In 2016, I graduated from Gonzaga with degrees in Political Science and Environmental Studies. Almost immediately, the Sierra Club hired me to work on forest issues in California.
Following a semester featuring two environmental ethics courses, I was frankly happy to leave the days of debating whether or not a tree has intrinsic behind. I was ready to enter the “real world” of pragmatic policy discussions and commonsense decision-making.
Then, I arrived in a state where 129 million trees had died in the past five years due to drought and beetle infestation. Massive fire seasons dominated national headlines and displaced thousands of Californians. In the most progressive state in the Union, legislators and bureaucrats alike called for the removal of all 129 million trees by whatever means necessary; hard-earned environmental protection laws be damned!
Contrary to intuition, dead trees are not, in fact, driving fire behavior in the West. The most destructive fires in California do not occur in the forests, but rather in coastal shrublands. A year after dying and losing their needles, dead trees are no more flammable than live ones.
Dead trees, particularly charred trees, play a vital role in forest ecosystems. The black-backed woodpecker, a threatened species, requires areas with large numbers of dead trees to survive. Additionally, California northern spotted owls like to nest in old growth forests bordering areas of high tree mortality so they can more easily see their prey as they fly (this phenomenon is aptly named the “Bed and Breakfast Effect”).
The science is clear. The ecological benefits are undeniable. So why are there prevailing calls to remove dead trees in remote areas that pose no threat to human lives? Because what we have here is not a scientific query; it is an ethical dilemma.
Does a tree have value after its death? Those who value a tree for its contributions to humanity would likely answer no. If a tree is no longer producing oxygen, it has no value in the forest. It ought to be salvaged promptly for wood products or bioenergy.
Those who value a tree in and of itself might also say that it need not be considered after its death. Alive, the tree had interests; it soaked up the sun, absorbed CO2 and drank as much water as it could so that it could be the highest and best version of a tree. Dead, the tree no longer has interests.
Finally, to those of us who see a tree as a part of an irrevocably intertwined web of existence, the dead tree has value where it stands and eventually falls. While it stands, the tree is home to crucial forest fauna. As decomposes, it is nutrients for wildflowers, native vegetation and new trees. In turn, the wildflowers nourish bees and other insects while the vegetation feeds herbivores who later feed carnivores.
A dead tree is not a valueless tree unless one views it as an individual or a commodity. A dead tree is an irreplaceable part of a whole, a component part of a complex web of being.
After graduating, I could not leave ethics in the rearview mirror. Instead, I headed full speed into a forest of dead trees, backward policy and conflicting values. The “real world” is not an escape from ethical dilemmas, it is where they matter most.
Zag Environmental Ethics Lab 
Thanks for sharing your thought process with us. I have been fascinated with environmental ethical considerations for decades–maybe since first reading “Should Trees Have Standing” in the mid 1970’s. Maybe you know of that book. It was a legal consideration. Pauline
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing. I love how after college and in your career, you needed to revisit a ethical frameworks from college courses. Sometimes I sit in class and wonder what value do the theories and discussions held are to my personal and professional life especially within core classes. Your story is a good reminder of how the Jesuit education prepares us to think critically and deeply about life around us. Our knowledge and practice gained in the classroom allows us to face the issues of today and the future.
