Most reviews of this book have included the term "thought-provoking", in light of its argument that an open, treeless Highland landscape is nowadays its most natural form (and one unique in Europe), and that efforts to change, "restore" or "re-wild" - let alone "re-forest" - its vegetation in the interest of biodiversity are misguided.
Fenton is a widely travelled ecologist who has worked for the Forestry Commission, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the National Trust for Scotland (in 1991 as its first ecologist, and later as an elected Board member) and Scottish Natural Heritage (nowadays NatureScot). Now retired, he edits the Scottish Wild Land Group´s newsletter Wild Land News. This book therefore comes from an experienced and well-informed source, whose views challenge current governmental policy as well as much "conservation" opinion.
The book comprises five chapters, with no very obvious structure but including eight "photographic case studies" covering such topics as self-seeding Sitka spruce, tracks and roads, and the impact of a west-coast hydroelectric scheme. On the way, sections cover fencing, riparian woodland, peat, footpaths, gorse, windfarms and much else. There are many "notes and references", but no index, which makes it hard to search for half-remembered topics
Fenton´s main argument is that woodland has declined "naturally" in the Scottish Highlands for at least 4000 years, mainly due to changing climatic and soil conditions and to grazing pressures - from both sheep and deer, although the large numbers of the latter should be celebrated as a "conservation success".
There are some striking statements, e.g. "It is possible, therefore, that there is no such thing as montane scrub ... it is merely a theoretical idea hard to conceptualise in practice" (p. 45); "modern forestry ... is also one of the most damaging and irreversible practices impacting the land" (p. 93); "the carbon benefits of [peatland restoration] could well be minimal overall ... the whole process is another example of human intervention in naturally wild landscapes".
Having noted the failure of formal area designations such as National Parks, National Scenic Areas, and Wild Land Areas to protect the landscape from damaging development (and avoided the landownership issue), Fenton can only "imagine ... true rewilding, where the ground is not disturbed and the only other activities are the repair of the damage we have caused" (p. 175). Otherwise, "the landscape will continue to evolve in an ad hoc manner dependent on the uptake of government grants, and continue to be fragmented in an almost random way" (p. 169).
So, is Fenton "wrong" in being so out of line with ecological orthodoxy and practice? New planting (and "woodland established by natural colonisation, where known") of trees in Scotland during 2023/24 amounted to over 15,000 ha, an 80% increase on the previous year, and approaching the rates last seen in the 1980s. Publicly funded restocking amounted to a further 10,000 ha. Almost 20% of Scotland is now covered by trees (two-thirds of which are conifers), with a 1:2 split between FLS and private ownership.
Fenton points to the lack of "bog oak" (i.e. mostly Scots pine) less than 4000 years old as a sign of "maximum woodland cover" (p. 18) at that time, since when "the dominant open heath and bog have been around ... with human impact minimal" (p. 18).
Thus, nowadays "Scotland is a world centre for blanket peat" (p. 56), with its own forms of biodiversity, and its own processes of creation and erosion, some natural, and some "assisted" by human interventions such as drainage and re-wetting.
Clearly, it all comes down to "imagination", i.e. desire, which in turn depends on human perceptions and beliefs, some arising from "traditional" experience (whether in practice or from films, tourist brochures, etc.) of open "wildness", and some from science-based predictions of the consequences of action (or lack of it) in changing the "reality" of the Scottish landscape. How do the arguments for change - flood prevention, carbon storage, tree-based biodiversity, and reduced muirburn - stack up against the "do nothing" (or at least "do little", and certainly lower-cost and lower-scar) approach of allowing climate change and "over-grazing" to preserve a "unique landscape" - at least within Western Europe - with its open views and its own biodiversity?
The current proliferation of new tracks and deer fences, let alone other infrastructure such as masts and energy schemes in previously "wild" areas, is deplored by Fenton and by almost everyone else, except, it seems, some landowners and government departments. Perhaps we should take a stronger and more comprehensive approach, eschewing "intervention" however well-intentioned, in favour of letting a largely treeless landscape do its own thing.
Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.