The poisoned beech trees – but what is the way forward? Photo credit – Mary Jack
Back in August 2017 (see here) I queried the felling of some beech trees and poisoning of others on the Island of Inchtavannach on Loch Lomond.
That article was based on a study/paper claiming that the beech trees were indigenous to the area and not non-native as claimed by Scottish National Heritage. That aside, the fact remains that around 300 trees were deliberately killed.
So much for biodiversity and the contribution trees make in reducing our carbon footprint and Climate Change! This from a Scottish Government quango of ‘specialists’ presumed to be ‘experts’ in their field.
The outcome of the ensuing friction between Luss Estates and Scottish National Heritage (SNH) appears to have come to a closure last week. The BBC contacted parkswatchscotland to use my photos as per my original article as the one sent to them by SNH appeared to show that there had been very little damage! Incidentally, Luss Estates have used one of my photos on their web page without credit or my permission (see here)).
The BBC News article (see here) stated:
“SNH apologises for killing 300 beech trees on Inchtavannach Island
Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) has apologised for killing more than 300 mature beech trees on an island in Loch Lomond.
SNH said it should have consulted Inchtavannach Island’s owners before poisoning the beech trees with a chemical injection.
SNH had agreed a “selective felling” of non-native trees on the island in 2013, but did not tell Luss Estates about the change of plan.
… It (SNH) will pay to remove the fallen trees”. NOTE the use of ‘fallen’.
“Luss Estates previously said the island was left looking like a “wasteland” and accused SNH of creating a “major eyesore in one of Scotland’s foremost beauty spots”.
The two parties have now reached an agreement in the long-running dispute…..”
It is not clear from the above whether or not the dispute ever went to a Court of Law as was proposed at the time (see here)
“Luss Estates contends that SNH entered into an agreement with the estate and the tenant of the island in 2013 to remove rhododendron, beech saplings and also gradually fell mature beech trees, which SNH at that time considered ‘non-native’, over a five-year period.”
NOTE:- which SNH at that time considered ‘non-native’. So are SNH now in agreement that the trees are/were indeed native and should never have been killed by whatever means at all??
The Luss Estates website also carries the story, 29 Nov, and refers to an “unreserved apology” (see here):
Scottish Natural Heritage and Luss Estates reach agreement over poisoning of 300 beech trees at Loch Lomond beauty spot
SCOTTISH Natural Heritage and Luss Estates have today reached an agreement following the conclusion of a dispute on the killing of over 300 mature beech trees on the island of Inchtavannach by chemical injection. ……..
…. David Maclennan, SNH Area Manager for Argyll and the Outer Hebrides said:
…. The speed, scale, and visual impact of the operation was much greater than anticipated….” [Comment: really??]
“…. “There remains a need to undertake works to remove fallen timber from agreed areas – and we have offered to do this through a new agreement. …”
“Fallen Beech trees on Inchtavannach Island (Luss Estates)
The difference in wording (fallen/felled) is, to my mind, very important. Without a doubt, the resulting massacre is unsightly to say the least.. BUT …
Is it only fallen timber that is to be removed?
Fallen – synonyms: dead · killed · murdered · slain · slaughtered
Is the felled timber to be removed?
Felled – synonyms: cut down · chop down · hack down · saw down · knock down · hew
What about the “eyesore” of the poisoned trees that are still standing?
This is not a commercial felling operation, as defined by Forestry Scotland, so should the dead trees be removed? What about the wildlife that have inhabited these trees, fallen, felled or standing?
Furthermore, how will this clearing/ ‘works to remove fallen timber’ be viewed by loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNPA)?
The LLTNPA actively discourage removing/collecting wood in their Camping in the National Park leaflet (under “Camping Byelaws: What you need to know”):
“The byelaws also cover irresponsible firelighting, including collecting firewood. If you have a fire, make sure you build it in a place where it will cause no damage or use a fire bowl. Bring your own wood, as collecting firewood has a damaging effect on wildlife in the area.
A similar message is given in the LLTNPA’s ‘Angling in the Park’ leaflet (1.7 MB):
“Fires If you have a fire when you are fishing it should be small, under control, not cause any damage and you should bring your own firewood.”
And also after the unlawful felling of trees at Drumkinnon Bay
“… It is important that as much of the cut down timber as possible stays on site in order to encourage restoration of the trees and minimise any impacts to the wildlife of the area.” (see here)
Of course the LLTNPA are a law unto themselves :- the unlawfully felled trees in the woods at Drumkinnon Bay were ‘tidied’ on the say so of Gordon Watson CEO of LLTNPA prior to the European Open Water Championships held in Drumkinnon Bay! Don’t expect them to be consistent when it comes to Inchtavannach and SNH. There appears to be one law for campers/members of the public and another for landowners and public agencies.
Thank you for this. If any live tree was ever condemned as being non native..what on earth was the ill-advised rush to destroy it immediately all about ? None of these would be still there in 70 years anyway. If under planned land management by Land OWNER new saplings were thinned/cleared each season the area would surely revert and be rid of them ? If SNH really does still expect to be taken seriously as custodian of wild places, the liberal funds they employ are essential now to take action against genuine a species of self seeding non native invasive climbing, ‘layering’, wind blown propagated by the wind . The wonderfully pretty habitat-poisoning displays of Poniticum flowers each spring dotted across the west highland glens are one example ; the pretty white flowers on bamboo like stems spreading unchecked along too many roadsides in mid summer are another (Knotweed) The west of Scotland is under attack – beech trees were not to blame.
So much to make one angry and the facile ‘apologises’ is moronic. After the trait of no one apologising we now have people in charge responsible thinking an apology will sort anything! It doesn’t, and it certainly does not cover the crime, in an age when know we need every tree can get for planet’s and our health, of chopping 300 trees decades old and so well into their role.
BTW, really and truly SNH, how is beech not a native when it grows as trees and hedges all around the U.K.?
Not native in Scotland because it was lost during the last Ice Age and hadn’t recolonised “naturally” before man started planting it possibly as far back as the bronze age, or so say https://forestryandland.gov.scot/learn/trees/beech. Whether that is sensible or a problem compared to other non native trees species, such as the commercial conifers planted in large numbers across Scotland is another matter.
Dave, I think there has been an assumption for a long time that beech is not “native” when in fact there is research to suggest otherwise. See A new scenario for the Quaternary history of European
beech populations: palaeobotanical evidence and genetic consequences. New Phytologist (2006) 171: 199–221 The maps in this show beech pollen records on west coast from 13,000 years ago – that is pretty interesting as the Scots Pine also colonised Scotland from the north west. I can email whole article (its 9MB or so). I agree totally with your point about whether its sensible to treat “non-native” trees in this way – hope to post on this soon. Nick
I’ll have a look at the article – it’s available electronically via the Uni library. A brief flick through suggests most of the information is for mainland Europe and a little for Southern England. I’m not sure if I can see a pollen distribution for northwest Scotland in Figure 4, though there does appear to be genetic data from Scotland in figure 5 b
Well done again to parkswatch. This sort of stuff makes you want to weep. RW
Thank you all for responding. If nothing else the article and the links raise awareness and generate interest. Obviously there are different points of view depending on where one looks in the course of research. All your contributions are welcomed and respected. M J