Wildlife trees

[clearance]

What do you all think of "wildlife" trees, that is trees left standing, but killed, by being "girdled", that is a strip sawn through thier cambium layer? Left in areas like parks, or on utility right of ways? This practice is common here now, I have made many wildlife trees myself. Is it right to make these snags on purpose in areas where the public may wander or workers may have to work again?

After all, dead trees, while they provide benefits for the enviroment, do fall down from time to time. In the logging regs. here, snags (danger trees)are to be sawn down before any work takes place in the area they endanger. Thats logging though. Various city ISA arborists (non working ones ) and ISA utility arborists (non working) have these living trees killed and made into future hazards. You can guess what I think, I would like to hear other views, for I plan to take this matter up with these people and others.
Thank you/Jim

 

[TimberMcPherson]

In the right setting I think they are fantastic. I encourage clients of mine to keep standing dead trees that dont pose a great risk to life or property.

 

[smokechase II]

Yes and No

Two weeks ago I was driving on our local Forest Service managed lands east of La Pine Oregon.
There had been some girdling of trees next to roads and I encountered 5 trees at three locations that had fallen across the road. Most that were girdled in that unit were smaller and were not even that good for wildlife needs.
Really stupid.

Obsessive Compulsive Wildlife Disorder. (my term)

***********************

Then again, in areas that are low for snags and down wood we do need to manage in such a manner where we can bring those needs back into a natural condition. But within reason.

 

[Mitchell]

seen a few done a few

The few I have left for HO's were cedar, the only tree I trust to be left standing dead.

Not that I am looking hard, but I have never seen any of the evidence that they are effective. My understanding is it is deduction based on what is found in a natural forest. The fellow I took my wildlife tree course from talked about pilated woodpeckers but mentioned nothing else.

One could make an argument that the habitate should adjust to our setting not vise versa. For instance crows, racoons and coyotes [which are newcomers] do not have problems making it in a large city like Vancouver.

I have seen some left in funny places, on a main entrance to the University of BC in Vancouver for example. Big tall fir, have fun on that removal...

 

[Slvrmple72]

You can see the headline now...
Wildlife tree falls and injures toddler in park, Arborist responsible for directing the wildlife tree program in hot water, city council outraged.
So many things to look out for in tree risk assessment with "healthy" trees much less the additional concerns of wildlife trees. People think it is a good idea now but wait a few years. I think a more workable solution to attracting wildlfe would be a landscaping approach that involves planting more of the trees and plants/flowers that will attract the animals/birds/bugs that you are trying for. I hope you fellow arborists that are doing these wildlife trees are making the customers aware of the eventual failure of the tree and having them sign off that they understand said information releasing arborist of any responsibility for damage and or injury. " Wait a minute, you mean that this is going to kill the tree and eventually it will fall down? When will it die? When will it fall down? Should it be cut down after so many years before it falls down? If it falls down when nobody is around to hear it fall will it make any noise? "-customer

 

[BC WetCoast]

Most wildlife trees are left as 20-30' stubs, so the risk from them is fairly low. It's the apileated woodpeckers that primarily create the cavities, but there are a number of songbirds and small mammals eg squirrels and chipmunks that will use the cavities.

 

[ropensaddle]

Most wildlife trees are left as 20-30' stubs, so the risk from them is fairly low. It's the apileated woodpeckers that primarily create the cavities, but there are a number of songbirds and small mammals eg squirrels and chipmunks that will use the cavities.

So that is what they call that dumb chit I have seen it in our forest
trees left cut in a teetering condition are called wildlife trees.
I thought they were trying to kill the remaining oaks that some how
made it through the slaughter without using chemical!
I don't feel any more dead trees are necessary are they thinking
save the wildlife by having a dead tree fall on a hunter hence
wildlife tree! This woodpecker scam is something they must not
get out of their truck if woodpeckers were deer we would be in
trouble as there are more of them than any other wildlife.
I have not seen one shortage of songbirds squirrels or chipmunks
where do they get this data in inner cities wtf

 

[1I'dJak]

As i posted earlier, i was involved in a wildlife tree creation project for bc hydro in the east kootenay..still waiting for photos to post... we were innoculating trees with wooden dowels infected with fungus...i initially though the idea kinda silly, but the more i learned the more i thought it was a pretty good one...basically the biologist in charge said a dead tree isn't necessarily a wildlife tree...it must have the appropriate characteristics the wildlife that use it....in the case of this project it was a certain fungus that created a heartrot that woodpecker's favoured...simply girlding a tree doesn't mean that this tree is gonna create the desired affect...it just creates a dead tree... one that's prone to snapping at the girdling point... as for habitat creation...well that depends on what you want...creating dead by walkpaths in a city park seems stupid...but putting a walkpath in a mature forest and then cutting down trees that provide habitat and maintain forest function seems stupid too... if you think its dangerous to walk around in a mature forest cuz something may fall, then don't walk in a forest, go walk in a city park...

 

[M.D. Vaden]

What do you all think of "wildlife" trees, that is trees left standing, but killed, by being "girdled", that is a strip sawn through thier cambium layer? Left in areas like parks, or on utility right of ways? This practice is common here now, I have made many wildlife trees myself. Is it right to make these snags on purpose in areas where the public may wander or workers may have to work again?

After all, dead trees, while they provide benefits for the enviroment, do fall down from time to time. In the logging regs. here, snags (danger trees)are to be sawn down before any work takes place in the area they endanger. Thats logging though. Various city ISA arborists (non working ones ) and ISA utility arborists (non working) have these living trees killed and made into future hazards. You can guess what I think, I would like to hear other views, for I plan to take this matter up with these people and others.
Thank you/Jim

You know, it came to mind that to actually intitiate some, the best possible tree to choose, would be ones that professional arborists had been caring for over a period of decades.

That top-notch tree care would provide sturdy strong healthy tree stock.

It should be the best wood, with the least weakness. That means when they start to decay, the time until they are a hazard would be farther into the future. Many more years of safety. opcorn:

Can you imagine someone specializing in just that kind of thing? A willdlife tree making service in it's own niche like organic gardening or bonsai?

You know, they might get beat up though

 

[windthrown]

I cut most of the standing snags down here for several reasons. One is that they make for great pre-seasoned firewood (though they are a big harder on sawchain). Two is that they are a liability, and apt to become windthrow in the big storms that we have here being so close to the Pacific ocean. Or worse, they periodically drop and cast off widowmakers. Three is that we have a lot of them, and most are not inhabited. Generally they get infested with bugs and rot and the northern flickers and pileated woodpeckers (birds) come along and flip off the bark digging for bugs in them. So for that sake, I guess they are habitat. However, they are also termite factories. Four is that they tend to harbor diseases that we do not want to spread to other trees.

That being said we have left specific snags around this 100+ acre parcel that are designated for habitat. Mostly alders and maples, but some oaks and grand firs. And some we leave becasue we cannot get to them or drop them without causing more damage than good.

 

[BC WetCoast]

I cut most of the standing snags down here for several reasons. One is that they make for great pre-seasoned firewood (though they are a big harder on sawchain). Two is that they are a liability, and apt to become windthrow in the big storms that we have here being so close to the Pacific ocean. Or worse, they periodically drop and cast off widowmakers. Three is that we have a lot of them, and most are not inhabited. Generally they get infested with bugs and rot and the northern flickers and pileated woodpeckers (birds) come along and flip off the bark digging for bugs in them. So for that sake, I guess they are habitat. However, they are also termite factories. Four is that they tend to harbor diseases that we do not want to spread to other trees.

That being said we have left specific snags around this 100+ acre parcel that are designated for habitat. Mostly alders and maples, but some oaks and grand firs. And some we leave becasue we cannot get to them or drop them without causing more damage than good.

But the designated wildlife trees are not standing snags per se, in that they are topped to remove the hazard risk. They are just 20-30 ft high telephone poles. I agree that they can become termite factories. However, I disagree with the comment on harbouring diseases that can spread.

The root rots if they are endemic in the stand are already there. Creating the wildlife tree isn't going to change any spread rate significantly. As for other fungal diseases, I can't think of any that would harbour in the snag and then spread by spore dissemination and go from a dead tree to a live tree. But I can be educated on that.

 

[ropensaddle]

As i posted earlier, i was involved in a wildlife tree creation project for bc hydro in the east kootenay..still waiting for photos to post... we were innoculating trees with wooden dowels infected with fungus...i initially though the idea kinda silly, but the more i learned the more i thought it was a pretty good one...basically the biologist in charge said a dead tree isn't necessarily a wildlife tree...it must have the appropriate characteristics the wildlife that use it....in the case of this project it was a certain fungus that created a heartrot that woodpecker's favoured...simply girlding a tree doesn't mean that this tree is gonna create the desired affect...it just creates a dead tree... one that's prone to snapping at the girdling point... as for habitat creation...well that depends on what you want...creating dead by walkpaths in a city park seems stupid...but putting a walkpath in a mature forest and then cutting down trees that provide habitat and maintain forest function seems stupid too... if you think its dangerous to walk around in a mature forest cuz something may fall, then don't walk in a forest, go walk in a city park...

