For sale: Our lovely forests

Took my son + 9 friends to a paintball party in Scotland at the weekend.

The woman who runs the centre told me that when they started up they were only allowed one small unobtrusive hut. A couple of years later three more buildings had sprung up. Now they have got permission to build a castle and a Vietcong(?) type area in order to upgrade their facilities. In the middle of a small forest.

It suddenly dawned on me that the selling-off of the forests has been going on for years (it takes me a while to catch on). And it's happening because people like me take their kids paintballing.

I try to make myself feel better about it by classing paintballing along with sports like skiing or golf that also colonise huge areas of our beautiful landscape, and I do sincerely like to see people out in the countryside doing active things rather than sitting in front of their computers or Wiiing in the front room.

But - by building that Paintball Centre, and the large campsite nearby, and the GoKarting place down the road and the Sphere (?) thing that's just starting up, they are wrecking our wildernesses. If the forests really were wild, people could still run round excitedly firing paint at each other, and it would be much scarier and a fraction of the price. The whole thing cost me over £300 (mainly because of all the added extras that you don't realise you are going to have to pay for when you get there, in order to join in).

So who benefits? My son and his friends did this time. But their children and grandchildren won't be so lucky. I can't see that the locals get much out of it. The odd B&B, maybe, but that surely doesn't compensate them for the increased traffic on the roads and the loss of their lovely forest. The real winners are, and always will be, the huge nationwide company that runs these places.

Feel very about it, and won't go again

Bump

Petition is at www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests

Also the DEFRA map that classifies the forests is bizarre. The forest of bere near me is classified as 'small commercial' meaning it is one of the ones they are talking about selling/leasing first - yet it is certainly not a dark coniferous forest where no one goes. It has 2 great play areas, 3 car parks, toilets, picnic sites and BBQs!!

Funnily enough I've just been reading a leaflet all about the 'National Forest Project'. It's a quango sponsored by DEFRA and it's corporate statement is "working partnerships with landowners, businesses, public, private and voluntary organisations and local communities to fulfil the shared vision for the Forest". Sponsors include Lex Autolease, Alliance and Leicester, Jaguar, Severn Trent Water, Rolls Royce... it's a long list. Now that's not owned by the Forestry Commission and seems to be working rather well, good public access, commitments to sustainability etc.

'Sold off' is a very emotive term and I think it's being mischievously misused at the moment for political purposes

Chil1234. It's a pity we did not know that the Labour Party had sold off forests as well! In fact why was this not covered in the media, as well as this present proposed sell off?

Perhaps they will have a u-turn? Hope so.

Labour suddenly went all middle-class and tried to whip up a fight. DC appeared to say that there may be concessions. It was pointed out that Labour sold off several forests without a murmur and with no protection preconditions either (interesting). I still think this is being radically overblown.

Does anyone know how the debate on the above went in the Commons today?

Have a look here for latest information on the proposed sell off of the public woods and forests. Click on the 'latest news' heading on the right of the page. It covers many topics discussed recently.
saveourforests.co.uk/

Also look at these two for more information.
saveourwoods.co.uk/

saveenglandsforests.org/whats-the-score-2

www.fctu.org.uk/SaveOurForests/index.asp

The forests and woodlands are important places for the family and it would be a great shame if they were sold off and access restricted and the environment damaged.

That's not his drift at all. If public access is protected, it's protected. Same as public access is protected on footpaths and bridleways that cut through privately owned fields... we don't pay to walk a footpath. There are many other ways of making a profit from a forest - many of which are already employed by the Forestry Commission - and when part of a forest is being worked or rented out to shoots etc., then the public access is rerouted elsewhere because it is too dangerous to allow access. Not the same thing.

A different perspective being offered by Caroline Spellman is this one. There is a conflict of interest between the FC being the regulator of forestry and also profiting from its usage. As she put it... like Offwat also being in charge of selling water.

I saw yesterday, David Attenborough is speaking out about it. He pointed out, if private individuals and companies choose to buy stretches of our forests despite the stated proviso that public access must be protected - they must be doing so for profit.
So....If I get his drift, the forests would be privatised in the sense that public access would very likely be charged for. Geddit? the access would still be there, it's just that you'd have to pay for it.

A bit like the universities really - the 'public access' would become a chimera.

p.s. : Hello Grannieonabike!

Just read the article in an old rag I never buy. Must see if the Daily Mail will run a campaign on it, as they have a readership of over 2 million as opposed to the Guardian's 285.000. Well done to any paper highlighting the Government's enviromental vandalism!

Not necessarily. But the feeling seems to be either that timber companies will chop down all the trees and bugger off... or... chop down all the trees and sell the land to property developers. There is a balance to be struck between conserving ancient landscapes and making what are often neglected, unlovely bits of land (I'm a walker, I've seen a few) that no-one much cares about more productive and accessible. Farmers get incentives to set aside land, look after old hedgerows and have obligations to maintain footpaths. Planning permission is notoriously difficult to get approved in rural areas. In short, I would hope that timber companies, when bidding for the forests, would have to put forward proposals that went beyond mere cash on the table and included specific commitments to environment and community.

Cut down all the old oaks and whathaveyou and put conifers in you mean?

I thought that was a bad thing.

And a big part of what timber companies do is plant trees.... Yes, they cut them down again after a while but it's done on a rotational basis so there are woodlands of all ages at any one time. Takes years from planting to felling so plenty of time for us all to take a stomp in the wood.

Just found out a timber company is lined up to buy 80% of Devon's forests.

Shameless bump. Swathes of Lake District will be sold. New Forest too. Please sign the petition if you ever like a stomp in the wood, want your grandchildren to be able to make dens and go mountain biking...

Once their gone we'll never get them back.

And whilst public footpaths have to remain, land on either side could be fenced off, restricted parking/disabled access, no education facilities for schools or groups...

I have signed the petion, will never ever vote Lib Dem or Tory if this goes through.

Access to forestry commission land is already largely restricted to tracks, as even where you can access the trees they are so close together that you would need a torch and there is nothing to see anyway.

Forestry commission land is some of out least lovely forest, being planted for commercial logging.

Bumping this, as there was an interesting article here:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/22/poll-england-forest-sell-off?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

Such a high % of people being against the sell off...I cannot see how they think they can get away with the sales...

Problem with that is the rights of way dept in our local council always seems to have a backlog of investigations to get through. There's an interactive map showing where there have been problems reported and where the they have been fixed and it takes a long time to get anything fixed! I can see it becoming one of the first areas to be cut back. I don't ramble, I RUN! And I have reported about 10 infringments in the last year - getting so fed up of running 5 miles then finding that some bugger has planted crops right up to the hedge over a footpath or padlocked a gate.

Checking footpaths is a Ramblers' perennial. In true 'Big Society' spirit they have, for years, had outings to various places so that members can tread the less popular footpaths and make sure the ways are clear. Nothing new in that.

Although the government are saying that the public access rights will be maintained, the Ramblers Association are clearly worried about whether or not guarantees on public access will actually be maintained in practice.

Acording to this link, councils are likely to massively reduce their Public Rights of Way bugets and make many of their Rights of Way staff redundant...so it looks like there will be no authorities left to check up on whether the new owners of woodland are actually keeping paths open or not anyway...

www.ramblers.org.uk/news/Latest+news/When+the+cuts+dust+settles+Britain%e2%80%99s+landscape+will+have+already+changed

Well hurrah for that then! I didn't know the Forest of Dean had a National anything status.

I would still like the Woodland trust to get hold of some of it.

Who says...? The 'National Forest Park' status of places like the Forest of Dean are very specific about what can and can't be done with the land.