Our forests may be sold off

[stigofthedump]

Originally Posted by RKB

So you're worried that you might not get new footpaths to go places that you can't go already? Isn't that a bit obscure?! The Forestry Commission has been in existence since 1921 - it's had plenty of time to put footpaths in!

The State owns Downing Street too, but you can't go walking down there if you want to.

No, my concern is that comercial ownership might just not have an interest in recreational use of their forests. Not obscure at all.

As for Downing Street, My loss then

Vince

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by RKB

So you're worried that you might not get new footpaths to go places that you can't go already? Isn't that a bit obscure?! The Forestry Commission has been in existence since 1921 - it's had plenty of time to put footpaths in!

The State owns Downing Street too, but you can't go walking down there if you want to.

RKB I don't understand why you are so determined to challenge other people's expression of concern ? Even if Vince's 'worry' was 'obscure' why shouldn't he make the point and have it taken seriously ?

Your point about Downing Steet is interesting, until 1980 of course any one could walk through Downing Street and some of us still regard the 'privatisation' of a public thoroughfare an offensive action, and one which raises the importance of certain individuals above that of the citizen in a way that is unwarranted. But that is a principled issue not related to the practicalities of walking in the countryside.

What is a practical consideration is that while there are only limited Public Footpaths (responsibility Local Authority not the FC) across FC land, public access to the bulk of our publicly owned forests are currently largely unlimited, with most tracks, rides and cut ways within the FC estate being open for public use even though they are not registered Public Rights of Way. While the forests were in public ownership there was no need for the FC (or the relevant Local Authorities) to go about the legal process of establishing additional PRoWs to ensure high levels of accessibility. It is very reasonable for those who are concerned about access (whether or not it is relevant to Wildlife concerns) to now question whether privatisation will change current access levels.

Active citizenship requires that we ask questions of any and every Government proposal, I can't see why any of the questions raised in this thread should no be treated as entirely sensible.

CM

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by stigofthedump

No, my concern is that comercial ownership might just not have an interest in recreational use of their forests. Not obscure at all.

As for Downing Street, My loss then

Vince

....The general pubic used to be able to access Downing Street - It's only the threat to security which has changed things.

Whether the ownership of forest or land is either private or commercial, you can't blame the owners for having or wanting a big say in what happens on their property. It's a good job I don't own acres of land because I certainly wouldn't want Joe Public on it at any time - The less human activity the better.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by eeyore

with regard to development that is a concern, but then much of the forestry commision holding is on land that couldnt be developed due to remote location, gradient, and lack of access and services, and is of little value for agriculture - which is why it was afforested in the first place.

That's essentially wrong. Land that was not viable - practical or economically for use other than forestry 50, 60 or even 90 years ago may very well be both econmically and practically viable for alternate use today. Further it is a logical falacy to contend that because 'much' is remote, that development is not a consideration - development is a consideration where it is viable and will have considerable impact where it does happen. Immune (for now) because it is not in England, I can look up and see over 50 hectares of developable FC forest (commercial, housing use etc) plus hundreds of hectares within which are located numerous unextinguished mineral permission sites.

Many of the highest amenity wildlife sites in the FC estate are those located near to existing urban areas, it is these, many of them small, which could and should be transferred to the Wildlife Trusts or other local bodies, but which offer the greatest develoment prospects, thus these sites will be competively sought if the sole basis for transfer is maximal sale income. And if maximal sale income is not the sole basis, then why are these sites being sold ?

CM

[RKB]

Originally Posted by Cotham Marble

I can look up and see over 50 hectares of developable FC forest (commercial, housing use etc) plus hundreds of hectares within which are located numerous unextinguished mineral permission sites.
CM

And housing estates and spent quarries have more wildlife in them than commercial conifer plantations (which the vast majority of FC land is).

A lot of the concerns raised here are esoteric and alarmist. Much of this FC woodland is absolute rubbish for wildlfie - it's homogenous alien conifer plantation, that is dense, dark, has no understorey, a thick mat of needles excluding any ground flora, has no nest holes, is 'weeded' of native species such as birch, and is managed as intensively as any other crop. Yet people are talking on here like we're going to lose a valuable habitat akin to the rain forests.

Added to that, we have a precedent of a big FC sell-off, and nothing bad happened. Personally, I'd be quite happy for this commercial product to be sold off and the money used to bring down the deficit, rather than subsidise an expensive resource that is fragile on the economics and of little use for wildlife anyway.

[artdemole]

We got no wooden ships now.So why keep them.Even the Pheasant will not hide in them.

[Fauna]

Originally Posted by RKB

A lot of the concerns raised here are esoteric and alarmist. Much of this FC woodland is absolute rubbish for wildlfie - it's homogenous alien conifer plantation, that is dense, dark, has no understorey, a thick mat of needles excluding any ground flora, has no nest holes, is 'weeded' of native species such as birch, and is managed as intensively as any other crop. Yet people are talking on here like we're going to lose a valuable habitat akin to the rain forests.

I beg to differ here mate, many of the Conifer plantations i visit in my area of Wales have some very interesting wildlife within them (May be different elsewhere?)

Plenty of bird life, including breeding Long-eared owls, Goshawk, Nightjar and much more.

Mammals including Dormouse, Badger, Polecat etc and some a bit further a field with Red Squirrel...

Ground flora may be a bit thin on the ground but there are alot of interesting Fungi to be found. These areas are also home to many interesting invertebrates etc, many of which are scarce. I won't go compiling a list of what i have found in these types of woods, but i assure you it is far from being meager.

[stigofthedump]

Originally Posted by Fauna

I beg to differ here mate, many of the Conifer plantations i visit in my area of Wales have some very interesting wildlife within them (May be different elsewhere?)

Plenty of bird life, including breeding Long-eared owls, Goshawk, Nightjar and much more.

Mammals including Dormouse, Badger, Polecat etc and some a bit further a field with Red Squirrel...

Ground flora may be a bit thin on the ground but there are alot of interesting Fungi to be found. These areas are also home to many interesting invertebrates etc, many of which are scarce. I won't go compiling a list of what i have found in these types of woods, but i assure you it is far from being meager.

I couldn't agree more with you. Add mosses to that list

Vince.

[RKB]

So what are you both going to do when they're felled by the FC at the end of their commercial life?!

Most of the species you mention are either reliant on narrow age stages (Nightjar) and will be very temporary, or are common elsewhere (badger, even polecat these days).

I take the point that you get interesting fungi and insects, but the habitat is essentially ephemeral - it was probably planted on more valuable habitat (ancient woodland, heath), and the species are therefore not really 'native' to the area. Or they'll live there regardless (badger, polecat). It will also be felled by somebody, someday, anyway (FC or a new owner) as it's a crop. These tree species have a fairly limited lifespan, and if they're not cropped then they're windthrown quite badly.

So in the grand scheme of things, what differences does it make who owns it?

[stigofthedump]

Won't they re-stock, after all as you have pointed out the FC have been inexistence since 1921. They must have done some re-stocking before.



Anyhow you know my concern on the matter, access.

Vince