I think that environmental ethics is very important now and moving forward as climate change continues to increase and more destruction of the planet occurs. There will be questions about what deserves value and what that looks like. There is no escaping the debate on who is in the scope of direct moral concern.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel,
Your post highlights ecocentrism, which we having been learning about for the past few weeks in my Environmental Ethics class. You explain how a dead tree has value within an ecosystem, though not necessarily as an individual. Therefore, it depends whether one values the ecosystem as a whole in how one treats dead trees. This is a great example of how one’s worldview affects policy. It sounds like your job provides you an avenue to consider both the basis for what makes one value something, and also the practical approaches to living out a specific ethic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because I am currently in Environmental Ethics and thinking about my personal ethic, this post was reassuring to read. As others have commented, I often feel like the theories that we discuss in class can seem unnecessary or trivial; I want to discuss pragmatic ways to make change and learn about ideas that are immediately applicable to real world issues. But as I read your post and as I have been thinking more and more about my personal ethic, I’m realizing that the theories that we discuss in class are the basis of every personal ethic that we each have, whether we realize it or not. I believe I also follow an ethic that is closest to ecocentrism, as I see each part of nature, including humans, to be one piece of a much bigger whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel,
I was raised in Southern California, and I grew up watching wildfires from my backyard. Luckily, there has only been one occasion when we were asked to evacuate; we didn’t and we did not lose our house, thankfully. Forest management means a lot to me because it can be the determining factor of whether or not people do lose their homes and even their lives. Around my house, I have often been concerned about the dry and brown brush that usually means good fire starting material. I have never given much thought to dead trees. I would probably have to say that once the tree is dead it has no intrinsic value; it does however have instrumental value to the animals, insects, fungi, and plants and those do have intrinsic value. I think if the science supports the conclusion that dead trees do not contribute to addition fire risk, then they should be left alone to be used by other members of the ecosystem. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ideas you discussed in your post really reminded me of the times I went camping in California as a child. On most of these trips I went on walks with the forest rangers and learned about the life-cycles of the forest and how each different part is home to different creatures. Even the dead trees are eventually broken down by decay, insects, and other animals. This period of breakdown is what fertilizes new growth in its place. There are some plants, such as the lodgepole pine and eucalyptus, that can only grow after their seeds have been activated by a fire. I would really like to find out about the outcome of this issue, and I hope that clearer heads will prevail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel,
I really enjoyed this post of yours for several reasons. First, I think it hits on a real issue that we are facing right now, which is the fact that many people seem to hold a worldview consistent with many aspects of capitalism. Many people, but not all, seem to believe that the minute an object, such as a tree, seises to have any instrumental value or monetary value to humans, then it must be replaced or destroyed to make room for something that can benefit us in some form or another. As an environmental studies major and someone who holds an environmental ethic closer to an ecocentric view, it is somewhat concerning hearing that my home state of California, one of the most progressive states in terms of environmental policy, failed to recognize the value of tree beyond their instrumental value to humans. Second, this ethical dilemma brings up the idea of systemic value in a great way. Humans tend to ignore the value that various organisms have to the entire system of which they are a part, choosing to focus solely on their function with regard to humans alone. What this does is give the impression that humans are not part of this system and simply a distant player in the game where we make the rules. Thanks for the post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
” If a tree is no longer producing oxygen, it has no value in the forest. It ought to be salvaged promptly for wood products or bioenergy.”
This truly represents an anthropocentric worldview- and that is ok! The only ethic we have learned about where dead trees would have intrinsic value would be ecocentrism. Ecocentrism is very broad and can be hard to wrap one’s head around, but I think you’re doing an excellent job. Very good that you’re applying ethics in the workplace!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Going into the article, I was expecting the content to focus more on the theoretical side of things but was pleasantly suprised that it mixed the two. The author detailed how he himself had preconceived notions of what working in the industry would be like and ended up surprised at the difference. He was surprised to find that politicians and officials were actually calling for trees to be torn down in some parts while realizing the enormous amount of trees that die each year in CA. Furthermore, I found it particularly insightful when he examined how the “theoretical” matters most in the practical world. In many ways, it made me think back to earlier readings where similar sentiments where mentioned and basically argued that theories can help shape policy as well as influence peoples decisions. It was refreshing hearing that from someone other than an author.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel this was such an interesting read as it plays into the current trends we are seeing with fires in Washington and California. This was a powerful line, “I headed full speed into a forest of dead trees, backward policy and conflicting values.” We are taught at Gonzaga to consider the ethics and moral behind decisions and as you talk about to think about how a you consider a tree in this realm. To read about how your experiences after Gonzaga shows how pertinent these ideas really are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel,
I always assumed that dead trees contributed to fire danger, so hearing that they do not was interesting. I know poor forest management has led to so-called “mega fires”, but it never occurred to me that dead trees were not a big part of this problem. We are taught early on in biology classes that live trees provide oxygen and dead trees and dead organisms in general are helpful because they provide nutrients back into the soil. The people who want to get rid of the trees seem to only be looking at one side of the benefit of trees-the living side. I hope that eventually people come to realize the other side of the benefit of trees.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This blog post highlights a very important issue in forest management today. The contradiction that a dead tree should be cut down because it serves no purpose is overlooked. Clearly, a dead tree still has a purpose to fulfill within an ecosystem. The complex relationships between organisms, mentioned above, illustrate why dead trees are valuable to keep. The other side of the argument is focused on the benefit that a natural resource has exclusively relating to people. This raises the question about how to measure the value of things within the natural world. For example, if people in the ‘real world’ only assess value by benefit towards people then they fail to see the value of nature as a whole and are entitled to exploit its resources. When you consider that there is value beyond an anthropocentric stance, then you are able to realize that maybe we shouldn’t cut all these dead trees down but let them contribute to a diverse ecosystem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve always thought of fallen trees as still having value and purpose in its ecosystem, but I never knew the true extent of this dilemma and think it is a very intriguing one. This makes me think back to all the summers that I would spend camping with my family and grandparents at Mt. Rainier and how we would hike the trails and see fallen trees all over. They would teach us that it was all part of the cycle of life and how they would become places for new life to begin and new trees to sprout. Never once did I look at a dead tree and see anything other than another piece that makes up the forest. It’s really disappointing to hear about the controversy these trees have caused and how so many people fail, or choose not to, realize their value.
