc)