3 ms·
Lawns aren't the problem. I used to live within the Willamette National Forest in Oregon and there is no wildlife there. Sure, there's a few deer, bear, and b
by hasbot 3y ago
Lawns aren't the problem. I used to live within the Willamette National Forest in Oregon and there is no wildlife there. Sure, there's a few deer, bear, and birds, but no where near as much wildlife as I can find in my suburban neighborhood. The original forest was nearly completely clearcut and replanted very densely with just a few species of timber trees. The canopy is so dense, there is no under story. There is nothing for wildlife to eat in these forests.
- MSFT_Edging 3y ago> Lawns aren't the problem > The original forest was nearly completely clearcut...just a few species of timber trees. So clearcutting and planting non-local, dominating plants isn't the problem,but clear cutting and planting non-local, dominating plants is the problem. This is obviously two sides of the same coin, when you remove native plants, native wildlife goes away. Just because certain species of wildlife can make it work in the suburb doesn't mean that large lifeless lawns, especially in areas without intermixed native green space, are not killing off birds, insects, etc.
- hasbot 3y agoThe timber trees that were planted were local species. It is the monoculture that is the problem.
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoEven if they were local, you're still describing a situation where human intervention planted a monoculture that's terrible for the environment.
- hasbot 3y agoThat's what I was pointing out. What's your point or are you just repeating me?