It all seems stupid to me but what I was talking about I
have seen them girdle to the point the tree is teetering
I don't care what you call it I call it dangerous and at
first thought it was peta the organization!
Think about it if you turkey hunt how many wood peckers
do you hear vrs gobblers how did wood peckers make it
without mans intervention?
I would call wildlife trees leaving thirt yard strips especially
hardwood left standing instead of making the great plains.
It seems the more forest education someone gets to get
a job the more the forest suffers I know they will leave
a little by creeks but have mercy man large oaks for mast
have started to be found only in cities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[wildbio]

As a Wildlife Biologist with a federal agency (USFS) I deal with this issue all the time (the majority of the projects I work on (across the country) are timber sales and fuels reduction projects). I can say that it can be a challenge to meet wildlife needs while also ensuring public safety. In all the projects I work on there are typically snag retention requirements. The specifics vary depend on the wildlife species being managed for in the project area (cavity nesters, woodpeckers, flying squirrels, etc.). Snag management has evolved as has timber management and wildlife management.....we learn more and more everyday and from our mistakes (which we've all made in the past). Here is a link to an article that does a fair job of explaining the problems associated with the issue:
http://www.jstor.org/view/00917648/ap070087/07a00040/0
I've seen lots of snags retained that would not be useful from any wildlife perspective (mistakes mostly of the past I hope). I can tell you that snag retention guidlelines are always (in the projects I work on) superceded by public safety, fuels objectives, and operability (per OSHA requirements).
I could go on and on.....just wanted to let you know that we're working on it!

just in case:
***the views expressed here are my own and in no way are intended (expressed or implied) to represent those of my employer***

 

[ropensaddle]

A good education should be combined with common sense.
Example a biologist was reported in our state for trading
many of our wild turkeys to Texas for western diamond backs!
That is plain stupidity then they passed a law that killing one
was a crime even more stupid. While I can see snakes play a
part in rodent control and diversification of the ecosystem
fining someone for killing a poisonous snake is ludicrous.
On the other hand going out of your way to smoke out dens
and kill them off by the thousands in a remote area I can
see is wrong, a person working cutting brush on a right of way
killing one is not.

 

[wildbio]

I think that may be a limited access site.

Sorry about that. I tried downloading and converting a number of ways but the file always ended up larger (just barely) than the max file size permitted on this forum.
PM me if your interested in reading the entire article. I'll email it to you.

 

[southsoundtree]

As i posted earlier, i was involved in a wildlife tree creation project for bc hydro in the east kootenay..still waiting for photos to post... we were innoculating trees with wooden dowels infected with fungus...i initially though the idea kinda silly, but the more i learned the more i thought it was a pretty good one...basically the biologist in charge said a dead tree isn't necessarily a wildlife tree...it must have the appropriate characteristics the wildlife that use it....in the case of this project it was a certain fungus that created a heartrot that woodpecker's favoured...simply girlding a tree doesn't mean that this tree is gonna create the desired affect...it just creates a dead tree... one that's prone to snapping at the girdling point... as for habitat creation...well that depends on what you want...creating dead by walkpaths in a city park seems stupid...but putting a walkpath in a mature forest and then cutting down trees that provide habitat and maintain forest function seems stupid too... if you think its dangerous to walk around in a mature forest cuz something may fall, then don't walk in a forest, go walk in a city park...

I'm interested to hear more about the fungi used. My girlfriend works on a project for Washington DNR, where they have a study underway where they are trying to make wildlife trees using innoculated dowels in Doug-fir, though with little success. The trees are healthy enough to fight off the fungi, it seems. We were discussing it, and I wondered if less vigorous trees where chosen, it it would work better.

I was also just speaking with someone from The Nature Conservancy about creating wildlife trees. He indicated that they found first year occupancy with cutting a face plate off the trees, carving out a cavity, then screwing the face plate back on, and creating some entrance hole. I'll be more in touch with Eric, The TNC person soon. Hopefully with pictures.

We've talked about a collaboration on the project, and I'd like to find out more about the available methods and options.

 

[1I'dJak]

we used the dowels as well...cut some limbs, drill two holes, insert two innoculated wooden dowels, then, cut a half girdle into the cambium.... some of the trees we topped and inserted four dowels....the fellow i worked for has had some success with previous attempts at this....however, it does take time for the inccoculated tree to become a later stage snag, but it mimics a more natural cycle and infects a tree with a fungus that often is lacking in a clearcut where all the donor trees have been harvested