If a tree falls and govt doesn't hear it

LEAVE THEM BE: Fallen trees are a vital part of healthy forests.

There's a great meme going around that has a silhouette of a tree on it and says "Imagine if trees gave off wi-fi signals, we would be planting so many trees and we'd probably save the planet too. Too bad they only produce the oxygen we breathe."

It's a statement on our society's addiction to social media, available constantly via our smartphones, and I am a sinner. My iPhone does not often leave my side.

It's also a statement about how our priorities are getting out of whack - oxygen is a little more important than wi-fi, not that you would think it from the way we make decisions.

And the latest decision that reflects our confused approach to what matters is the proposal to allow the salvaging of fallen logs from West Coast public conservation lands.

This week Minister of Conservation Nick Smith was to push through legislation under urgency to allow loggers to access some of the trees knocked down during April's cyclone.

Maybe that seems like not a big deal to some readers, especially when you're reassured that the national park lands are not included so it's lower category protected areas up for grabs - and only portions of those. Plus there will be controls applied to avoid wider damage.

So what's the fuss? It's only a few dead trees right? Not to me.

How do people think forests work? Those annoying fallen trees just get in the way, mess up the forest floor? Is it wasteful to let those lovely native timbers just rot away?

But, in fact, fallen trees are a vital part of healthy forests. Regeneration depends on these trees contributing to the soil - a fundamental as critical to our survival as oxygen and water.

Dead trees are a valuable part of the bush - they are homes for all sorts of living things, they provide shelter for seedlings growing through the gaps created when trees fall, and they are food for forests, the nutrients needed to keep forests healthy.

So then what about the argument for supporting the economy, particularly on the Coast - do we have to give and take sometimes to support people needing jobs? Yes of course, we need to find a balance. This is not the way.

The legislation is being pushed through under urgency, which means no opportunity for public consultation and examining the issues involved.

It is a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off event. What does it mean for the next major storm, or the one after that?

Protecting the native forests of the West Coast was a long rigorous process that involved $120 million of compensation paid to Coasters in 2000 to support the transition. This is a step backwards.

There are concerns too that the timber to be taken from protected areas would swamp the small existing native timber market and hurt the existing certified sustainable operations on private land. I don't even know if the cost-benefit for logging has had a chance to be fully examined given the high standards that will need to be set around access, with helicopter use likely to avoid wider damage.

Using urgency isn't the right way to change a hard-fought battle over native forest protection.

With the Department of Conservation's tagline of "conservation for prosperity", maybe logging on public conservation land is the way of the future - and let's not talk about mining. That's not the future I want for my protected areas - leave the logs where they fall.

The people of Whanganui stood up for the century-plus old plane trees on Taupo Quay but they along with other New Zealanders do not get a chance to have their say this time.

Nicola Young is a former Department of Conservation manager who now works for global consultancy AECOM. Educated at Wanganui Girls' College, she has a science degree and is the mother of two boys.