Time to Concentrate on Urban Tree Planting

The flurry of great nature conservationists denouncing those tree planting schemes for the sake of tree planting is refreshing, but already ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ are many who have been responsible for such schemes as well as introducing a subtle twisting in the language to make it appear that we are all at fault.

The harsh reality for many conservationists is that private sector tree planting for amenity and private ‘conservation’ has largely been successfull, hence the growing importance of private estates and gardens in terms of biodiversity – but private tree planting schemes have been declining year upon year recently sadly. The success is not due to anything other than the fact that foresters and aroriculturalists as well as enlightened landscapers (and some farmers also!) have been using local provenance nurseries, planting with lots of open ground, using uneven aged trees, with clump planting where necessary, natural regeneration when possible and good ground preparation including extensive survey work. Land management practitioners do know what they are doing.

It is not the practitioners fault that chalara and the other huge array of pests and diseases are now loose in the UK landscape. I and I know of no other professional in the very small and diminishing still private sector for tree planting and associated specialisms who did not know exactly where their trees came from but we all suffered, particularly the small local tree nurseries and the plantsmen and women, at the same time as waves of mass imports of plants and wood products flooded in bearing hidden nasties.

The acceptance of the loss of local nurseries pushed out by garden centres and even supermarkets was always to have wider consequences beyond the lack of care and attention with regards the possibility of diseases – if you were to ask the average member of staff charged with the plants section of a supermarket or garden centre about Asian Long Horned Beetle, Oak Processionary Moth, Phytopthora ramorum etc, a blank stare was assured, and if shown a diseased specimen would try and classify it as something that could be treated by one of the numerous and useless ‘off the shelve’ products they stock. This is one consequence of the general disenfranchisement of land management practitioners, not helped by the long perpetuated believe by teachers and others that horticulture, agriculture, forestry and arboriculture were soft options and professions easy to enter for the ‘less gifted’ students – which is very far from the truth.

Additional problems were added by much spurious and widely publicised nonsense particularly from the far too insular UK gardening and countryside media and with a flood of rogue traders taking advantage of a weak industry it is no wonder that the general public have become far too comfortable in assuming that this industry is a cheap one – leading to lower and lower rates for independent professionals, a great many of whom have given up and moved abroad or moved into an another industry.

Therefore I would argue that all influences on the industry are too blame except the industry base itself and it is the duped wider public who inadvertently make the situation worse by purchasing cheaper, poor quality stock, by waiting to listen to their chosen celebrities opinion or by paying blindly into CO2 offsetting schemes or mass ‘conservation’ tree plantings because the voice of those who really do know has been drowned out, as with so many things now, land industry is like a swimming pool – all the noise comes from the shallow end, but this is disastrous for a science based industry.

And thus when it comes to major issues,such as pests and diseases, much is hidden from the public unless there is money to be made from it somehow. So unlike in France, where I am still reeling from the shock of actually being listened and paid well for my knowledge (not having to put up with the “Alan Titchmarsh doesn’t do it like that” comments) the UK continues to see unprepared fields of straightlined, even aged planting, where the trees are only upright because the tubex is used as a support and death rates are high because huge numbers of the trees have been planted too deep “to be on the safe side” – this type of planting is the result of trying to do it cheaply and ignoring site specifics. Thus the excellent studies and research from the UK, including that huge resource of material by the FC, is at least 30 years ahead of the majority of NGO planting schemes. Planting schemes which in themselves have helped towards the disenfranchisement of practitioners, not least due to the fact that volunteers are used well beyond their limitations. Planting schemes that we know not where the trees were sourced from.

There are many small scale NGO schemes which are fantastic; the ITF had an initiative where a decent parent Oak tree was sought, the acorns were collected and brought on by different people including schoolchildren and the resulting saplings given away at the ‘county show’ and many small local NGOs have similar intiatives, which work because they are local. And one cannot fault the Elms project by the Conservation Foundation, which is as much about research as it is about reintroducing the Elm into urban landscapes or the Trees for Life natural regeneration of the Caledonian Pinewoods.

