Guest blog – Saving Dead Wood (1) by Les Wallace

Who I am  – Scottish with a fascination for wildlife from childhood – in lieu of formal qualifications (and not being able to flash them about!) – was on the 1990 International Youth Conservation Exchange to Hungary, was the 1993 winner of the BBC Wildlife Magazine ‘Realms of the Russian Bear’ competition and spent nearly two weeks in the Aksu Zhabagly Reserve in Kazakhstan as the prize – found the local stomach bug was much more dangerous than the brown bears. Especially interested in the removal of invasive non native plants and conservation of dead wood and trees and associated fauna/flora as conservation issues – my personal experience suggests they are badly neglected topics. My main background is in recycling and waste reduction.

Les’s previous guest blogs here were in September 2018, Driven Grouse Shooting – your bluff’s been called, in February 2021 Jagged Ends and last week, Blue Frogs and Scimitar Cats.

CHAINSAWS VERSUS EDUCATION, WHEN PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEANS ECOCIDE

I cursed myself for taking so long in getting an internet connection for my new flat when I saw via a website that I’d missed a consultation about the local wood. The results hadn’t been good for conservation. Respondents had requested that ‘unsightly’ dead trees blighting the view be removed. The ‘environmental’ organisation responsible for the survey was obviously keen to show their credentials as one which really listened to the public, so they presented two images (before) with the offending trees, (after) without them – the result of expensive and time-consuming professional tree felling services.

There was an added note that the resulting logs had been placed out of sight under bushes thus giving a nod to those who knew of the conservation value of dead wood that some provision had been made for it. However, there was nothing to indicate to anyone else it was to help wildlife and I strongly suspect there had been no attempt during the consultation process to make people aware that standing dead wood was vital for a wide variety of species from specialist fungi and invertebrates to hole roosting bats and foraging woodpeckers. It’s certainly never been in any consultation I’ve taken part in.

Not long after this I bumped into an old acquaintance and knowing our shared interests related the incident. After a long sigh with accompanying grimace, he told me the same had happened after a consultation carried out for users of the Union Canal which happens to run a few hundred metres from my front door. There’d been calls to remove some ‘unsightly’ dead trees from its banks too, and again this was done promptly and included the cutting down of rare hollow trees being used by bats. As he was a retired ranger, I’d absolutely no reason to doubt any of this especially as I can’t say it counters any of my experience of how little interest there is in helping or promoting the wildlife that exists on that canal.

A few months later I went on a guided tour of a (non-shooting) local estate used for recreation and forestry. The rangers were excellent guides highly qualified in forestry and conservation and genuine wildlife lovers. We happened to go along one trail with a nice view of a dead oak tree, it hadn’t been particularly large or old, but any dead tree is a nice bonus. I was so chuffed that I had to compliment a ranger on how unusual, but very good it was to see standing dead timber. He chuckled and replied the only reason it was still there was because the staff had decided to turn a blind eye to a public consultation where some respondents had wanted ‘unsightly’ dead wood removed. My stomach turned when I heard this, that lovely dead tree’s continued existence had been entirely dependent on subterfuge. I suppose the initial observation had to be just too good to be true.

I’d participated in that very consultation years before and had made a special effort to state how important the dead wood in the estate was, potentially even an educational resource. I pointed out it’s a distinguishing feature of natural, wildlife rich forests as opposed to production ones (plantations), a vital element of the former, inevitably rare in the latter when trees are units of production and mostly removed. It would be good to have local woods where school parties could be shown why dead wood is important for wildlife therefore highlighting why reduce, reuse, and recycle helps wildlife, it allows us to leave trees alone to grow old, die, decay, and provide habitat for the kindred species involved in the natural recycling process. The estate was close to the largest secondary school in the district so was particularly useful in this respect.

Those suggestions came to nothing, they were rejected although they were in line with conservation objectives and certainly the wishes of the estate staff. There must have been more people who said dead wood wasn’t nice to look at. It was particularly fortunate that dead oak had been spared as it turned out bats had taken to roosting behind its peeling bark, but there has been removal of dead wood, so the ecology and wildlife of the estate hasn’t come off completely unscathed. It used to be a frequent sight there now it’s largely gone.

