you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 days ago (6 children)

Timberland is really not a healthy forest. Those are very different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)

    Where are you getting that it's timberland?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (4 children)

    Where do you get this is anything else? Let alone the possibility that anyone would try to build on one of those extremely rare spots of remaining "wild" non-managed forest? This is all timberland just like almost all area with trees in all of Europe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (3 children)

    So, you don't know whether it's timberland and are making an assumption. Good to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (1 child)

    Could you please quote where in the article it says it's timberland? And even if it were timberland, that doesn't mean that almost all areas with trees in Europe are timberland.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 19 hours ago

    which sold Google four parcels of mostly commercial forestry land at Muhos and Kajaani as raw land nearly two years ago.

    Does it make sense to go on? Timberland is VERY different ecologically from a natural forest.

  • source
  • parent