Tree planting should never have been and can never be constrained to fixed national guidelines, as the FC and many in the private sector know – but the media ignore this fact and any organisation hoovering up what they can in the dismantling of the FC will be far too heavily aligned with the frankly useless UK general media (when it comes to any issues with regards land management it is only considered worthy of reportage if it is deep in the heart of a rural designated landscape) to bother to try and work to the absolutely essential methods of site specifics, particularly if volunteers will form the core labour in implementing any kind of work.

Tree planting should have been occuring in the peri and urban landscapes for many many years by now, instead it has been thwarted by all funding (grant aid and public donation) flowing into a huge array of ludicrous and self damaging ‘designations’ that litter our landscape as rubbish does in the canopy of a lone  roundabout.

It is the urban and peri urban landscapes where tree planting is safe, where experiments and research into diseases can be easily and often by default subject to easily quarantined zones, where pests are not as prominent and more easily controlled and where soils are already as damaged as they can be. And if finally the ideals of Ebenzer Howard are to be embraced then we need a solid and well respected land management practitioner base to ensure it can actually be implemented – but in the UK the thought of anyone having to actually pay more themselves towards the greening of the cities and towns has been well and truly demolished by the fat cat NGOs, who if considering case study from Europe and North America, are quite clearly the biggest block in actually getting trees that survive into the ground for future generations to enjoy.

A Boon for Illegal Timber Use and Increased Soil Sealing

The UK government are to relax planning rules for a ‘limited period’ in order to ‘boost the economy’.

Revitalising the Georgian suburban dream ties in very nicely with the Georgian economic mind of Chancellor George and maybe it is the greater emphasis of the ‘Great’ in Great Britain in a year it can celebrate itself due to the Olympics that has so easily persuaded the government that the UK is actually in competition with the rest of the world and building a Jerusalem to the exacting standards of Margot Leadbetter is what is needed.

In following the desperate bletherings of a thinktank employee, who has been put on the spot without reference material, these planning proposals further diminishes a flagging respect for what was ‘Great’ in Great Britain – reasoned intelligent progressive innovative thinking – based on scientific or academic research.

Total ignorance of any signed treaties or conventions and a blinkered PR reactive approach to policy making has always led to extra costs, not least because of protest (which costs the taxpayer hugely). When it affects what the English clearly have a passion for beyond the comprehension of its neighbours, its landscape – actual costs will be very high indeed. So to curtail protest, curtail the NGOs and instead threaten that landscape of England that is largely unprotected and heavily under researched as it stands anyway – the garden landscape.

The garden landscape is an increasingly important yet fragile landscape in terms of a sustainable future. It is a vitally important habitat in the UK, as it is both more common and prevalent than anywhere else in Europe. But it is a landscape that lacks a voice, asides from that of celebrity – and it would not be a great surprise if these relaxed planning rules had been born out of reviewing TV viewing figures during the period ‘Garden Force’ was on.

And for the boost to the economy by increased sales of magnetic signs highlighting ‘extensions built’ slapped onto the side of rogue trader vans, what will the cost be?

We are 177 days away from the new European wide legislation to tackle the illegal timber trade, which in turn seems to have upped its game to make the most of the remaining time left. What will the overlap be between the ‘limited period’ and the new laws – enough to ensure a large quantity of illegal timber is sourced to help create Osbornes’ conservatories?

Britain has, largely due to limited space, had an enviable reputation with regards soil sealing in comparison with all its European neighbours, as well of course because it has much greater threats from surface water run off contributing to flooding in built up areas. Risks to this reputation have been reduced by new law in regards the use of front gardens – is this why there is implicit information with regards the construction into rear gardens in the governments plans?  And soil sealing – the destruction of the most vital material on the planet towards a sustainable future for all is ignored.

Osbornes’ conservatories will become a legacy. A time when rational thinking was ignored and desperation ruled the day. A new landscape will be born, it will be an ugly one as good design and purpose is thrown aside. It will be a landscape that remains as a reminder of a time when Britain made one last stand against all sensible advice and not only replace Custer’s unenviable position or the ‘Charge of Light Brigade’ in literature but have the scars forever dotted across peri urban England.

Soil Smearing & Tree Mortality

I was going to title this blog ‘Big Buckets of Piss’, which whilst true is somewhat unsavoury to any British audience and is perhaps why this issue is somewhat off the agenda.

There are many huge threats facing trees in the urban environment and these threats are in constant competition with each other in terms of publicity in the twitter /blog o sphere and certainly in the general media. The percentage of young trees dying in their infancy is a statistic yet to be officially realised. But it is high, easily more than 50% when thinking about trees getting to an age where they can ‘go it alone’ and with an inherent ignorance of good maintenance procedure it is a percentage set to increase – perhaps as with most things until it is far too obvious and too late to reverse established funding the media will remain uninterested.

Soil smearing remains an issue that is hardly ever considered even within the development industry when considering the planting of trees and in an age which has replaced “if humans cannot do it a machine will” to a habitual use of machines for the most mundane of tasks, it is an issue which will remain a very common cause of infant tree mortality despite being easily solved.

The problem is simple; when using a machine or sometimes by hand digging without much care and attention the walls of the tree pit are smeared by a thin layer (sometimes quite thick) of clay. It is quite common to find at least a thin layer or deposit of clay in urban soils and the smallest quantity can be a problem if not identified. The result is an almost impermeable layer surrounding the walls of the tree pit. If the tree survives into maturity root systems can become compacted, roots unable or unwilling to penetrate the clay and this man made shear zone creates a greater risk of windblow. However many trees are unlikely to reach this stage.

Up to 20 litres of dog urine a week can be deposited at the base of a single urban tree. In times of drought the sheer quantity of urine is too much. The tree can be quite literally sat in a bowl of urine, the water content of the urine is rapidly evaporated or taken up by the tree leaving an increasing amount of deposits of the other ingredients of urine, which include: urea, creatine, uric acid, carbohydrates, enzymes, fatty acids, hormones, sodium, potassium, chloride, calcium, ammonia and magnesium in varying amounts. It is a slow death, which unfortunately has above ground symptoms similar to other recognised threats to trees. And the increasing volume of urine is an added stress for all trees in all urban and peri urban public locations.

It is not just dog urine that is a problem – some trees are unfortunately sited where the same damage occurs by excess human urine. Once when inspecting a replacement tree sited between a cafe and a car park, we were lucky that a local resident approached us and said that the tree was used as pissoir so frequently she kept her curtains facing the spot permanently closed. In this situation the cafe owner stepped forward to help by advising all customers as to the location of his WC. And British city centre trees face a weekend torture as revellers head home – A tree planted behind a taxi rank stands little chance of reaching full maturity.

The widely held myth that urine is actually good for trees and plants has to be changed.

Inadvertently the use of tree stakes and heavy mulching can help in alleviating this problem, but more often simply prolongs the inevitable. The gritting of roads and the depositing of other pollutants will hasten the demise of the tree and can lead to a misdiagnosis of the cause of death, which little helps if replanting is desired.

Soil is to a large extent prepared and able to accept urine deposits on a relatively large scale. There is evidence that urine actually ‘kickstarts’ chemical processes by certain organisms and altering populations within the soil – and having pockets of ‘urine tolerant’ soil zones provides a buffer against more extreme pollutants. Even in arid areas such as the Mediterranean countries, soil is able to mitigate against urine and further actually clean it and create a by product of worth to vegetation using the same soil. In the UK rainfall is considered enough to flush out urine and even salt from roads into the wider soils – but the massive problem is that the soil structure from modern development is simply no longer suitable to allow this.