There’s a parallel issue on the estate in that a standing dead oak might be literally irreplaceable as ‘sustainable’ harvesting of native hardwoods is now practiced so that people can rest their backsides on a wooden bench rather than one that could have been made from recycled plastic picked off a beach instead. Reusing old plastics would allow trees to be used by wildlife rather than for human consumption as well as save marine animals from strangulation. Another issue for another day, dead wood and trees being squeezed out of existence from two different directions, ‘harvesting’ for fuel and timber disastrously complimenting the response to its supposed assault on aesthetics.

So that’s three incidents at three locations re the removal of dead trees and wood, for no other reason than some people not liking the way they look, within a 2.5-mile radius of my flat!!! Unless that zone is somehow the national black hole for dead wood conservation, I would hazard a guess that it’s the standard not the exception for the rest of the country – isn’t this worthy of a serious official study ASAP? There’s no guarantee there haven’t been more incidents I don’t know about, with or without public consultations, in this area – there probably have as well as the cutting down of the odd dead tree here and there. Might there just possibly be a link between this and the plummeting off a cliff populations of willow tits, stag beetles, lesser spotted woodpeckers etc, etc, etc?

I’ve given up counting how many times I’ve read an article or piece on social media where ‘as a result of a public consultation we were told by local people that the wood was overmature’, or ‘before opening up the wood to the public we will be removing the dead wood’, and my heart has sunk straight to the bottom of my feet. Public consultation as it stands is a complete and automatic kiss of death to dead wood conservation, as I found out even if there’s a dissenting voice. Any evidence to the contrary will be gratefully received!

The business of cutting down dead trees is a skilled and potentially dangerous job, so it’s time consuming and bloody expensive. When it’s not being carried out for legitimate access or public safety reasons, then it’s being removed simply for highly subjective aesthetic ones in which case one of if not the highest of our conservation priorities, the status of literally hundreds of endangered saproxylic (deadwood associated) species, is being further undermined on what to me is an immoral basis. No one will die at the sight of dead wood but removing it to spare the delicate sensitivities of some will effectively kill and compromise everything from longhorn beetles and bracket fungus to bats and woodpeckers. That hardly indicates humanity taking its obligations seriously to the other life we share the planet with.

Much of this is due to the default setting within the public consultation process being that if more people say they don’t like how dead trees and wood look than it should be kept and appreciated the chainsaw is quickly reached for, while not one single fact about the conservation and ecological value of dead trees and logs will be presented anywhere to anyone. Nationally how does the time, money and effort expended upon removing dead wood for supposed aesthetics compare with the time, effort and money spent on public education as to why it’s vital for wildlife and healthy woodlands? Within the public consultation framework, the answer seems to be Chainsaws 100%, Public Education 0.

Without a clear, or in fact any, reason why the provision of relevant information isn’t part of the public consultation process we’re left with conjecture so in advance I’ll state here that what follows is my best guess based on what I’ve observed and what I know of human behaviour. It’s not ideal, but it’s a necessary starting point – in every book on rewilding I’ve read including Feral, Wilding, Rebirding and at present Cornerstones the crucial importance of dead wood and standing dead timber have been highlighted. Yet they are currently being erased from our countryside and woodlands, I’ve seen this (dis)process described as an ‘environmental’ improvement adding tremendous insult to injury. It’s literally ecocide.

First and foremost, I must stress that I’m a firm believer in public consultation, it does give people an opportunity to make comments and present views that at the very least do then become part of an official record, and occasionally result in a victory for conservation, even if just temporarily. My grievance is with the way it’s conducted, and I would say the potential for abuse by those who participate in them. Something that’s rarely commented upon, but in private discussions with others have found it’s been their experience also that unfortunately in giving a platform for all you provide a particularly good one for local Prima Donnas. They’ll take any opportunity to play the victim, be aggrieved and thereby dominate discussion and marginalise the views of the more reasonable. A bit like social media really.

