Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds Humans Are Worse Than Radiation For Chernobyl Animals
derekmead writes: A study published today in Current Biology shows that wildlife in the Chernobyl exclusion zone is actually more abundant than it was before the disaster. According to the authors, led by Portsmouth University professor of environmental science Jim Smith, the recovery is due to the removal of the single biggest pressure on wildlife—humans. "The wildlife at Chernobyl is very likely better than it was before the accident, not because radiation is good for animals, but because human occupation is much worse,” Portsmouth University professor of environmental science Jim Smith says. “We were trying to emphasize that this study is a remarkable illustration of an obvious, but important message,” he said. “It is ordinary human habitation and use (farming, forestry, hunting) of land which does most ecological damage.”
That is a myth. American Indians managed the land extremely poorly. They were terrible at it. For example they drove buffalo over hills just for the hides.
They simply didn't have the numbers to do any lasting damage but they were by no means environmentally conscientious.
Europeans were pretty much equally abusive of the land (and the American Indians) they just came in mass quantities.