And the solutions are easy, soil smear is certainly a problem accelerated by using non-professionals instead of qualified arboriculturists, landscapers or horticulturalists, because ‘good spadesmanship’ is the key. And together with providing methods of dispersing the urine by simply planting more trees for a start or the very effective ‘Canisite’ which concentrates and treats urine and faeces in situ, there is every chance of preventing any more damage or death to our trees.

The canisite is a little more complex than the more often built and frankly useless sandpit dog toilet, and the best designs incorporate phytoremediation planting to create a complete treatment system, with little maintenance requirements. (I cannot due to copyright explain the construction method here but please email info@europeantrees.com if you want a copy of designs).

Manipulating Tree Roots With Stones.

Tree roots are nearly always now regarded as a malfeasance to development, to a point where an over riding assumption that tree roots will cause damage to property is dealt with, even from a ‘pro’ trees point of view, by a need for separation and the use of substantial buffer zones is now mandatory.

This is frustrating to landscape design and a brake on realising the potential profits gained from trees in the built environment. But it is a very much a modern problem, due to modern architecture and the materials used. How much has the now generic demarcation between industries, (including the education, research and science related to such industries) in the UK encouraged a presumption always in favour of the richer and larger construction industry with regards trees in the built environment?

The protectionism of expertise is all well and good until it isolates progress through joint research and discussion. A tree provides an amazingly versatile material, a significant element of design and added value as well as an ally towards real sustainable development in construction – and yet the arb / forestry world and the construction world remain largely at arm’s length from each other in the UK.

Tree roots were manipulated by our ancestors across the globe as an integral part of construction and to ensure longevity of buildings way beyond our limited expectations of the life of a building, certainly those post WWII. In Europe, in the most celebrated of rural landscapes, evidence surrounds abounds to this fact.

Whilst the rhizosphere of a tree is one of the least studied zones of the immediate natural environment, the patience of our forebears in testing and understanding methods of manipulating tree root growth to add cohesion to man made elements in the landscape should never have been so disregarded as it has been.

Modern understanding of the rhizosphere is severely constrained mainly due to the huge costs of the work needed to expose the area to be studied (making an archaeological dig look like a monster truck rally). And waiting until tree failure to be able to study such areas is limiting with regards actually understanding the subsurface interaction pre failure.  There has also for far too long been an overweight favour of separating the action of roots from the soil it sits in, and even in urban or technosols the two are so connected as to render any separation of study almost invalid.

A huge bank of knowledge which dispels many myths and therefore unnecessary concern with regards the action of tree roots on construction rests with the practitioners. And a very apparent action of tree roots of which there is much evidence in historic construction (Dry stone retaining walls, Banked and Cornish Hedges etc.,) is that gravitopism is heavily influenced by the quantity and position of stones in the soil.

Dissect an older Cornish hedge with trees growing on it and the primary root system does not penetrate straight down into the heart of the ‘backfill’ material in the centre of the construction, but fans out on either side to follow the inside edge of the stone surface.  This does not, as many assume quite wrongly, lead to failure of the hedge it does the opposite. The lateral or secondary roots envelop the stones, pulling them together. The roots themselves are regularly ‘air pruned’ creating a stable root system which increasingly strengthens the whole structure of the hedge.

The true ‘Cornish’ hedgers used a small layer of soil between each and every stone during construction to encourage this process. And in the South of the County many of these structures became extensions of the productive land by using cultivated wild plum varieties (including black and red Kea plums and the very rare crystal plum as well as of course the obligatory blackthorn ). There are many who believe that some hedge constructions were designed to fit the root systems of particular trees and given the fact that these structures were developed over incomprehensible timescales in comparison with modern construction and clearly the result of long established knowledge of using local materials then such a claim is far from ridiculous.

