I wish they would just say this was a safety issue rather than trying to make it sound like ecological restoration. I can't think of any good ecological reason for removing dead trees. They provide excellent cavity nesting habitat, help shield more intact forest from edge effects, and help block views of the causeway (and noise) from trails. As for the safety reason, I feel this wasn't adequately explained. Most of the hemlocks had sound wood. I imagine it would take years for pathogens to break it down, during which time the standing trees would provide the above benefits. Danger trees are constantly monitored and dealt with in stanley park. Why then did thousands of recently killed trees have to be removed all at once rather than dealing with them as they became a danger?
I wish they would just say this was a safety issue rather than trying to make it sound like ecological restoration. I can't think of any good ecological reason for removing dead trees. They provide excellent cavity nesting habitat, help shield more intact forest from edge effects, and help block views of the causeway (and noise) from trails. As for the safety reason, I feel this wasn't adequately explained. Most of the hemlocks had sound wood. I imagine it would take years for pathogens to break it down, during which time the standing trees would provide the above benefits. Danger trees are constantly monitored and dealt with in stanley park. Why then did thousands of recently killed trees have to be removed all at once rather than dealing with them as they became a danger?