For sale: Our lovely forests

[grannieonabike]

Can anyone explain this? I think I heard on the radio that the Forestry Commission is going to sell off the Forest of Dean.

(Also heard that the people of Dover are going to buy the Port, but that was better than Calais buying 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.

WOuld be nice if the Woodland Trust could buy it.

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.

Yes. Where's that little green man who protested against the new runway when you need him! I can see we're all going to have to camp out in the woods. Wouldn't like to take to the trees in this weather...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Thanks for the link, Isthreetoomany:
?There is a strong link between people?s ability to experience the countryside and their willingness to contribute and protect it. The worse access to the countryside becomes, the further the Big Society vision slips away."

And: "In a year or two?s time, when the true affects of these cuts are realised, Britain?s landscape will have already started to change. Paths will begin to become overgrown, blocked, closed off and walking will slowly become restricted to a few specially designated tourist destinations."

And for anyone concerned about livelihoods in the countryside: ?Access to the countryside is ... vital for the maintenance of rural economies ... £7.3bn was spent on visits to the countryside last year¹ but as footpaths deteriorate this figure is likely to fall."

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...

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

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.

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

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...

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

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.

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

I thought that was a bad thing.

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.

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!

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!

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.