Free standing and retaining dry stone walls are also protected by the nearby presence of trees, either above the retaining wall (with the same process as per the Cornish hedge), or at the bottom of the wall, where gravitropism is replaced by a yet to be classified root growth; the roots growing upwards into the structure of the wall.

There are many other examples of the use of stones to manipulate roots for both human benefit and to ensure the longevity of a tree. In the alluvial areas of France the placing of large stones inside the bare roots of a tree at planting is standard practice, particularly as staking is ineffective here (as it is in many places). And there are examples from across the world where the use of ‘Vertidrains’ (nothing more than a hole backfilled with small clean stone) attract tree roots providing not just an anchor but a useful conduit of water, oxygen and nutrients flushed by surface water run off into the hole. This practice helps in mitigation of drought and times of excessive rainfall and contrary to popular belief the vertidrain actually provides a much more ready supply of water for the tree despite being free flowing. The secondary roots will infiltrate and multiply in such holes to the extent where after a year it is possible to pick up the stones / gravel used as one conglomerated piece.

The exasperation that tree roots (from an existing tree or newly established tree) will quickly discover the area where services are laid and or where the zone immediately adjacent to foundations or other construction is due to the trees innate ability to source convenient areas of water, as per the Vertidrain principle because the stones provide a ready and constant source, the resulting problems caused are further compounded by the inevitable consolidation that follows all groundwork, accelerating the damage caused. This leads to too many trees in the UK being felled for what they do instinctively – What if they had been provided with more attractive and bespoke ‘facilities’ in the first place?

In the UK the standard methodology of the moment is either too much or too little:

Planting pits are often treated as though a bed for a municipal display of annuals, stones removed, new compost etc., The resulting root system is loathe to leave such conditions in order to anchor and supply itself for a long life, it will establish itself quickly and when it needs more space to spread its roots the surrounding soil is no longer suitable for the now acclimatised to perfect conditions tree.

Many other new plantings take the ‘you’d be surprised how rough the conditions a tree will adapt to’ belief too far. So long as the obligatory ‘tubex’ is installed the needs and desires of root systems are simply ignored. Death by soil smearing* is a contributory factor for a huge percentage of young trees and stones, gravel or sand can ensure against this unnecessary death easily.

The over obsession by landscape and garden designers (as well as in the minds of the general populace) that the form of a tree takes precedence, leads to the often wrong assumption that a symmetrical and ‘perfect’ form is a sign of good health and potential longevity. It isn’t and unless we get things right below ground as best we can we will continue to see both trees felled for no reason and tree death simply due to ignoring the rhizosphere completely.

 

*The subject of my next blog.

Lest We Forget – Forestry & Arboriculture are Progressive Sciences.

But this fact is far too readily ignored and the consequences are dire and already being seen.

The more we know about trees the less we know. Knowledge is power and without full knowledge the power with regards trees is readily filled by those with no knowledge at all.

The result is the substantial and unabated losses of trees in the British landscape, at odds with the huge database of high quality research and resources made available by a declining base of internationally recognised arboricultural and forestry experts.

Inconvenient truths (such as the huge percentage of losses of young trees and losses incurred through damage by pests) are deliberately unresearched or hidden in a race to become part authors of umbrella policies with regards managing all trees, forestry and wider land management.

Together with the UK media & PR teams badly ‘translating’ scientific research has resulted in many observers making generalisations unrepresentive of what is really discovered and removing science from a public interface with regards policy for trees, forestry and soil.

This is catastrophic now that forestry is too often percieved to be the same as deforestation. I would argue that using the definition of ‘Sustainable Forest Management’ or SFM, has disenfranchised real forestry as practised in many european countries as it links ‘forestry’ far too closely with illegal or unsustainable forestry, clouding certification and worst of all removing science from the industry. But we are stuck with SFM and have to start using it to our advantage.

There has historically been ‘bad’ science with regards forestry, plantations have damaged ecosystems. But this was carried out before science had identified the value of such ecosystems and was, (as is more than possible again now), the result of poor policy from government.