On another note, I found it very interesting how dead trees over a year are no more of a fire hazard than living ones, I definitely would not have guessed that!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel, I really enjoyed reading your article. I really think you brought up some great points, which looked at the deeper valuations of trees. For example when you said “While it stands, the tree is home to crucial forest fauna. As decomposes, it is nutrients for wildflowers, native vegetation and new trees. In turn, the wildflowers nourish bees and other insects while the vegetation feeds herbivores who later feed carnivores.” I agree with your point that trees are part of a complex interconnected system that contributes to nature even after they die. This is something that has value, and in the case of trees, an important value that helps to sustain life and ecosystems. Especially when looking at political policy, this value should be taken into account.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Daniel, Fellow GU enviro major from California. I really liked your article and thought you had a lot of great points in there about ethics as well as your personal life after graduation. As someone who frequents California state and national parks it makes me sad to see the effects things such as drought and bark beetle have had on our forest. Pair that with all the fires we’ve been having and we get a real mess. Anyways, I thought you did a great job with your article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel! I love this story on how environmental ethics’ importance transcends the classroom and is important in the “real world.” As senior about to graduate in three weeks, I have been pondering whether or not I will continue to question issues like who does & doesn’t belong in the moral club. I definitely think that everything in nature plays a role in a broader ecosystem whether alive or dead, so I agree that dead trees have value. Thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you that trees, living or dead, need to be considered as a vital component of a thriving ecosystem, even if it does not directly impact humans. I think continuing to think and be aware about what has intrinsic value is important even when in the workplace. The flourishing of ecosystems is just as important as the flourishing of humans because everything is interconnected. Best of luck working at the Sierra Club!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel! Discussing the value of something that is dead may seem foolish to some. Death itself is a word that seems to have negative connotations that suggest uselessness and ending. You seem to understand that the death of a tree is more like its “mid-life crisis.” It is just retiring from one job to eventually be hired for another. This holistic view of life and death is missing in most ethical considerations. We tend to devalue things that do not interact or contribute to us directly. Your article is proof that this logic is flawed, for, even dead things have value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel, I really enjoyed this blog post. This is the side of trees that many people do not think of, how much they can add to an ecosystem even after they are “dead”. I remember a high school teacher of mine showed us pictures of what happened to her backyard when she stopped removing the dead leaves and other debris that fell on the ground, and the results were incredible. Over a few years, the yard grew profoundly greener than it had been before, because leaving these dead pieces of nature where they would naturally fall helped with the growth of everything else. As is the circle of life. I could not help but think back to that lecture while reading this post! Thank you for sharing your thoughts
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel, I really enjoyed reading your blog post. It is a healthy and comforting reminder of how our environmental ethic will continue to develop and be challenged beyond Gonzaga. I think your understanding of ecocentrism and the value of “dead” trees touched on a lot of relevant elements. More often than not, we tend to associate death as not only a negative but as the formal end of ones life cycle–and the same could be assumed with trees. Most people would view a fallen or decaying tree as a missed logging opportunity or a loss in economic value, but you are wise to recognize the high biological value a “dead” tree can serve to a forrest ecosystem. From a purely an ecological standpoint dead trees are critical to the long term, health of a forrest, providing ample food and shelter to many different species. Your comment on the cause/threats of recent California wildfires, also reminded me of the challenges we may face in acting on our own environmental ethic when it conflicts the popular, biased, or misinformed opinion.
Thanks for sharing and best of luck!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Daniel!
With my semester of Environmental Ethics winding down, I’ve been trying to figure out my personal ethic regarding my interaction with the natural world. I’ve been leaning towards the view of ecocentrism, which you touch on in your post, and finding value in the entire ecosystem and its species and processes.
