Our forests may be sold off

[brendaward]

If we wait, the contracts may be signed before we know what the stipulations are. We would therefore have to accept the implications. If it had been thought through properly the stipulations would be public knowledge at the beginning, part of a well considered plan. As it stands there seems to be little consideration to the negative implications and only highlights of the gain.

[loripo]

Originally Posted by Bobbobthebob

My main concern is of dwindling access rights and loss of rather basic low-cost public amenities. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect quite a few small packages of woodland in urban and semi-urban areas being sold off and developed on. The countryside too will become even more foreboding and inaccessible for those living in cities and towns.

This is my concern too. If that makes me biased and politically incorrect so be it. So far whenever things have been 'privatised' there always seems to be extra to pay out of the public purse to keep them going. I can't see charities or Local Authorities in rural areas having the funds to buy up much land.

[Red Robin]

Originally Posted by SheffieldLass

Decisions made by politicians about state forestry and state forestry land land is quite clearly a political issue ...


Well if you read the letter, they are quite clearly thinking of selling off some of the FC estate. So the title of the thread is accurate.


I suggest you read them then. And then consider it in the light of their other recent proposals.

....You and I are unlikely to see eye to eye on this.

1) - I'm saying that such decisions should not be politically motivated or influenced. The subject is beyond party politics. IMO.

2) - The title of the thread is accurate in the use of the word "may" but is somewhat alarmist in tone. Fair enough if that's your stance.

3) - I can't say I want to make enough time to read ALL the detail. I've read some overviews though and this thread helps.

[ForestPaul]

Originally Posted by Cotham Marble

Regretably pre University History teaching has never equiped anyone to understand the development of the ecology of Britain. For a good starting point on trees: Trees And Woodland In The British Landscape Oliver Rackham

An excellent book in which Rackham dispels many of the myths surrounding woods and forests :

"The reader will doubtless be aware that woods were destroyed by people felling trees for build houses and ships, that medieval England was still very wooded, that forests were preserved for hunting by severe laws and barbarous penalties, that there was a timber famine in the Tudor period, that iron was smelted with coke because there was no wood left, that there was no conservation, that replanting was taken in hand after Evelyn wrote Sylva, and that the last remnants of the old woodland perished when cut down in the First (or was it the Second?) World War.

All this (and much more) forms a consistent, logical, and widely accepted story - which, however, cannot be sustained from the records of actual woods or forests.

It is a pseudo-history which has no connexion with the real world and is made up of factoids. A factoid looks like a fact, is respected as a fact, and has all the properties of a fact except that is not true."

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bobbobthebob

Surely an argument against parcelling off even more of it away from the public?

My main concern is of dwindling access rights and loss of rather basic low-cost public amenities. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect quite a few small packages of woodland in urban and semi-urban areas being sold off and developed on. The countryside too will become even more foreboding and inaccessible for those living in cities and towns.

I guess we have to wait and see what kind of stipulations are attached to these land sales.

dwindling access rights might actually be beneficial to wildlife - but leaving that aside if footpaths etc exist into and across the land concerned they wont disapear upon sale to a private owner - a vast ammount of the footpath network is across private land (largely farmland) in anycase.

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.

we may see some centre parc type developments, and a few more golf courses, but neither of those are particularly bad for wildlife - in fact both may be ecologically preferable to a sitka spruce monoculture

[Brocakat]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

And this is only the start. Why have they cut more from conservation than other departments? I thought all the parties claimed to be green?

Ahhhh but they are. When it suits them.
And when it doesn't - they aren't.

My last Politically 'motivated' words: - This country is deep in debt, yes - but a lot of the debt was is on Loans set up by Bankers . And who decides the level of interest on each loan - the Loaner or the Loanee ? Please go figure.

[stigofthedump]

I'm still of the mind that no good can come of this. Access is my main concern.
I once lived very close to a very monotonous plantation, as did many people on the same council estate, one glorious day the heavy plant moved in, trees were felled and a fantastic pathway was instated. The place was rejuvenated, all ages were using and enjoying the place.

Commercial organisations doing the same thing.....I think not!


Vince

[RKB]

Originally Posted by stigofthedump

I'm still of the mind that no good can come of this. Access is my main concern.
I once lived very close to a very monotonous plantation, as did many people on the same council estate, one glorious day the heavy plant moved in, trees were felled and a fantastic pathway was instated. The place was rejuvenated, all ages were using and enjoying the place.

Commercial organisations doing the same thing.....I think not!


Vince

Rights of way are protected by different legislation. Read Eeyore's post, and think of where most of the public footpaths are in this country - across private land (which they are forced to maintain for the public benefit). Look on any Ordnance Survey map and note the cobwebs of red and green dashed lines across the whole landscape - protected public rights of way across private land. Sale of a wood wont change that.

[stigofthedump]

Originally Posted by RKB

Rights of way are protected by different legislation. Read Eeyore's post, and think of where most of the public footpaths are in this country - across private land (which they are forced to maintain for the public benefit). Look on any Ordnance Survey map and note the cobwebs of red and green dashed lines across the whole landscape - protected public rights of way across private land. Sale of a wood wont change that.

But there was no rights of way in place for my given example. That was my point. The path was built there to encourage people to use the place for recreation. It might have helped manage people but there was no obligation for it to have been constructed.


Vince

[RKB]

Originally Posted by stigofthedump

But there was no rights of way in place for my given example. That was my point. The path was built there to encourage people to use the place for recreation. It might have helped manage people but there was no obligation for it to have been constructed.


Vince

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.