You can encounter the same issue outside of the public consultation process of course. To the local branch of a national union, I once made a point about how wasteful bottled water is not just in terms of natural resources, but also in money spent that could have gone to public services or charity instead. The point was well received, I hadn’t expected that it wouldn’t be and was pleased, if not surprised at the positive reception. This was until one of the members piped up dramatically that the loss of bottled water from their workplace would cause them great personal harm, you see they needed it as they were allergic to tap water!

I would have dearly loved to have called them out for being attention seeking and ridiculous, but effectively you’d be calling them a liar or at the very least a drama queen. I wanted to hit back with a rather pathetic quip by asking them if they were a ‘hydrochondriac’, but bit my tongue as I had to. One person out of forty-four, a supposedly responsible adult, derailing what had been a very constructive discussion – maybe that was part of the appeal, a power kick. I’ve experienced other sickening instances of such obstructive melodrama and I bet every person reading this has too.

In the context of a public consultation this is particularly toxic, even if the exercise is merely a PR sop to the masses, part of that is at least the pretence of listening which you can accentuate by doing absolutely nothing else, even the provision of vital, relevant information when it’s needed. Let’s suppose that in response to comments that dead wood/trees are unsightly and need to be removed the consulting body makes participants aware it’s a perfectly natural and inevitable element of a real woodland and without it the natural recycling process and wildlife will be greatly compromised. This would be the ongoing progression of the consultation process, ensuring as new points arise so does additional information enabling everyone to make better informed judgements.

Unfortunately, that simple, reasonable (re)action could be labelled as a challenge to the original point of view, contradiction coming from ‘the authorities’ in response to the wishes of ‘the public’ – which is often just the wishes of the loudest and most strident. Utter nonsense of course, but some people will genuinely believe so. Others know it’s rubbish, but any opportunity to play the victim, aggrieved party, the morally incensed to the crowd won’t be missed, they’ll lay it on with a shovel.

This is something the conservation movement must attend to both within their own consultation efforts and those conducted by other bodies. We need as individual conservationists and our representative organisations, to take on the strident, wilfully ignorant, and selfish. Providing information relevant to conservation shouldn’t be seen as inappropriate to the public consultation process, either proactively or reactively, it’s informed democracy. How many people who asked for the removal of dead trees wouldn’t have done so if they’d been told it was good for wildlife? How many of them would be appalled if they’d known what they’d inadvertently contributed to if told afterwards? How many would feel awkward (quite rightly) about pressing their views that dead trees are ugly when their conservation value is highlighted? For some people it would make absolutely no difference, but the provision of basic relevant conservation information could make theirs the minority view. Wouldn’t it be nice to find out?

We have absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, indeed we are losing very badly by not. There’s talk of having dead wood zones in woodland, areas where dead wood is left in situ. Replace the word zones with reservations or ghettoes and it might be easier to understand why I don’t like this seemingly positive step, it’s rationalising ignorance and/or failure to meet our responsibilities to wildlife. I’m assuming that the zones will be away from where those members of the public who object to the sight of dead wood might see it. That means all publicly accessible parts which won’t leave much else. Native woodland to begin with constitutes a small percentage of our landscape, ecologically functional woodland risks becoming a small fraction of that. I know for a fact, because they’ve told me, that as policy local forestry and council staff hide dead wood away from public view in woodland, they’re responsible for. We need to be reversing not formally establishing that practice.

In Fife there’s a community woodland group that’s taken to arranging loose dead wood into rather artistic piles. This is in recognition that while it’s a vital component of healthy woodland ecology some people express their dislike of it visually. Although this is well meant and at least some improvement of the current situation I have to say it makes me grind my teeth. We should be informing people that if they truly love woodland and its wildlife then dead wood and decay is a necessary component of it, it’s absence not presence should alarm us. It’s not exactly among my top priorities for any reason that people who visit woodland don’t have to see any dead wood, personally I’ve got many better things to do with my life than indulge them. Conservation and education are the real priorities.

Yes, there are diehards who no matter what you say to and show them will continue to spit nails at the very idea they might have to see a piece of dead wood or some uncut grass. But, a big but, I’ve also encountered others who when they complained about the same totally dropped their objections when I pointed out their value to wildlife, they simply hadn’t known. That was it, a quick word, but is even that being somehow too ‘confrontational’ towards the public for some? The near total absence of information re the conservation value of dead wood in public discourses where it’s supremely relevant suggests to me it is.