When you talk about finding value in allowing dead trees to decompose in their places of falling so their nutrients can be absorbed by the ecosystem, I was reminded of another situation I have recently encountered. In the past couple of months, I’ve been learning about salmon restoration and all of the ways fish can impact their surrounding river ecosystems both dead and alive. Like trees in a forest, salmon also play an important role after they die by providing nutrients to trees on riverbanks who rely on these nutrients derived from the decomposing salmon bodies.
In class, we are now focusing on the systemic value of nature which I think is highlighted well in your post. In my opinion, these dead trees still possess intrinsic value in the way they provide support for the surrounding ecosystem and I think this needs to be taken into consideration in traditionally non-philosophical realms of life, such as forest management!
Thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Daniel, I think your analysis of the problem is spot on but you could maybe take it a step further! I would also argue there is an aesthetic value to living trees. That it is a common held belief that dead trees are a sign of ecosystem decline. I think your ecological statements/facts bring in a lot of great information that challenges what a “healthy” ecosystem looks like.
I am curious as to what you think should be done about the problem. Should we manage the bark beetles or should we let these selective processes play out without human interference?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel,
I am a California resident and I agree with your stance on the value of dead trees. They are too ecologically important to be removed by misinformed legislation. Having more information about the important ecological functions of dead trees would be helpful to inform the public and hopefully prevent further habitat degradation.
Thank you for posting!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Daniel,
As a fellow Californian and Gonzaga University Environmental Studies major, I agree with your stance that trees and other plants have intrinsic value whether they are dead or alive. Trees as you had mentioned play an important role in their ecosystems whether it be providing oxygen for our health and also providing a home for creatures in the forest. Over the summer I worked for the Conservation organization American Conservation Experience (A.C.E.), for three months on the east coast and had witnessed the importance that trees, both dead and alive had on the Appalachian ecosystem. Animals, plants and fungi from all different levels of the food web are dependent on trees for survival. Being from California, I have also been present for the stigma that dead trees are the reason for the increase in forest fires and our problem with smoke. This mindset as you have mentioned is not true and that the reason for the increase in forest fires down in California has been linked to the dry coastal shrublands. Thank you for you amazing post and I look forward to more of your posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi there! This is my first comment here so I just
wanted to give a quick shout out and say I genuinely enjoy reading through your posts.
Can you suggest any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics?
Thanks a lot!
My webpage BuddyTHiskey
LikeLike
Hello Daniel, as a fellow Californian I appreciate your determination to remedy the stigma that dead trees have no value. I live on a 4,000 acre sustainable timber farm that primary purpose is forest management and sustainable harvest, because I grew up in the forest I have always been interested in dead tree utilization. It is very disheartening to see biomass be wasted just because it doesn’t have the same carbon sequestration ability as a live tree. This idea of dead and dying biomass utilization I became very interested in biomass power plants, these power plants can utilize dead and dying biomass to produce power, by utilizing dead trees in this way it can help reduce the the idea that dead trees have no function.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Daniel,
As a fellow Californian I appreciate your determination to remedy the stigma that dead trees have no value. I live on a 4,000 acre sustainable timber farm that primary purpose is forest management and sustainable harvest, because I grew up in the forest I have always been interested in dead tree utilization. It is very disheartening to see biomass be wasted just because it doesn’t have the same carbon sequestration ability as a live tree. This idea of dead and dying biomass utilization I became very interested in biomass power plants, these power plants can utilize dead and dying biomass to produce power, by utilizing dead trees in this way it can help reduce the the idea that dead trees have no function.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel,
As a biology major your description of seeing a dead tree as part of the intertwined web of the existence reminds me of community ecology, which is the study of a community or how populations of different species interact with each other. This strongly reminds me of the point you are making as the tree even though it is dead still participates in the community and interacts with other populations of animals. I find this a rather compelling way of looking at the tree as the tree has a purpose no matter its stage in life, dead or alive because it is participating in the community, part of the intertwined web of its ecosystem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Daniel,
