Why Are We So Obsessed with Managing Woodland?

Woodland has always captured our imagination—wild, ancient, and full of life. Yet we don’t leave it alone. We manage it, constantly: planting, thinning, coppicing, clearing. This obsession isn’t new. For centuries, people shaped forests for timber, fuel, and food. Most UK woodlands today bear the marks of this legacy. They’re not wild; they’re working landscapes.

But there’s more to today’s woodland management than history. We’re trying to save biodiversity, store carbon, and fight climate change. Ironically, leaving woods untouched can sometimes harm the very wildlife we aim to protect. Many species depend on disturbance—light, variety, deadwood. Without intervention, habitats flatten, and wildlife disappears.

This week’s State of the UK’s Woods and Trees 2025 report underlines the urgency. Tree cover has crept up to 13.5%, yet butterflies are down 47% since 1990. Dormice have declined by 70%. Only 7% of native woods are in good ecological condition. It’s a stark reminder that planting trees isn’t enough. Without thoughtful, ongoing care, our woods are growing quieter, simpler, and less alive.

So what is the right level of management? The answer isn’t more or less—it’s smarter. Ancient and semi-natural woods may need just light, ecological touches: opening a glade, retaining deadwood, protecting veteran trees. Younger or plantation woodlands often benefit from thinning, diversifying, or rewilding over time. The ideal management listens to the woodland, responds to what it needs, and avoids unnecessary interventions. It’s not control—it’s stewardship.

So… Should We Be Obsessed?

Yes—but we need to shift the obsession from control to care. The goal isn’t just more trees; it’s better woodlands. Richer, more resilient, more alive. If we get that right, the obsession might finally be worth it.