When the destruction of natural habitats is no big deal:
Fritts spent four years counting mammals, reptiles and amphibians on clearcut loblolly plantation sites in Georgia and North Carolina. She did in-depth research on how biomass harvesting affected populations of shrews, rodents, southern toads and eastern narrow-mouthed toads.
“We didn’t find significant differences in impact on wildlife based on biomass harvesting treatments, no matter how much biomass was removed following a clearcut or whether it was clustered or dispersed,” Fritts says. “The diversity, evenness and abundance of mammal, reptile and amphibian species generally were similar among all of the treatments.”
I have little doubt Dr. (she is now) Fritts' research was sound, she is dedicated to little critters. But this is important: The study didn't compare animal populations in uncut forests to those that had been clear-cut, it was varying degrees of residue left on the ground. Which is important to the industry, who want every little morsel of those harvested trees. The studies *we* need to see are the ones I mentioned above; mortality rates from the harvesting itself. But don't hold your breath waiting for NC State to produce damning evidence of such, because they're too busy helping industry deforest our state: