Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Killing owls to save owls: the US wildlife plan that sparked an ‘ethical dilemma’

News Feed
Saturday, April 6, 2024

It sounds like a setup for an ecological horror film – to save one species of owl, US wildlife officials want to shoot down half a million of its cousins.The federal government’s latest proposal to save the endangered spotted owls has raised complicated questions about the ethics of killing one species to save another, and the role of humans to intervene in the cascading ecological conundrums that they have caused.The spotted owl – an elusive icon of the American west – has lost most of its habitat in the old growth forests of the Pacific north-west and Canada due to logging and development. The species has also faced increasing competition from the barred owl – a slightly larger, more successful cousin who was lured west over the last century as settlers and homesteaders reshaped the North American landscape.Now, to save the spotted owls, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has finalised a proposal to cull hundreds of thousands of barred owls across California, Washington and Oregon over the next 30 years.The plan has pitted animal welfare and conservation groups against each other. The proposal was published in November, but it drew renewed attention last week after 82 animal welfare organisations based around the US signed a letter calling it “colossally reckless”. Researchers and wildlife officials who support the plan have said that if the barred owls are not culled, the northern spotted owl’s demise is ensured.“This is a case that poses a genuine ethical dilemma,” said Michael Paul Nelson, a professor of environmental ethics and philosophy at Oregon State University. “You’re either going to kill a bunch of individual living beings, or you’re going to let a species disappear. No matter what, harm is done.”The spotted owl has lost most of its habitat and in the Pacific north-west and Canada. Photograph: All Canada Photos/AlamyAn invasive species, or natural competition?Spotted and barred owls look very similar to the untrained eye, and they can interbreed to birth offspring that are called “sparred owls”. But the barred owls are more adept survivors. They hunt a greater variety of prey, are slightly less discerning about where they nest, and tend to reproduce more quickly. And over the past few decades, biologists have noticed that the barred owls were edging the spotted owls out of their territory.“Barred owl removal is not something the Service takes lightly,” said Jodie Delavan, a Public affairs officer with USFWS in Oregon. “However, the Service has a legal and ethical responsibility to do all it can to recover northern spotted owl populations. Unless invasive barred owls are managed, the federally listed northern spotted owl will be extirpated in all or a significant portion of its range.”The northern spotted owls were listed as threatened in 1990 after fierce campaigning by environmentalists who fought to protect the ancient forests where the birds nest from the logging. But the protections came too late – 70% of their habitat is already gone. The climate crisis and increasingly fierce megafires now threaten to destroy what little remains of their forest habitats.You’re either going to kill living beings, or you’re going to let a species disappear. No matter what, harm is doneThe arrival of barred owls in the west appears to have hastened the spotted owl’s decline. It’s unclear why exactly the barred owls migrated westward, but researchers agree that it coincided with the arrival of European settlers in the east, and their reshaping of the owls’ native landscape. Previously, a scarcity of tree habitats in Great Plains may have prevented the barred owls from venturing west until homesteaders planted trees for lumber, which provided new habitats. They also abandoned or outlawed Indigenous forest management practices, trapped beavers, over-hunted deer and elk, and drove away bison – all of which caused forests to overgrow.That’s one of the reasons that the Fish and Wildlife Service, and biologists, consider the barred owls to be an invasive species – human intervention led to their arrival in the west. And that is why many believe it is humans’ responsibility to remove them.“I grappled with it constantly. It’s not an easy thing,” said David Wiens, a wildlife biologist with the US Geological Survey who has spent his career studying interactions between spotted owls and barred owls. Several years ago, he and fellow researchers ran an experiment that involved shooting more than 2,400 barred owls across the north-west – and found that over five years, culling the barred owls helped spotted owl populations stabilise.A male hybrid owl, produced by a Northern spotted owl and a barred owl, in Oregon. The two owl species are related and can interbreed. Photograph: Jeff Barnard/APEven as the researchers culled barred owls, however, more of them moved in. In order to truly control their populations in the west, hunters would have to keep shooting them over a long period of time. “It’s a very tough decision,” he said. “Do you use lethal removal techniques? Or do you do nothing – just throw up your hands and let the cards fall where they will?.”Many conservationists have – squeamishly – agreed that the barred owls should be culled. But animal rights activists, some wildlife groups and the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times remains skeptical.“The United States is targeting a native species not ever hunted for simply engaging in normal range expansions,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Center for a Human Economy and its lobbying arm, Animal Wellness Action, who co-authored the letter opposing the culling proposal. “If the US Fish and Wildlife Service is now going to start to manage social conflicts between animals, where does this end?”Pacelle disputes the idea that the barred owl is invasive – as it is, after all, native to North America. And killing hundreds of thousands of them, over three decades, in an area where they are guaranteed to keep returning is “unworkable and inhumane”, he said.The trouble is, he added, “we don’t have an easy fix for the spotted owl.”Fraught questions for the AnthropoceneFor Lisa Sideris, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who specialises in environmental ethics and the intersections of science and religion, the case of the two owls inspires introspection about the follies of anthropocentrism. “Some would argue that humans have altered ecosystems and the whole planet to such an extent that it becomes very hard to discern what it would mean to restore something back to natural conditions and whether that’s even possible.”This isn’t the first time the coy spotted owls have pushed people to grapple with fraught philosophical ideas. “The spotted owl has been the poster animal for environmental conflicts for decades,” said Sideris.The species found itself at the centre of what became known as the Timber Wars in the 1980s and 1990s. Loggers and environmentalists seeking to save old growth forests in California and the Pacific north-west clashed – in the courtroom and in the woods. In Oakland, California, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney - two anti-logging activists campaigning to save the spotted owl – were critically injured by a pipe bomb that exploded under their car. In 1990, amidst escalating conflict, the spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act – and made the cover of Time magazine.Still, tensions between timber industry leaders – who said that efforts to save the owl would cost tens of thousands of jobs – and environmentalists continued to build. In 2021, the Trump administration drastically slashed protections for the spotted owl. Joe Biden reversed the decision, but conceded 200,000 acres in owl habitat as part of the settlement of a timber industry lawsuit.The spotted owl and the barred owl remain caught in the political crossfire. And all the while, wildlife officials and biologists are left with fraught questions about how best to save the species under strained circumstances.There is debate over whether the barred owl, pictured, is considered ‘invasive’ to the US west and should be culled. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty ImagesGetting rid of the barred owls is ultimately a “triage” – a way to give the spotted owl some more time, and a fighting chance at survival, said Tom Wheeler, executive director of the conservation group Epic. “Does this just mean that there will always have to be somebody with a shotgun in our forest killing owls?” said Wheeler. “I think that we have to – as supporters of this – somewhat acknowledge that that is a possibility. And we have to be OK with that.”Preventing extinction has become a sisyphean task, said Nelson, and despite government, scientists and conservationists’ best efforts, it remains impossible to predict or control exactly how nature will react.“There is a hubris that underlies this idea that we’re just going to engineer our way out of these situations,” he said. “Because that is the same attitude that created these problems in the first place.”