We are now at the stage when sustainable development & climate change issues could well be used to outweigh the ecosystem services value by way of offsetting schemes. The potential damage by allowing policy enforced by policy makers who are yet to recognise that sustainable development is not simply innovation but requires a study of when sustainable development was the norm in history and which shaped our cultural heritage, is enormous.

Forestry was and remains the primary ‘landscape’ science. A science that has to consider all other earth and social sciences in order to be progress. Much of this science is realised location by location in deference to the complexity and diversity of landscapes, this therefore needs a strong, secure practitioner base, who are listened to and not simply swamped by legislation or at risk from the removal of scientific thought processes in favour of spin.

The blatant abuse of some forested land, that under the charge of Network rail for example, or the miniscule fines imposed on those who ‘deforest’ in the UK is far too often ignored by NGOs – why?

Because it is unprofitable to do so until / unless such time as general media wakes up to it. The void is filled by the grass roots and in the meantime for the NGOs it is easier to sell any ‘loveliness’ which can celebrated rather than considered at the same time as we lose trees, lots of trees.

And this is my problem with the ‘forestry panel report’ it is simply unscientific and little more than a charter to extol more ‘loveliness’ for the NGOs to profit from. I have waited to see whether it would ‘kickstart’ a wider debate into forestry, but it hasn’t – it is seen to have done its job. The UKNEA, which is now used as a ‘blueprint’ for all Defra policy is heavily referred to in the reports’ text. But this is not science, it is economics and the use of the NEA by government is very worrying. The inimitable Si Jakeman,  gleaned from Nick Clegg his take on GDP+ following Rio on the RSPB blog – showing just how embedded offsetting has become in the minds of our politicians:

“The UK has committed to including natural capital within our system of national accounts by 2020. Botswana has pioneered this kind of thinking since the 1980s. The government calculates the cost to the environment from mining and then invests in other parts of the economy, like education, to offset the damage.”

Scary, very scary and yet the NGOs remain quiet, unlike when there is a chance to have a pop at ‘foresters’ which they seize with gay abandon using pre 1967 forestry policy as a base to do so.

England’s public forest estate, as the people wished and stated as such, will likely remain in perpetuity. But will forestry and foresters remain though? – that is far from ascertained, but a ‘woodland culture’ is impossible without woodlanders and science, which in the UK has slowed to a crawl, is at risk at stopping completely and becoming reliant on generic research from abroad – much of which doesn’t actually fit locality after locality in the UK.

Landscape is what you see, Terroir is what you taste. Together is Sustainable Development

Terroir is a French word that has been subject to much abuse by the English speaking world. It is often limited to the speech of wine enthusiasts, where its meaning is severely restricted to this one product of the land. Look beyond the confines of this purposefully pompous use and terroir can lead to an understanding of the interconnected landscape and help towards establishing real sustainable development.

Terroir existed and still does exist in pockets of the British rural landscape. It is the antithesis of modern land management as defined by the NFU, CLA and a host of other large mainstream UK lobbyists. And if embraced again in Britain and elsewhere would strike fear into the heart of Monsanto, Bayer and many other multi national corporations, particularly the food industry.

Terroir has been translated as meaning a sense of place and certainly it ties in with more modern concepts of landscape that cross the boundaries between Art and land management planning. But it is much more about the sense of taste. The French really do know about taste and celebrate it, live for it and terroir is in reality little more than the reason behind that taste.

Any ambiguity surrounding the English definition of terroir is because of the fact that there is a complexity of natural and managed elements within a landscape that are interconnected and which together create something tangible to human beings not just living there, but abroad that can be found in the taste of both wild and farmed food.

