>>2778653>>Ignores the hundreds of millions of beaversbullshit you lying cunt. I fully acknowledged all the beavers L&C encountered. Still not proof the Great plains were really forests
>I never ever said coveredlol. Backpedalling in earnest now.
This was the original question
>is it true the grasslands were all forest before they chopped it down and killed the beavers?To which I replied
>No.to which you replied retardedly:
>>I don't know anything about the ecological history of north America: the postWhich implies you DO think the grasslands were all forests before they chopped it down
You are getting BTFO and you cannot handle it. Your autism will not let you accept that fact that you are just fucking wrong.
>you are pretending it's representative of the entire great planesL&C traveled right thru the heart of the great plains for ~ 2000 miles. Describing it in great detail. They never mentioned vast forests. In fact, the first mention of "forest" in the journals doesnt occur until they reach the Rockies. Why? But they did mention vast plains "void of timber" and "boundless pasture" as far as the eye could see.
>pretending beavers live on grass.fuck off with this disingenious, lying bullshit. They ate cottonwood and willow. In fact, Lewis noted they prefered the narrow leaf cottonwood to the other 2 types of cottonwood found in the creek beds. The presence of beavers does not mean the plains were really covered in forests.
>>2778545>not 100 years agoStill nothing you said is in any way proof or evidence of your claim. Please provide some- just reeeing about beavers doesnt constitute evidence. Meanwhile people who WERE THERE over 200yrs ago described the terrrain in great detail...which you completely ignore.
So, please reply with more reeeeing and projection. None of that changes the fact the great plains were not covered in forests before they killed all the beavers.