A government proposal to cull half a million owls, in order to save a related species, has raised complicated questionsIt sounds like a setup for an ecological horror film – to save one species of owl, US wildlife officials want to shoot down half a million of its cousins.The federal government’s latest proposal to save the endangered spotted owls has raised complicated questions about the ethics of killing one species to save another, and the role of humans to intervene in the cascading ecological conundrums that they have caused. Continue reading...

It sounds like a setup for an ecological horror film – to save one species of owl, US wildlife officials want to shoot down half a million of its cousins.

The federal government’s latest proposal to save the endangered spotted owls has raised complicated questions about the ethics of killing one species to save another, and the role of humans to intervene in the cascading ecological conundrums that they have caused.

The spotted owl – an elusive icon of the American west – has lost most of its habitat in the old growth forests of the Pacific north-west and Canada due to logging and development. The species has also faced increasing competition from the barred owl – a slightly larger, more successful cousin who was lured west over the last century as settlers and homesteaders reshaped the North American landscape.

Now, to save the spotted owls, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has finalised a proposal to cull hundreds of thousands of barred owls across California, Washington and Oregon over the next 30 years.

The plan has pitted animal welfare and conservation groups against each other. The proposal was published in November, but it drew renewed attention last week after 82 animal welfare organisations based around the US signed a letter calling it “colossally reckless”. Researchers and wildlife officials who support the plan have said that if the barred owls are not culled, the northern spotted owl’s demise is ensured.

“This is a case that poses a genuine ethical dilemma,” said Michael Paul Nelson, a professor of environmental ethics and philosophy at Oregon State University. “You’re either going to kill a bunch of individual living beings, or you’re going to let a species disappear. No matter what, harm is done.”

The spotted owl has lost most of its habitat and in the Pacific north-west and Canada. Photograph: All Canada Photos/Alamy

An invasive species, or natural competition?

Spotted and barred owls look very similar to the untrained eye, and they can interbreed to birth offspring that are called “sparred owls”. But the barred owls are more adept survivors. They hunt a greater variety of prey, are slightly less discerning about where they nest, and tend to reproduce more quickly. And over the past few decades, biologists have noticed that the barred owls were edging the spotted owls out of their territory.

“Barred owl removal is not something the Service takes lightly,” said Jodie Delavan, a Public affairs officer with USFWS in Oregon. “However, the Service has a legal and ethical responsibility to do all it can to recover northern spotted owl populations. Unless invasive barred owls are managed, the federally listed northern spotted owl will be extirpated in all or a significant portion of its range.”

The northern spotted owls were listed as threatened in 1990 after fierce campaigning by environmentalists who fought to protect the ancient forests where the birds nest from the logging. But the protections came too late – 70% of their habitat is already gone. The climate crisis and increasingly fierce megafires now threaten to destroy what little remains of their forest habitats.

The arrival of barred owls in the west appears to have hastened the spotted owl’s decline. It’s unclear why exactly the barred owls migrated westward, but researchers agree that it coincided with the arrival of European settlers in the east, and their reshaping of the owls’ native landscape. Previously, a scarcity of tree habitats in Great Plains may have prevented the barred owls from venturing west until homesteaders planted trees for lumber, which provided new habitats. They also abandoned or outlawed Indigenous forest management practices, trapped beavers, over-hunted deer and elk, and drove away bison – all of which caused forests to overgrow.

That’s one of the reasons that the Fish and Wildlife Service, and biologists, consider the barred owls to be an invasive species – human intervention led to their arrival in the west. And that is why many believe it is humans’ responsibility to remove them.

“I grappled with it constantly. It’s not an easy thing,” said David Wiens, a wildlife biologist with the US Geological Survey who has spent his career studying interactions between spotted owls and barred owls. Several years ago, he and fellow researchers ran an experiment that involved shooting more than 2,400 barred owls across the north-west – and found that over five years, culling the barred owls helped spotted owl populations stabilise.

A male hybrid owl, produced by a Northern spotted owl and a barred owl, in Oregon. The two owl species are related and can interbreed. Photograph: Jeff Barnard/AP

Even as the researchers culled barred owls, however, more of them moved in. In order to truly control their populations in the west, hunters would have to keep shooting them over a long period of time. “It’s a very tough decision,” he said. “Do you use lethal removal techniques? Or do you do nothing – just throw up your hands and let the cards fall where they will?.”

Many conservationists have – squeamishly – agreed that the barred owls should be culled. But animal rights activists, some wildlife groups and the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times remains skeptical.

“The United States is targeting a native species not ever hunted for simply engaging in normal range expansions,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Center for a Human Economy and its lobbying arm, Animal Wellness Action, who co-authored the letter opposing the culling proposal. “If the US Fish and Wildlife Service is now going to start to manage social conflicts between animals, where does this end?”

Pacelle disputes the idea that the barred owl is invasive – as it is, after all, native to North America. And killing hundreds of thousands of them, over three decades, in an area where they are guaranteed to keep returning is “unworkable and inhumane”, he said.

