to think no one should own land and ignore a sign saying private woods

[mls3]

Ok o will probably get flamed here.

But there is a badly managed woods near me with am old broken sign that say private woods. Aibu to collect a few broken branches for the wood burner? I know it is stealing, but this woods is overgrown and I'm thinking how unethical it is for anyone to own land.

Land used to all be free, until someone carved it all up to hoard for themselves. If land was still free now maybe we wouldn't have to all be working such stupid hours wasting our lives doing a job we don't like.

that is amusingly hypocritical of OP

let's all traipse through her garden looking for stuff to burn, unless it's padlocked and clearly marked 'PRIVATE PROPERTY, GET OFF'

Oh dear, op is on the ropes.

Thanks iK8 There is rather a lot to summarise. ;)

If the OP has a garden can she not just grow her own sticks? A couple of metres will sustain bamboo. Is that not a solution.

Exactly, Evans. I shall have to come in for updates on the half-hour.

And Trevor, the issue seems to be that the OP has no idea if the landowner is making use of the land or not. Shooting woods? Wildlife habitat? Either can look a right shambles.

Not read whole thread...

But you might get a different answer from Scottish mumsnetters due to the "right to roam" legislation up here, which I completely agree with.

So you are allowed to access to so called "private" land provided you aren't causing a nuisance. You just wouldn't have a "private woods" sign up here.

I also agree that woodland needs managed, so on that basis I probably would help myself to the odd log but I would watch my back!

Op - I hope you have made your bed this morning, because if you are not making use of it as I deem fit, I shall be coming to take it.

K. Thanks. Bye

No, Mitchy - even if it is signposted Private Property, it is still OK for us to go in and take what we want, as long as we judge it to be not maintained to our standards.

Oh - and I note that mls3 has yet to tell us what qualifications and experience she has that allows her to decide whether woodland is being poorly maintained - or whether, as someone has suggested, she is just displaying the ignorant opinions of a townie who doesn't know much about the countryside.

oh yes, forgot about the arbitrarily defined acceptable standards of maintenance what a dick I am at times :(

This reminds me of the time I got into Allotment Gate. My prize winning pumpkin was nicked by another plot holder because he thought it was just about to "Go over and it would be a shame to waste it." Still, it wasn't really mine anyways, what with it belonging to the Crown or 1% or someone else. I am just off to Waitrose to redress this balance. If I am arrested Viva La Resistance!

But what about the

Actually woods do need managing in order to encourage wildlife. If you just let anything grow wherever it wants you tend to find that certain invasive species take over. Which isn't always good for wildlife.

Finally someone with some knowledge on woodlands shows up! Said woodland is very badly managed with lots of non native conifers that are very bad for biodiversity.

Don't beat yourself up, Mitchy - it is easy to miss the odd fact or two amidst the confusion of the OP's 'logic'.

Well, the OP has got a serious point (although I think that it could possibly have been expressed better).

Back in days of yore, your average medieval peasant actually had far more rights to land than we have now. A great deal of land in this country was held as common land- usually owned and maintained by villages, so peasants were able to maintain a reasonable lifestyle by using it for grazing, forage for pigs, and of course collecting firewood. There was a great deal of legislation regarding what kind of wood you could take, and from where. I think that the peasantry also quite often had rights to graze/ collect firewood on the lord's land too.

Then came the enclosure act, in the 18th century. The powerful wanted all this common land for themselves- so they simply took it. Tenants were evicted and deprived of their livelihood- which was an added bonus for the rich, as they now had an endless source of cheap labour, with no alternative but to work for poverty wages.

(There are still a few commons around. We used to get all our firewood from our local common when we were kids)

"The law shuts up the man or woman/ Who takes the goose from off the common./ But leaves the greater villain loose/ Who takes the common from the goose". Indeed.

So,in a sense the OP is sticking it to the man- one twig at a time!

Certainly, now that wood is growing in popularity as a fuel (potentially very good news, as it's carbon neutral) I think the debate needs to be opened up afresh. However, you could get pretty cold waiting for any new legislation/ clarification of old laws to be introduced!

I think if we could go back to medieval times we would be surprised at what woods looked like. Most of them (I think with the exception of Royal hunting forests) were quite heavily managed- coppiced and pollarded for fuel and other uses, and kept quite clear of scrub for forage- and by all accounts, they were very rich in wildlife. If you're interested in this kind of stuff "Wildwood" by Roger Deakin is a wonderful book.

I would love to see new woods being planted, to be pollarded for use as fuel. It's a pet subject of mine (you'd never guess, would you?)

And, by the way, Necesito Dormir, I think you warrant a fail at history too...

'Finally someone with some knowledge on woodlands shows up! '

That was very rude, given that the thread is absolutely full of people who know woodlands have to be managed. Some of them even own and manage them themselves....

thanks SDTG

but op there is NO positive duty for any landowner to encourage biodiversity, the benefits of woodland management are many and varied but as far as I know no law in England specifically compels anyone to undertake it or risk forfeiting their rights to the land entirely

Oi StubbornStains, I've already quoted that goose poem!

This is my favourite kind of thread. One where the OP continues posting absolute barking nonsense, to the amusement, amazement and horror of the readers.

You do realise there are several woods in the country, and as such, not all will be like the one op perceives, with her ignorant eye? (Ignorant not in terms of insult, but in terms of knowing what is being looked at).

It is good somebody with woodland management came on op, because there was none in your posts.

duh, just seen you put 'indeed'. Sorry

Reposts informative link for OPs information about non native species....

sticking it to the man- one twig at a time!

That is my new favourite saying. Don't worry, I will keep it tidy so as nobody can come along and nick it.

Finally someone with some knowledge on woodlands shows up

You mean the badgers immediately above your post yes?