A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing
By Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Those of us that work in outdoor professions, such as professional commercial foresters and forest managers and coppice workers, as well as those in the park service, etc., encounter those people on an almost daily basis.
In the main those people have read a few pamphlets, articles (on the Internet nowadays more often than not) and books only and suddenly they feel qualified to decide that this or that practice is wrong. They did that with regards to coppicing some years back and now... well now we have to bring it back piece by piece before the coppice stools actually will break apart and the woodlands are lost for ever.
One of the other things that was forced through by those with little knowledge is the practice of leaving forest debris, such as branches and tops, and other “useless” wood as “habitat piles” for the wildlife, for invertebrates and fungi.
This practice, however, has dangerous consequences and is very bad for the environment to boot and for the woodlands concerned.
The dead wood harbor diseases and parasites which then come to fruition there on the forest floor in those “habitat piles” and infect and, in the case of parasites, infest living trees.
In addition to that this dead wood, often in the form of brushwood, constitutes a serious fire risk and -hazard and fire ladder.
Commercial foresters and forestry organizations are fighting a battle to reverse this foolhardy practice and the British Forestry Commission was talking in 2009/2010 about actually outlawing this practice of leaving “habitat piles”, or at least the excessive use of them. It is also bad and lazy forestry practice to just leave higgledy-piggledy heaps of wood about.
This is but one area where the interfering busybody syndrome of those misguides and misinformed people is wreaking havoc in forests, woods and countryside, as well as (public) parks and open spaces.
The professional forester of old has not just been concerned with growing trees. He has also had concern for the wildlife and soil health of his forests. He knew the symbiosis that exists between trees and the fungi in the soil, which basically form a communications net between trees of a species and are needed to enable to trees to actually take up the needed nutrients.
In the days gone by managed woodlands and forests had, basically, a 'clean floor' policy and virtually all debris was removed, and this was done for reasons of the health of the forest soil and its trees.
The larger bits of wood, such as the bigger branches, went for firewood, often to the Estovers, and twigs and brushwood was burned in situ. Still the wildlife thrived and that more so than today even.
While the burning of such forest debris in piles in the woods may have been, and is, an issue as fas as the smoke from such fires goes, the carbon released, however, is however only that amount which the wood absorbed during its growing period. The ash produced, on the other hand, was and is a great soil improver.
Wood left to decay, in comparison, not only releases possible pathogens and parasites that will infect and infest other healthy trees, but also the CO2 that it took up during its growing period but also, and much more important and dangerous, the much more dangerous greenhouse gas of methane.
Removing the debris and burning that which is of no use to others in situ also removes the fire hazard posed by piles of brushwood. What ain't there can't, after all, burn.
The misguided greenies, however, do not want to understand this, claiming that this is an invention of the commercial forestry lobby.
Another way such forest debris could be used – much better than leaving it to decay – is to chip it up for mulch in the garden, to grind it down to make compost, or as wood chips in stoves and furnaces made to burn such chips.
As I said, this is but one area where the interference by certain people with just a little knowledge, which is also often tinted, has caused and is causing problems. Other areas are in access management in parks, open spaces, woods and forests.
We saw that in the beginning of 2011 with regards to the proposed sale, by the Con-Dem coalition government, of some of the Forestry Commission lands. Here serious scaremongering was being employed claiming that people would no longer be permitted to walk in those woods, and that those forests would be clear felled. The claim was, basically, that private forest owners would destroy the lands, as if the Forestry Commission, aside from their research which is second to none, does such a great job anyway.
The popular, though misguided, campaign got the sale of such lands stopped – for the time being – nevertheless. Whether this was good or not in the long run remains to be seen.
As far as I have seen the Forestry Commission does not have one of the greatest records in managing forests and woodlands very efficiently and effectively and many of the areas are in dire need to tender loving care. The same is true – and that even more so – with woods and forests that are owned by the counties, districts and boroughs. Trees get felled and left to rot instead of being sold for profit.
We have a need for firewood and other wood products and import firewood from as far afield as Poland, the Ukraine and Belarus while our own woods have tonnes and tonnes of timber, more often than not even quality building and furniture timber, laying about rotting away.
To a degree that practice too is due to those misguided individuals and groups that insist that the councils, whether county, district or borough, leave such wood “for the wildlife”.
Time we rethought a few things...
© 2011
