I generally agree with your direction. That said, this is incredibly hard to quantify (and also: [1]); because wildlife is not uniformly negatively affected in a clear-cut area. Any "artificial" intervention by humans will favour some animals and harm others. Ignoring the fact that it was probably humans who first cleared out primordial forests, the very act of re-planting a forest probably negatively impacted those species who don't thrive in a forest setting.
I'd say having such forests which are relatively unmolested for several years before being harvested are less negative than clearing them out and placing say farms in their place. So, overall it's not the biggest thing to go after, but then, I'm no expert.
[1] also depends greatly on what type of cutting we're talking about. I would say it's clear that illegal and / or legal but permanent deforestation is a negative. Above, I'm talking about forests which are planted and re-planted to obtain their wood.
> I think it's safe to say that there is no wildlife in Europe, so this is more or less correct.
You don't go out too much, do you? In my municipality we have wolves - at a population density of 214 ppl/km² no less. Since there's no recorded killings of livestock by wolves and they have to eat something, it's save to assume we're OK on boars and deer, too. Not to mention the rabbits, hares, badgers, various songbirds, birds of prey, insects and other critters I encounter on a daily basis when walking the dog. Through the local woods. Which are very much filled with wildlife.
edit: I got the population density wrong - it's actually much lower if the entire area is considered, not just the town :) the correct figure including all land would be ~45 ppl/km².