The trouble is, he added, “we don’t have an easy fix for the spotted owl.”

Fraught questions for the Anthropocene

For Lisa Sideris, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who specialises in environmental ethics and the intersections of science and religion, the case of the two owls inspires introspection about the follies of anthropocentrism. “Some would argue that humans have altered ecosystems and the whole planet to such an extent that it becomes very hard to discern what it would mean to restore something back to natural conditions and whether that’s even possible.”

This isn’t the first time the coy spotted owls have pushed people to grapple with fraught philosophical ideas. “The spotted owl has been the poster animal for environmental conflicts for decades,” said Sideris.

The species found itself at the centre of what became known as the Timber Wars in the 1980s and 1990s. Loggers and environmentalists seeking to save old growth forests in California and the Pacific north-west clashed – in the courtroom and in the woods. In Oakland, California, Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney - two anti-logging activists campaigning to save the spotted owl – were critically injured by a pipe bomb that exploded under their car. In 1990, amidst escalating conflict, the spotted owl was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act – and made the cover of Time magazine.

Still, tensions between timber industry leaders – who said that efforts to save the owl would cost tens of thousands of jobs – and environmentalists continued to build. In 2021, the Trump administration drastically slashed protections for the spotted owl. Joe Biden reversed the decision, but conceded 200,000 acres in owl habitat as part of the settlement of a timber industry lawsuit.

The spotted owl and the barred owl remain caught in the political crossfire. And all the while, wildlife officials and biologists are left with fraught questions about how best to save the species under strained circumstances.

There is debate over whether the barred owl, pictured, is considered ‘invasive’ to the US west and should be culled. Photograph: Kena Betancur/AFP/Getty Images

Getting rid of the barred owls is ultimately a “triage” – a way to give the spotted owl some more time, and a fighting chance at survival, said Tom Wheeler, executive director of the conservation group Epic. “Does this just mean that there will always have to be somebody with a shotgun in our forest killing owls?” said Wheeler. “I think that we have to – as supporters of this – somewhat acknowledge that that is a possibility. And we have to be OK with that.”

Preventing extinction has become a sisyphean task, said Nelson, and despite government, scientists and conservationists’ best efforts, it remains impossible to predict or control exactly how nature will react.

“There is a hubris that underlies this idea that we’re just going to engineer our way out of these situations,” he said. “Because that is the same attitude that created these problems in the first place.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Thirsty future: Australia’s green hydrogen targets could require vastly more water than the government hopes

To make green hydrogen, take water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen. It sounds simple – but the government’s water-use figures may be a drastic underestimate.