The geology, topography, vegetation, elevation, biodiversity, geography (including human), water cycle, climate, archaeology, cultural heritage, agriculture, forestry and most importantly soil in a particular location have an effect on what can be produced in that location. ‘Paysage’, the literal translation of ‘Landscape’ is what you can see resulting from this – ‘Terroir’ with no translation is what you can taste.

Any and all changes which affect any of the above in a location are thus only carried out after scrutiny of the science. If the science changes the French are often amongst the first to adopt a precautionary principle and ban. The installation of terroir into the culture helps as a highly effective buffer against biodiversity decline. However there is considerable pressure and financial incentives upon the French agricultural community by lobbyists to adopt practice designed by multinational corporations, a process which has been perpetuated by CAP.

Terroir is threatened by globalisation and trans-boundary policy making particularly by the EU – yet paradoxically is also aided by EU recognition of regional produce.

Imitating the produce of a location and producing it in another location, often in another country lowers the quality and the price – devaluing the original landscape (as well as reducing that imitating location’s ability to produce its own high quality product). When the French demand that imitation products cannot share the name of their location, this is because of terroir – how can you call a fizzy wine made in Spain, Bulgaria or England champagne?  Doing so defies the real logic of terroir and confuses every French person who has grown up comfortable with this word. When other countries demand protection of a product’s name linked to a geographical location it is usually solely due to economic protectionism.

Taste is vitally important if the non French speaking world are to broaden their horizons with the economic potential of a location. Why call a cheese made in the same way as that in the village of Cheddar, yet produced in North Yorkshire ‘Cheddar’? It is not the same product. And instead of using ‘food science’ to manipulate the product to taste the same, why not celebrate the difference instead of spending vast quantities of money to outsell very high quality ‘farm’ produced cheeses which have a unique taste and have chosen to celebrate the place it was made by rightly naming the product from it.

One product that exemplifies terroir in the UK and enjoys large revenue and status is Whisky. Many distilleries are now owned by multi national corporations who actually use the highland identity – its terroir – to sell their goods.  Is corporate ownership and terroir incompatible? No – and in doing so you preserve by default the bottom line of sustainable development.

Terroir is what the English speaking world define, but rarely understand, as sustainable development but with added benefits, because the most important factor of terroir is that it ultimately results in pleasure.

Terroir is to enjoy Sustainable Development

Wild Boar Silviculturists

Wild Boar in France are not an endangered species, their habitats face no immediate threat and their population remains relatively stable. But as trends in hunting have changed so has the woodland.

One big problem is that an increasing amount of hunting terrain is managed for the ‘tourist hunter’. These hunts are more often on sites of ancient semi natural woodland historically. But the management to ensure a lack of disappointment for a Parisien businessman paying considerable money has altered the woodland to a state that resembles a badly maintained zoo enclosure

 My son calls such woodlandscape ‘Africa’ and it is easy to see why. Large patches of a woodland, up to 2 ha are fenced in by camouflaged netting and the Boar are fed daily at carefully defined feeding points close to the comfortable high chairs used by the hunters.

The bored Boar have little space to migrate in and subsequently spend their days consolidating the soil and rooting out complete trees – particularly those of higher biodiversity value such as Oaks. The resulting canopied desert tends to be Sycamore dominated with absolutely no other ground flora or wildlife at all. The insect life tends to be solely mosquito’s and ticks.

Young Wild Boar – my apologies I am no Gordon Buchanan. 

Yet neighbouring woodland types, open and actually with a higher density of Boar per ha, do not suffer hardly any damage and yet are little more than scrub with standards. What is interesting is that the scrub is the favoured habitat for Boar and their activity is restrained almost in a way to ensure that damage is not just limited but actually managed, particularly surrounding their favourite wallow patches.

The Boar clearly manage open woodland to suit their lifestyle. When it is constrained the Boar manage the woodland to ensure a closed canopy where they are protected from the elements and in open areas they keep low scrub areas maintained to ensure   protection from not just the elements but to protect themselves from interfering humans.

Enter an area as in the above picture at your own peril.