Dead trees=Habitat

[nightshade]

There seem to be a compulsion nowdays for local authorities and land owners to remove old,dead,dying trees.
These trees are what the wood peckers, tree creepers and other birds rely on to provide a food source(beetle grubs etc.)and habitat (holes to live in) some of our most endangered bats live in the cracks and loose bark of these trees(barbastelle)
Why do they do it? is it some perverted health and safety political correctness? it is fair enough if the tree carries a malady that will infect other trees or is a danger to a footpath
could it be that unsupervised/uneducated (in the wildlife sense) workers take it upon themselves to remove dead trees without a thought for whatever needs this timber to live on

[Alan]

It seams to be a 'play safe' policy these days to fell dying/dead trees. It wouldn't be so bad if after felling, the dead tree was left lying where it was to decompose, but usually they're cleared away (maybe to stop them being set fire to!) and probably taken to the local landfill. Sign of the times I feel

[Wild-Woman]

I'm glad to say that where I live, which was right in the pathway of the 1987 (16th October to be precise) hurricane, many of the trees that came down that night, still lay where they came down in good percentage of the local woods. The exposed roots and undergrowth that has grown around them has formed but brilliant habitats. I would think that the shear volume of trees that came down that night probably put off removal, but now the advantages can be seen for the wildlife it provides for. Nature taking over and making good use again. WW

[life through a lens]

This doesn't just concern the areas that you'd normally associate with dead wood.

The Water for Wildlife trust recently released a booklet called 'Managing woody debris in rivers and streams' aimed at farmers, wetland landowners, anglers, local authorities and local communities.

It advises that woody debris, such as fallen trees, branches, twigs and leaves, is a vital component of waterways as it provides niche habitats for a diverse range of wildlife populations.

Further reading here.

Olly

[Imaginos]

I think it's all part of the mania for a tidy countryside we (as a nation) have developed since the introduction of mechanised methods-hedge flaying and roadside verge trimming also come under this, with equivalent damage to ecosystems. As Nightshade's sig states-you cannot maintain an ecology, if you lose any of the pieces, this is equally true of dead branches, seed heads and nest sites as it is of species.

[Gill Catton]

Originally Posted by Alan

It seams to be a 'play safe' policy these days to fell dying/dead trees. It wouldn't be so bad if after felling, the dead tree was left lying where it was to decompose, but usually they're cleared away (maybe to stop them being set fire to!) and probably taken to the local landfill. Sign of the times I feel

Some invertebrates are so specific they specifically require standing dead wood not to mention bats that would be at risk from cats roosting that low.
It seems such a shame that people don't seem to recognise that a tree with die back may not totally die for a hundred years or more.

[eeyore]

Unfortunately in recent years joe public has become much more litigious and likely to sue over the slightest thing, hence the "obsession" that many organisations have with Health and safety and risk assessment. Many landowners play safe by removing anything that looks slightly dodgy on a better safe than sorry basis.

The reason that many trees with die back are taken out is because these are much more likely to drop branches which can inturn lead to legal actions for injury, damaged property, or even the "trauma" of seeing it happen.

However where I work we invest considerable resources in assessing our trees, both living and dead and only remove them if there is no other option, and where ever possible we leave fallen trees to decompose naturally.