As someone who has grown up in the Pacific Northwest, forest fires and dead trees have always been a concern of mine. I am completely in agreeance with your opinion, and I am glad to see that there are other people out there fighting for dead trees. Trees die naturally for mainly two reasons, either fire or disease. (Yes, fire is completely natural and healthy). Just as most every other plant or animal that meets its end, trees return their nutrients to the soil and ecosystem when they die. In this respect, the dead tree still serves a purpose. Your post pushed me to consider not only the dead trees lining the forest floor or still as standing snags, but also the forgotten trees that have been removed from their ecosystem to be used as a product. Just as overfishing can reduce the nutrient return to a watershed, excessive logging can also result in a nutrient loss for an ecosystem. It is difficult for many to understand the importance of leaving dead trees, and I hope that your work with the Sierra Club can push the minds of individuals and integrate policy that both work to place an ecosystem value on dead trees. Thank you for the post, this was a really enjoyable read!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel,
I found your post very fascinating, and I agree with you that dead trees have their value because other plants survive on them, as you said. I also believe that very few people realize how vital dead trees are to the environment besides providing warmth in fireplaces. I also found it intriguing that most fires in California did not happen in the forests but the coastal shrubland, and I also found it interesting that it is just as likely for a dead tree as for an alive tree to catch on fire. I also believe after reading your post that if more people knew about these and other environmental hazards, we probably could stop a lot more of the fires.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Daniel,
Your post raised a lot of good points and got me thinking about my own environmental ethic. I think we as humans can sometimes have a very anthropocentric view where one wouldn’t recognize the value of a dead tree to others species, but would rather just debate how the tree could be of use to the human population. A lot of times we associate dead things having no worth because some think that with no life comes no value. But, like you, I agree that trees have intrinsic value themselves, no matter what services they provide to humans: whether they are alive or dead. My question for you would be, at what point should we keep these dead trees around due to their intrinsic value and the value they provide to other species versus removing the trees and planting living ones? Would this just be an action beneficial to humans or to the trees and other species too?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Daniel,
As a fellow Californian and Gonzaga University Environmental Studies major, I agree with you that trees no matter whether alive or dead have intrinsic value in their ecosystem. They provide not only important biological importance for their ecosystems but also aesthetic values for the surrounding areas and reasons to protect the natural lands. Over the summer I worked for the conservation organization American Conservation Experience (ACE) on the East coast and had learned the importance that trees, dead or alive, have in the Appalachian mountains and ecosystems. The dead trees are intrinsically valuable to be homes for animals like chipmunks, birds like woodpeckers and owls, and have been sources for fungi to grow from. Also being from California I have experienced people who have had the mindset that more dead trees should be removed from forests to prevent wildfires. Similar to you, I am disappointed with this belief in incorrect facts, where the main causes for the constant rise of smoke and wildfires are most notably the dry coastal shrublands of California. Again thank you for your post and look forward to reading more of your posts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Daniel,
It’s crazy how these environmental ethics teach us things that we will think about daily for the rest of our lives! I think it’s an interesting discussion concerning the intrinsic value of trees in forests, especially dead ones. Coming from California, when I thought of a dead tree, I thought of a fire hazard. I failed to recognize the importance a fallen tree has in its ecosystem. We often think anthropogenically, and how fallen trees affect our lives, like the increased likelihood of our houses being caught in a fire if a lot of trees fall around our houses. However, when you take a step back, you start to think about the value trees have for the environment. When a tree falls, it gives way for new trees or plants to prosper in that new space. Species can find shelter in the now-hollow bark, and decomposers will have field day on the rich nutrients from the tree. Also, when a forest fire happens, it paves the way for a new, stronger, ecosystem to follow. So, the next time we think about the negatives for forest fires or fallen trees, think about the positives too! However, when a tree falls due to XYZ reasons, it makes me start to think about Albert Schweitzer’s “Reverence for Life” ethic claims that “all living things have a ‘will to live’, and that humans should not interfere with or extinguish this will” (Schweitzer, 1923). So, with this argument in mind, should we not interfere with the course of nature with forest fires or parasites taken out forests even when we get affected? Interesting topic!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello Daniel,
I very much find myself having the same intrinsic beliefs when it comes to viewing trees, whether dead or alive, as a vital part of the complex web of life and the direct duty to consider their existence as such. A tree’s existence as a part of its environment is reason enough to consider its value, for it serves a purpose and function that benefits its surroundings regardless of its quality of life. Just like all other living organisms, trees also have desires for the sake of survival that humans tend to diminish or forget when discussing their biological significance, not just their aesthetic value. While a dead tree may no longer be concerned with these needs, it still improves the quality of living for other organisms that inhabit the area by providing shelter and nutrients.
LikeLiked by 1 person