It would certainly help if we had the woodland equivalent of the Sandford Principle which states – in theory anyway – that in National Parks conservation will be given priority over development. For woodland this would be recognition that we have moral obligations towards wildlife, personal responsibilities as well as rights, conservation before aesthetics. If you go to some wood, it’s going to be a real wood with dead trees, bushes and no garden plants – that’s what a wood is, if you don’t like that go to a park. Yes, woodlands should be for everyone, but turning it into a park means it isn’t a woodland anymore for anybody. We need to ensure it’s known that we’re not happy to see woodland without dead wood, we want to see it because we know it indicates a healthy and wildlife rich woodland. Why shouldn’t we have a 180 degree turn around and the presence of dead wood becomes the convention?

It must also be remembered out of sight means out of mind, that’s hardly consistent with providing the public education needed to break the vicious cycle of ignorance that’s by twist and turn transforming woodland into glorified parks. While clearing invasive cherry laurel in a local wood a manic septuagenarian gentleman was literally at my heels with a chainsaw clearing newly exposed dead wood that had been hidden by the evergreen laurel for years. He didn’t have permission to do so and no safety gear. A local fourteen-year-old boy who owned a chainsaw of his own asked if he could help him, the offer was gratefully accepted. Yours truly had to have a quiet word with the council to have this madness stopped even more to prevent a maiming than help fauna and flora. Is that a rational mentality we should be trying to incorporate in how we ‘manage’ woodlands or opposing it with vigour?

The other side of the coin is that when I was discussing this issue with a local lady in the same wood, she told me when she took her grand daughter for a walk there the little girl would automatically run over to any dead wood and lift it up to see what was living under it. As conservationists where do our responsibilities lie, acquiescing with rather than challenging the manic revulsion to real nature whether it’s dead wood or uncut grass or making sure future generations aren’t seriously handicapped by inheriting the blinkers worn by previous ones?

The easier life is to give in to the loud and (too often) bullying and let our interests be marginalised to the point they’re practically invisible. That’s the worst cop out possible letting down our threatened wildlife and the chance of children leading better, more enlightened lives filled with fascination not revulsion because we don’t have the spine to stand up to the assertive and un-listening, ignorant and selfish. Shame on us if we let that happen.

In the second and final Saving Dead Wood blog I will examine why I believe the conservation organisations aren’t as proactive in the public sphere (outside of their reserves) standing up for dead wood as they should and a small, very simple idea that might help if they did. We may have touched rock bottom here in Part 1, but hopefully the only way will be up in Part 2. 

 

In the meantime, to prove I’m not just dead wood’s answer to Victor Meldrew, I do try to be constructive I’ll leave you with this revealing anecdote about an attempt to start a dialogue. I was the secretary of the local FoE group at the time and invited a rep from the organisation involved in the consultation and subsequent ‘management’ of my local wood, where they’d shown the before and after pics of dead trees being removed, to give a talk to my group.

I asked that they put special emphasis on the conflict between public consultation exercises and conservation objectives. He agreed, came along and the ensuing discussion was rather enlightening when we got on to the subject of consultations and conservation. It shouldn’t have come as a shock in retrospect to find out that there were frequent ‘blazing rows’ back at the head office because the organisation wanted to fully comply with the majority views presented within public consultation documents, staff who knew and cared about conservation didn’t. The public education that would’ve helped to resolve the issue clearly wasn’t on the cards.

Well, well who would have thought that. You spend a few years slogging your guts out at uni, get your degree possibly while saddling yourself with debt, manage in a highly competitive job market to secure your dream one within an environmental organisation….then you find out you won’t use your highly expensive and hard earned education to help conserve wildlife and educate the public why you do so, you’ll help cut up dead trees because somebody said they didn’t think they look nice. What a terrible, utter waste in so many ways – I might be biased, but I think there’s one hell of a strong correlation between education and conservation, the dearth of real conservation tells me education isn’t the priority it should be either. How many times and in how many offices up and down the country do the same arguments take place? That should be worth a study too.

[registration_form]