Every forest owner knows the feeling when, walking through their forest, they see wind-felled pines, spruce trees overcome by disease, or oaks chewed by beavers. It is not a good feeling. But once the disappointment and anger have passed, a decision must be made. Should you act as a good manager, collect the damaged trees and stack them in the woodshed? Or do nothing, turn your head the other way as you walk past, and ignore the reproaches of visiting relatives that mushroom and berry picking in our family forest is becoming impossible because of the unremoved deadwood?

That rotting wood is necessary for various living creatures is written in ecology books. But how much? Surprisingly, in recent years, a fairly vocal group of people has emerged in Latvia who propose that deadwood and damaged trees should be left in the forest and that their removal is almost a crime. It does not matter that a small forest owner has to buy firewood with money and mushroom picking is becoming increasingly complicated. Of course, if it is supposedly so harmful to nature…

I clearly remember the mid-nineties, when we regained our family property and the generation that was used to heating the house with twigs and deadwood was still alive, because good firewood in the countryside used to be a great luxury. It was unaffordable. They believed that a private forest should look like a park, so that there is “ordnungs”. Therefore, all logging residues must be burnt.