Forest sell-off

[Amarillo]

Originally Posted by RoyW

The assumption of the majority of the contributors seems to be that it is a foregone conclusion that Forestry Commission land that is sold will automatically end up in the hands of owners that will not take into account the interests of wildlife, and will seek to limit access to the public, or will "destroy" the woodland.

The fact that many of the potential private owners that would manage these woodlands in a way that is sympathetic to the wildlife and/or ensures that open access remains may not be able to raise the funds to buy and maintain the woodlands is potentially worrying - but until the actual details of the proposed sales (including details of the areas to be sold, and conditions of sale) are made available how can anyone be certain that there will be a negative effect?

RKB's argument is an interesting one, an angle I hadn't considered on this before.

But while it may be the case that some woodlands are better managed for wildlife in private ownsership than in public, why take the risk?

In my view, the transfer of things from public to private ownership has generally been a bad thing and I see no reason why the forests would be any different. Private companies are all about profit and the best way to make profit from a forest isn't managing it for wildlife.

[animartco]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Poaching might, I suppose, be regarded as a crime against wildlife. It is not a "wildlife crime." A person indicted for poaching may be prosecuted under property legislation, criminal trespass legislation, behaviour liable to cause . . I try to avoid this subject, but I shoot rabbits and game birds. I do so on land where I have written permission from the landowner/leaseholder. If someone lacking such permission were to take similar quarry on that same land, he or she would be poaching. Apparently I must repeat myself. Poaching is theft. It is not a "wildlife crime" in British law and anyone who so describes it needs a reality check, regardless of how many capital letters they use in their annual reports.

Hi STrybjorn,
Thought I'd answer yours although there are loads of guilty parties. This thread ha been hijacked by what should be a seperate thread on poaching.
Aren't we supposed to be examining the pros and cons of the sell-off as it affects wildlife?
I would like to hear what people think will happen to these sold off forests. It is most unlikely that they will remain forests. Housing was suggested, but that wouldnt take up quite the vast amount of land in our forests. I will just make one or two suggestions pretty please? Some private woods around here are put to one of two uses. All weather leisure centres with huge covered complexes and hundreds of pretty wooden chalets; or playgrounds for off road vehicles. There is a growing demand for this latter use. Obviously both uses are inimical to wildlife.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by animartco

Hi STrybjorn,
Thought I'd answer yours although there are loads of guilty parties. This thread ha been hijacked by what should be a seperate thread on poaching.
Aren't we supposed to be examining the pros and cons of the sell-off as it affects wildlife?
I would like to hear what people think will happen to these sold off forests. It is most unlikely that they will remain forests. Housing was suggested, but that wouldnt take up quite the vast amount of land in our forests. I will just make one or two suggestions pretty please? Some private woods around here are put to one of two uses. All weather leisure centres with huge covered complexes and hundreds of pretty wooden chalets; or playgrounds for off road vehicles. There is a growing demand for this latter use. Obviously both uses are inimical to wildlife.

As you say, leisure centres. Clear felled by timber companies. Note that the suggestion that they would need planning permission is specifically negated by Pickles's weakening of planning consent rules. Clear felled for yet more golf courses. Deer shooting. The wild boar population of the Forest of Dean could take a sudden downturn, as could that of East Sussex. Then there is the fact that owners of game-bird shoots don't like raptors one little bit. They are notionally protected but proof would be very difficult if a private forest owner had a nod and a wink agreement with Lord Ponsonby-Smythe (family motto "if it moves shoot it"). Note that I could be said to have an interest here. I am a field shooter. I am arguing against what I might be expected to support.
That's a few to be going on with.

Ric.

[Richard G.]

Originally Posted by animartco

All weather leisure centres with huge covered complexes and hundreds of pretty wooden chalets; or playgrounds for off road vehicles. There is a growing demand for this latter use. Obviously both uses are inimical to wildlife.

Really? I'd say Center Parcs do a pretty good job of creating and maintaining good wildlife habitats, though access is another question.

Also, there is no reason why organisations such as the National, Woodland or Wildlife Trusts cannot enter the bidding process, if they feel they are best placed to protect or manage the land being disposed of.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Richard G.

Really? I'd say Center Parcs do a pretty good job of creating and maintaining good wildlife habitats, though access is another question.

Also, there is no reason why organisations such as the National, Woodland or Wildlife Trusts cannot enter the bidding process, if they feel they are best placed to protect or manage the land being disposed of.

except funding - and the fact they can expect 2/3 of the land for sale to come their way anyway.

bottom line tho is that the assumption that the forestry would be cleared is flawed - for a start the main reason to invest in woodland is the tax shelter benefit and you dont get that if you clear fell it - and secondly the asumption that the honeypot sites will be on the sale list is equally flawed, those are the sites most likely to break even, the ones that make the biggest loss are the crappy sika spruce blocks in the back of beyond, and those are not likely to be an attactive destination for holiday parcs, and also lack the infrastructure necessary to build such

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by animartco

Hi STrybjorn,
Thought I'd answer yours although there are loads of guilty parties. This thread ha been hijacked by what should be a seperate thread on poaching.
.

i'll respond to the detail in a minuite once ive stopped rolling on the floor lauighing at the enormous irony of animartco criticising anyone else for thread hijacking (this from the person who wrote pages of rubbish about dormice on a thread about frogs, one of many many examples)

[Richard G.]

Originally Posted by eeyore

except funding...

Ah, well that would depend on how much they want to "save it for the nation".
<Brueghel appeal clicky>

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Richard G.

Ah, well that would depend on how much they want to "save it for the nation".

and how cheap they can get it granted

however my point was that as charities and community groups are expected to get 2/3 of the Fc disposal at a peppercorn but without grants for ongoing maintenance (and in the case of the large charities to also pick up the NNR portfolio on a similar basis)

it is unlikely that they will put their limited funds into competitive bidding with investment companies etc for the other 1/3 - particularly if this 1/3 does not include honeypot sites

[RKB]

Here's some facts and figures [culled from Newsnight last night, FC report http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/niengland.pdf/$FILE/niengland.pdf and the 38 Degrees website]:

The proposals affect a potential max of 22% of English woods, minus the 'Heritage Woodlands' of Forest of Dean, New Forest etc.

Almost all (c.95%) broadleaved native woodland will not be affected in any way, either because it is exempt (see above) or it is already in private hands.

Almost all (c.95%) of the woods affected are non-native conifer plantations.

Coniferous woodland is not native to England.

Around half of FC woods are not accessible to the public.

Native woodland increased by 36% between 1980 and 1998, and 86% of this increase was due to private owners planting native woodland.

In 1998 (latest figures) private owners held more than half of all conifer plantations, and planted 42% of the conifer woodland planted since 1980. [so if they wanted woods to fell for timber, they already own half of it themselves, yet they haven't felled it and were even planting more].

0.7% of private owners of English woods are timber companies.

47% of private owners are 'personal owners'. The rest are businesses (farms, Centre Parcs), charities, community groups, local authorities etc.

The union of FC staff is a donor to the Opposition.

The campaign against the proposals is being led by 38 Degrees, who suggest on their 'About Us' page that "Some people might call [our] goals ‘liberal’, 'left-of-centre' or ‘progressive’." The Govt is a centre-right coalition.

The in-studio critic of the proposal on Newsnight was a fashion designer. No mainstream conservationist or conservation group took part to condemn the proposals.

[STYRBJORN]

[quote=RKB;727069]0.7% of private owners of English woods are timber companies.

QUOTE]
As of now.