Ahhh yes, that brings up the philosophical discussion of of the nature of flora vs fauna, vis-a-vis the wood, as opposed to the woodchuck.
The basic debate revolves around the conundrum, "How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?"
Fantasy and science fiction enthusiasts give creedence to the answer "42" although only one author is cited.
Naturalists seek to make the woodchuck an endangered species, so that a woodchuck could chuck an unlimited amount without being hunted to extinction.
Biologists question the woodchuck's ability to chuck wood.
Politicians try to regulate the amount of wood a woodchuck could chuck.
This author's personal conclusion is best stated as the following: If a woodchuck could chuck wood, a woodchuck would chuck all the wood he could chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
Naturally, this conclusion is held in abeyance pending further confirmation.
One documentary addresses this exact question:
What the heck was the original topic?