totajla/ShutterstockGreen hydrogen is touted by some as the future – a way for Australia to slowly replace its reliance on fossil fuel exports. The energy-dense gas has the potential to reduce emissions in sectors challenging to decarbonise, such as steelmaking and fertiliser manufacturing. The Albanese government wants it to be a massive new export industry and has laid out a pathway through its National Hydrogen Strategy. Unfortunately, there’s a real gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite ambitious plans, no green hydrogen project has yet succeeded in Australia. The technology’s most prominent local backer, billionaire miner Twiggy Forrest, has dialled down his ambition. Globally, just 7% of announced green hydrogen projects are up and running. Economic viability is one problem. But there’s a much larger issue flying under the radar: water. Hitting the 2050 target of 15 million to 30 million tonnes of hydrogen a year would use 7–15% of the amount Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants use annually. That’s simply not sustainable. Splitting water Green hydrogen uses renewable energy to power electrolyser machines, which split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. On the surface, this is an appealing use of clean energy, especially during solar peak periods. But what the government hasn’t properly accounted for is the water cost for green hydrogen. The strategy states water use is likely to be “considerable but not prohibitive”. This is questionable. For every kilogram of hydrogen produced through electrolysis, nine litres of water are directly consumed. That’s not all. The water needed to make hydrogen has to be extremely pure. Salt water has to be desalinated, and even fresh water needs purification. Equipment also needs cooling, which consumes even more water. All these processes incur substantial indirect water losses, such as the water used for industrial processes and cooling. The volumes used are highly uncertain. They can be up to 20 times greater than the direct water use. A key input value for the government’s hydrogen strategy modelling is taken from a 2015 report by the Argonne National Energy Laboratory in the United States, which assumes each kilogram of green hydrogen produced requires just over 30 litres of water. The Australian hydrogen strategy suggests 30 litres per kilogram of hydrogen would cover “all system losses including purification processes and cooling water required”. But it’s not clear if this figure covers other uses of water in making hydrogen, such as water treatment. Green hydrogen could help industrial sectors transition from fossil fuels. The problem is the water use. Audio und werbung/Shutterstock How much water would this use? According to the government’s modelling, making 15 million tonnes would require 740 billion litres of water. That would be about 7% of the 10,450 billion litres used by all of Australia’s households, farms, mines and black coal power plants. The government’s National Hydrogen Strategy shows the water use by major industries. Their total water use is 10,450 gigalitres annually. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water That’s substantial. One and a half Sydney Harbours worth, every year. But it might be a major underestimate. After all, estimates on indirect water use differ widely. The government’s figures are at the very bottom of the range. For instance, the latest research gives water consumption figures of about 66 litres per kilogram – more than twice as large. Other sources give values between 90 and 300 litres per kilogram of hydrogen – three to ten times higher. Uncertainty in modelling is normal. But the wide research suggesting much higher water use should give rise to real concern. If we take a middle-of-the-range figure of 95 litres per kilogram, this would mean that making 15 million tonnes of green hydrogen would use up 22% of the 10,450 billion litres used by households, farms, mines and black coal power plants annually by 2050. If hydrogen was even thirstier at 310 litres per kilogram, that would translate to 72% of that figure. These estimates are enormous. Even under the most optimistic scenario, the draw on Australia’s scarce freshwater resources would simply be too much. Where would this water come from? Farmers? Groundwater? Environmental flows from rivers? As the Queensland Farmers Federation pointed out in its response to the hydrogen strategy, the figures on water use “beg the question if they are in fact sustainable”. The Water Services Association of Australia has called for much greater attention to the water demands of green hydrogen, which it says are “often seriously underestimated”. What about saltwater? Australia has no shortage of oceans. The problem here becomes energy and wastewater. Desalination is still very energy intensive. Converting saltwater to fresh also produces large volumes of super-salty brine, which must then be managed as waste. Which way forward? Does this mean green hydrogen is a non-starter? Not necessarily. Improved electrolyser technology might offer ways to slash water use, while circular economy approaches such as resource recovery from brine could also reduce losses. But these concerns about water must be front and centre in future discussions about the shape and size of the industry in Australia. Madoc Sheehan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Only three people prosecuted for covering up illegal sewage spills

Employees of water firms who obstruct investigations into spills could face jail, as new rules come into force on FridayWater company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine. Continue reading...

