Forest sell off latest

KarynK

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 February 2008
Messages
2,514
Location
Hants
http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/02/11/forestry-spending-review/

I appreciate that in some places the FC have done themselves no favours, but the sell off to private hands is not the answer. Please consider supporting the campaign to stop the sell off to private ownership because we will loose access or have to pay heavily for it and once it's done there is NO going back!

Pressure needs to be kept up so that a reasonable solution can be found that does not involve a big sell off which we will still be paying for through subsidies to the purchasers to stop them cutting all the tree's down or shutting woodland for a sizeable part of the year because shooting is a good way to earn money and public access to shoots does not work!! Or if the RSPB get their way and get hold of these forests we our horses, bikes and dogs could well be denied access in the breeding season!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Here's a useful google map of campaigns so far.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl...52.722986,-3.14209&spn=8.762901,23.269043&z=6

Here is a letter from someone who was t one stage involved in the New Forest NP he makes some valid points

http://www.onevoice.officeoverload.com/BarrieFoleyOpenLetterFeb2011.htm

(lifted from the One Voice Campaign to rein in the National Parks Authority in the New Forest)
 
Last edited:

Faithkat

Well-Known Member
Joined
29 April 2004
Messages
4,113
Location
down South, edge of New Forest
I'd like to see some accuarate information with regards to what land the Forestry Commission actually OWNS. There is a huge amount of hysteria round here regarding the New Forest NONE of which is owned by the FC and therefore not theirs to sell. It is Crown Lans and the FC only manage it, they DO NOT own it and there are large areas actually owned by the National Trust too.
 

Orangehorse

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 November 2005
Messages
9,863
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what is owned by the FC and what is managed, which is why a great deal of riding access is by permit as the owners of the forests want it that way.

I don't have a lot of faith in wildlife charities allowing equestrian access (although how a horse is more of a disturbance than a dog I do not understand). I can easily see that during the breeding season access would be denied, and throught he shooting season for private woods. Certainly round here local naturalists societies, etc. etc. have NOT got a good record of allowing acess for horses.
 

templewood

Well-Known Member
Joined
13 June 2009
Messages
157
It isn't really the big famous forests that will suffer the most. It will be the small woods, which are just as important to local people, as often they are the only place to ride safely. One of the privately owned woods behind me is used for paintballing, no doubt without permission. I would imagine something similar will happen to the FC woods if they are sold off, or they will be used for shooting. Who would enforce any restrictions that the government put in place, if they are sold? They don't bother to maintain the bridleways!

Local charities have their own agenda, not always compatable with horseriding.

Sign the petition! It already has over 500,000 signatures.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition
 

FollyFarmEC

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 December 2009
Messages
112
Location
Tarporley
For anyone living near/caring about/sometimes visits DELAMERE FOREST there is a protest rally on 20th March on the Whitefield car park (where they sell the Xmas trees) at 1pm. BE THERE IF YOU CARE, Tell your friends!!
I've seen your other post and I have made a post of my own on the Cheshire Horse forum.
 

sywell

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2009
Messages
930
Who ever advised Cameron for PMQs did not understand the difference between a National Park and Forestry Commision land. Public ROWs could not be changed but the Open Access permitted by Forest Enterprises could be and must be a condition of sale to maintain that Access. The problems arise when Forestry commision land is only leased by the Forestry Commision and the Shooting Rights are retained by the Landowner. Big Forestry companies would no doubt managed the Forest just as wells as the Forestry commission and at no cost to the taxpayer. Civil Servants should be locked in a room for a week with the CROW Acts
 

KarynK

Well-Known Member
Joined
2 February 2008
Messages
2,514
Location
Hants
I'd like to see some accuarate information with regards to what land the Forestry Commission actually OWNS. There is a huge amount of hysteria round here regarding the New Forest NONE of which is owned by the FC and therefore not theirs to sell. It is Crown Lans and the FC only manage it, they DO NOT own it and there are large areas actually owned by the National Trust too.
No the FC don't own anything they manage it, but it's not the Forestry Commission that is selling it, it's the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who technically owns the public forest estate. So yes parts of the New Forest are very much up for grabs. Some land the FC rent from private owners and any permits on that you can kiss goodbye!
As Britain?s largest land manager we look after nearly a million hectares of land including some of our best loved and most spectacular landscapes. Two-thirds of the estate lies within National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
The FC was set up originally to manage forest regrowth after they realised how short we were during WW1.
 
Last edited:

bryngelenponies

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 May 2010
Messages
796
Location
South Wales
Apparently though they still have the right to sell of 15% of the forest per year and that is what they are moving towards in the mean time. So although they have publicly said that they won't go through with it they will still be selling off the forest, just not in the vast acreages that were proposed.
 

HashRouge

Well-Known Member
Joined
16 February 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
Manchester
Apparently though they still have the right to sell of 15% of the forest per year and that is what they are moving towards in the mean time. So although they have publicly said that they won't go through with it they will still be selling off the forest, just not in the vast acreages that were proposed.
I don't think it's per year, I'm fairly sure it's per electoral term.
 

sywell

Well-Known Member
Joined
31 March 2009
Messages
930
My local LAF immediately spotted the problem with the sell off and our secretary kept us well informed. DEFRA badly advised the PM to compare a National Park with a forest was nonsense.
Forestry Commission forests are not all owned by the Forestry Commission some are leased with the landowner owning the shooting rights this creates a problem for "Open Access" under the Crow Acts which the FC gave to many woods under their control. There would be no change to ROW on FC land but our LAF immediately saw the problem with new owners not wanting to have open access. The logic that commercial forestry would run the forests better than a Government Agency is probably correct as the control of felling and replanting is quite strict.
 
Top