For sale: Our lovely forests

Yes. I do appreciate that the countryside as we know it is far from natural. I find it really irritating when people assume that the general public don't understand that!

That doesn't mean that when one landowner who has been largely beneficial in general terms, sells the land on, we shouldn't be concerned about the consequences. Who's to say it won;t be built on, developed as a private 'country park', turned into a golf course?

I suspect as long as public access to footpaths is protected this is a storm in a teacup. The public enjoyment of forests will not change and commercial production may be better and the country gets much needed money. Ancient forests could be protected.

Most open space is farmed in the UK and that is largely private and no one seems to worry too much about it. Chil1234 is right. Most of what we regard as beautiful contryside is in fact managed and heavily so. Indeed, place slike the Yorkhire Dales would be covered in trees and the beautiful vistas there would not exist without sheep nibbling the small tree seedlings off.

The problem with the Woodland Trust is that they do not have any experience of managing woods sustainably, i.e. they are not providing wood for the timber industry, paper etc. Nor are they experienced at managing land for public access - woods are left alone which may (to some extent) be good for certain wildlife. But the Wodland Trust would not have the funds to manage paths etc for public access - at least not unless they were given large amounts of money which would seem to defeat the point of selling the FC! I doubt that any non governmental organisation will be able to manage the woods keeping 'everyone's interests' in mind (i.e. timber industry, taxpayers' recreation, wildlife) as well as the FC does.

The Woodland Trust are quite exicted about this sell-off apparently since they and other conservation groups are hoping to acquire more to take care of. Which would be a good thing.

WOuld be nice if the Woodland Trust could buy it.

You mean like Labour backed down on Iraq? I signed that petition last week but not hopeful about governments actually taking notice of the people they are supposed to serve.

trots off to look in Private Eye to see who the government advisers were on this debacle

"Why do they 'have to provide income for local communities',"

I think you have a touchingly naive view of what 'the countryside' is for if you think it should just sit there doing nothing while we trip through it with our rucksacks picking daisies. Landscapes may look empty and unmanaged but someone is out there fixing the dry-stone walls, tending to woodland, clearing ditches or rearing pheasants for the shoot - to make a living. We live on a small island. True wilderness is scarce because it's unproductive.

I would think 'Go Ape' type activities are exactly the sort of development a private owner would go for. You already have to pay for those, and for car parking at large FC amenity sites, not to mention expensive bike hire if you've not brought your own. Not sure much would change - rights of way remain rights of way.

I think it's a terrible idea. I was looking at going to a FC cabin in place of a Center Parc "experience" and was thinking how can I afford it or is it worth it. I doubt it would be cheaper or in better taste if run completely privately.

I like the Alice Holt place too. I don't think a small charge would deter too many people, it's not a local place, you pay a lot in petrol anyway. It's whether it would exist at all in the future.

Any plans on selling off the air we breathe? I bet you they're working on it.

Aside from the woodland itself, there are a couple of excellent forestry commission sites near me that are great places for 'days out'. Alice Holt in Surrey has a Go Ape course and lots of play equipment, play trails etc. - for children of all different ages. There is also a newer site at West Wood in Wickham. The play equipment seems to be something the forestry commission have focused on much more in recent years.

I wonder what will happen to those, whether they will be preserved/maintained/expanded on? And also whether they will continue to be free to access? The government has already withdrawn the PlayBuilder funding for local authorities to build playgrounds, so there may end up being very little in the way of free-of-charge outdoor play places for children. And we keep hearing how children are becoming more obese...

The forestry commission made what we can see now were mistakes - their original remit was, I suppose to be a nationalised timber industry, not a conservation and leisure organisation. That was their 'expertise'. I don't think private owners would be allowed to perpetuate that.

Woodland that remained in private hands or the NT tended not to be intensively farmed in this way. Quite a lot of it is in National parks, AONBs etc and is well protected, with lots of public access, rights of way often supplemented by permissive paths.

I love walking in woodland, and while the Forest of Dean is OK in places, it really isn't a patch on lots of non-FC woodland.

You're forgetting planning permission... No-one can 'build holiday villages all over the place' in a National Forest or Park. Places like the Lake District or the Forest of Dean are not preserved in aspic - they have to provide income for local communities. That's always been the beauty of the system... we don't just throw a fence around them, put up the 'keep out' signs and leave it to the squirrels. They are working, living, breathing, maintained landscapes with farms, timber production, tourism and other businesses.

It might even be a good thing. A lot of forestry commission land is frankly a blot on the landscape, non-native trees with nothing living underneath. I don't see how private owners could do much worse, TBH. If any ancient woodland has escaped their timber production, it'd be better off in the hands of e.g. the National Trust - they own a lot of our real 'lovely forest'.

Although they've got better nowadays about not just planting conifers in straight rows, if its Forestry commission land we're talking about not much of it is 'lovely forest'.

Parts of the Forest of Dean are nice but quite a lot is dank conifers. I'm not sure much of it is 'ancient woodland'.

I'd be horrified if they were flogging the coombes of Exmoor, for example - but those are probably privately owned anyway, and covered in public footpaths.

There are some pretty ancient rights of way across private land. It's not quite the same as 'free access' - random wandering about can damage crops etc. - but footpaths and bridleways and various other waymarked routes are usually kept clear for walkers and other visitors to the countryside. When it comes to commercial timber production landowners will occasionally reroute a footpath around an area they're about to fell or replant.

Why should you have 'free' access to private land?