Water company bosses have entirely escaped punishment for covering up illegal sewage spills, government figures show, as ministers prepare to bring in a new law threatening them with up to two years in prison for doing so.Only three people have ever been prosecuted for obstructing the Environment Agency in its investigations into sewage spills, officials said, with none of them receiving even a fine.Officials said the data shows why the water regulator has found it so difficult to stop illegal spills, which happen when companies dump raw sewage during dry weather. The Environment Agency has identified hundreds of such cases since 2020.Steve Reed, the environment secretary, said: “Bosses must face consequences if they commit crimes – there must be accountability. From today, there will be no more hiding places.“Water companies must now focus on cleaning up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.”Water companies dumped a record amount of sewage into rivers and coastal waters last year, mostly because wet weather threatened to wash sewage back into people’s homes.Data released last month by the Environment Agency revealed companies had discharged untreated effluent for nearly 4m hours during 2024, a slight increase on the previous year.But companies have also illegally dumped sewage during dry weather. Data released to the Telegraph last year under freedom of information rules shows regulators had identified 465 illegal sewage spills since 2020, with a further 154 under investigation as potentially illegal spills.Britain’s polluted waterways became a major issue at last year’s election, with Labour promising to end what it called the “Tory sewage scandal”.Government sources say one reason illegal spills have been allowed to continue is that regulators have faced obstruction when investigating them.In 2019, three employees at Southern Water were convicted of hampering the Environment Agency when it was trying to collect data as part of an investigation into raw sewage spilled into rivers and on beaches in south-east England.The maximum punishment available in that case was a fine, but none of the individuals were fined. Several of the employees said at the time they were told by the company solicitor not to give data to the regulator.Two years later, Southern was given a £90m fine after pleading guilty to thousands of illegal discharges of sewage over a five-year period.New rules coming into force on Friday will give legal agencies the power to bring prosecutions in the crown court against employees for obstructing regulatory investigations, with a maximum sanction of imprisonment.Directors and executives can be prosecuted if they have consented to or connived with that obstruction, or allowed it to happen through neglect.The rules were included in the Water (Special Measures) Act, which came into law in February. The act also gives the regulator new powers to ban bonuses if environmental standards are not met and requires companies to install real-time monitors at every emergency sewage outlet.Philip Duffy, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, said: “The act was a crucial step in making sure water companies take full responsibility for their impact on the environment.“The tougher powers we have gained through this legislation will allow us, as the regulator, to close the justice gap, deliver swifter enforcement action and ultimately deter illegal activity.“Alongside this, we’re modernising and expanding our approach to water company inspections – and it’s working. More people, powers, better data and inspections are yielding vital evidence so that we can reduce sewage pollution, hold water companies to account and protect the environment.”

Indians Battle Respiratory Issues, Skin Rashes in World's Most Polluted Town

By Tora AgarwalaBYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most...

BYRNIHAT, India (Reuters) - Two-year-old Sumaiya Ansari, a resident of India's Byrnihat town which is ranked the world's most polluted metropolitan area by Swiss Group IQAir, was battling breathing problems for several days before she was hospitalised in March and given oxygen support.She is among many residents of the industrial town on the border of the northeastern Assam and Meghalaya states - otherwise known for their lush, natural beauty - inflicted by illnesses that doctors say are likely linked to high exposure to pollution.Byrnihat's annual average PM2.5 concentration in 2024 was 128.2 micrograms per cubic meter, according to IQAir, over 25 times the level recommended by the WHO.PM2.5 refers to particulate matter measuring 2.5 microns or less in diameter that can be carried into the lungs, causing deadly diseases and cardiac problems."It was very scary, she was breathing like a fish," said Abdul Halim, Ansari's father, who brought her home from hospital after two days.According to government data, the number of respiratory infection cases in the region rose to 3,681 in 2024 from 2,082 in 2022."Ninety percent of the patients we see daily come either with a cough or other respiratory issues," said Dr. J Marak of Byrnihat Primary Healthcare Centre. Residents say the toxic air also causes skin rashes and eye irritation, damages crops, and restricts routine tasks like drying laundry outdoors."Everything is covered with dust or soot," said farmer Dildar Hussain.Critics say Byrnihat's situation reflects a broader trend of pollution plaguing not just India's cities, including the capital Delhi, but also its smaller towns as breakneck industrialisation erodes environmental safeguards.Unlike other parts of the country that face pollution every winter, however, Byrnihat's air quality remains poor through the year, government data indicates.Home to about 80 industries - many of them highly polluting - experts say the problem is exacerbated in the town by other factors like emissions from heavy vehicles, and its "bowl-shaped topography"."Sandwiched between the hilly terrain of Meghalaya and the plains of Assam, there is no room for pollutants to disperse," said Arup Kumar Misra, chairman of Assam's pollution control board.The town's location has also made a solution tougher, with the states shifting blame to each other, said a Meghalaya government official who did not want to be named.Since the release of IQAir's report in March, however, Assam and Meghalaya have agreed to form a joint committee and work together to combat Byrnihat's pollution.(Reporting by Tora Agarwala; Writing by Sakshi Dayal; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

UK government report calls for taskforce to save England’s historic trees

Exclusive: Ancient oaks ‘as precious as stately homes’ could receive stronger legal safeguards under new proposalsAncient and culturally important trees in England could be given legal protections under plans in a UK government-commissioned report.Sentencing guidelines would be changed under the plans so those who destroy important trees would face tougher criminal penalties. Additionally, a database of such trees would be drawn up, and they could be given automatic protections, with the current system of tree preservation orders strengthened to accommodate this.In 2020, the 300-year-old Hunningham Oak near Leamington was felled to make way for infrastructure projects.In 2021, the Happy Man tree in Hackney, which the previous year had won the Woodland Trust’s tree of the year contest, was felled to make way for housing development.In 2022, a 600-year-old oak was felled in Bretton, Peterborough, which reportedly caused structural damage to nearby property.In 2023, 16 ancient lime trees on The Walks in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, were felled to make way for a dual carriageway. Continue reading...

Ancient and culturally important trees in England could be given legal protections under plans in a UK government-commissioned report.Sentencing guidelines would be changed under the plans so those who destroy important trees would face tougher criminal penalties. Additionally, a database of such trees would be drawn up, and they could be given automatic protections, with the current system of tree preservation orders strengthened to accommodate this.There was an outpouring of anger this week after it was revealed that a 500-year-old oak tree in Enfield, north London, was sliced almost down to the stumps. It later emerged it had no specific legal protections, as most ancient and culturally important trees do not.After the Sycamore Gap tree was felled in 2023, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asked the Tree Council and Forest Research to examine current protections for important trees and to see if they needed to be strengthened. The trial of two men accused of felling the Sycamore Gap tree is due to take place later this month at Newcastle crown court.The report, seen by the Guardian, found there is no current definition for important trees, and that some of the UK’s most culturally important trees have no protection whatsoever. The researchers have directed ministers to create a taskforce within the next 12 months to clearly define “important trees” and swiftly prepare an action plan to save them.Defra sources said ministers were evaluating the findings of the report.Jon Stokes, the director of trees, science and research at the Tree Council, said: “Ancient oaks can live up to 1,000 years old and are as precious as our stately homes and castles,” Stokes explained. “Our nation’s green heritage should be valued and protected and we will do everything we can to achieve this.”Currently, the main protection for trees is a tree preservation order (TPO), which is granted by local councils. Failing to obtain the necessary consent and carrying out unauthorised works on a tree with a TPO can lead to a fine of up to £20,000.The Woodland Trust has called for similar protections, proposing the introduction of a list of nationally important heritage trees and a heritage TPO that could be used to promote the protection and conservation of the country’s oldest and most important trees. The charity is using citizen science to create a database of ancient trees.The report’s authors defined “important trees” as shorthand for “trees of high social, cultural, and environmental value”. This includes ancient trees, which are those that have reached a great age in comparison with others of the same species, notable trees connected with specific historic events or people, or well-known landmarks. It could also include “champion trees”, which are the largest individuals of their species in a specific geographical area, and notable trees that are significant at a local scale for their size or have other special features.Richard Benwell, the CEO of the environmental group Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: “Ancient trees are living monuments. They are bastions for nature in an increasingly hostile world and home to a spectacular richness of wildlife. We cannot afford to keep losing these living legends if we want to see nature thrive for future generations. The government should use the planning and infrastructure bill to deliver strict protection for ancient woodlands, veteran trees, and other irreplaceable habitats.”Felled ancient trees In 2020, the 300-year-old Hunningham Oak near Leamington was felled to make way for infrastructure projects. In 2021, the Happy Man tree in Hackney, which the previous year had won the Woodland Trust’s tree of the year contest, was felled to make way for housing development. In 2022, a 600-year-old oak was felled in Bretton, Peterborough, which reportedly caused structural damage to nearby property. In 2023, 16 ancient lime trees on The Walks in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, were felled to make way for a dual carriageway.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.