Forestry Commission sell off

brighteyes said:
And by the sounds of it, when it all collapses around our ears, there aren't going to be any trees left for us to climb back up into to start all over again...
Click to expand...

Well, may be not publicly owned trees eh?

The whole business is a problem for the young generations. Money has got civilisation ( or what passes for it ) this far but I can't see any way of preventing boom and bust in economies. In future, people will also have to deal with true globalisation - getting rid of false political boundaries - only then will there be the possibility of looking after the Planet properly.

If you're young - good luck!
 
The Forestry commision has failed disgracefully in its role of managing its forests . Much of the timber is just pulp wood due to lack of thinning and suchlike. The MOD complained that the FC were not looking after the timber on Sennybridge range and decided to take it back . The FC basicly trashed the place on their way out ,chopped down practicaly everything.I welcome the sales.
 
Mike007 said:
The Forestry commision has failed disgracefully in its role of managing its forests . Much of the timber is just pulp wood due to lack of thinning and suchlike. The MOD complained that the FC were not looking after the timber on Sennybridge range and decided to take it back . The FC basicly trashed the place on their way out ,chopped down practicaly everything.I welcome the sales.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in that Mike, because I have been racking my brains as to why this makes sense. £15m a year that the Forestry Commission costs won't go down by much and is too little to be worth bothering with (unlike Nimrod which was going to cost £4m a year to keep in operation when it finally got delivered, and drones/satellite will do that job better and cheaper). The possible £250 million to come in will be drastically reduced by selling fees and is a one-off that will do nothing for the economy. So ..... why the sale, there have to be reasons that we aren't being told.

I've dug a bit and found out that lots of Forestry Commission forests are badly managed and need a lot of money spent on them to bring them up to scratch. Also that the UN have decreed 2011 to be the International Year of the Forest. My guess is that if we keep the badly managed stuff in public ownership, that a shedload of ADDITIONAL money will be required to meet EU/UN standards and it THAT money that the government want to avoid having to spend.

Anyone know any more than that?
 
Every now and then myself and some of my friends take our horses to Forestry Commission forests such as Thetford Forest, Ashridge Forest and a number of others to ride in them as it allows us some complete off the road riding.

I am concerned that the government intend to sell them off as at present, riders in the East of England enjoy access to Forest Enterprise owned woods free of charge. This also includes parking for our horseboxes and trailers.

I am concerned that any new owner will introduce permits or even completely close the forests to riders. Walkers will continue to enjoy access as of a right.
I would like the Government to ensure that established bridleways and byways through the forests are recorded on the definitive map (and hence safeguarded from the whims of any future landowner) before any sale. I would also like the forest land to be dedicated as access land with rights for equestrians, under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This would retain free access to forests on horseback (subject to closure possibilities for a limited number of days per year when operations were needed for example).

There are about 4.3 million people in Great Britain that regularly ride horses yet we only have access to 22% of the public rights of way as the vast majority of them are of public footpath status only and horse riders are not allowed to use them.
 
The Agriculture Minister said that all access rights would be retained. However, most equestrian access - riding and driving - is not by right, but by permission whether or not there is a permit scheme in place. There are some forests with common rights and of course there are bridlepaths, but the long trails round the woodland have been by permission only.

The decision to charge permits for riding in FC woodland has been down to topography (type of soil), numbers of riders and potential damage to the paths and plain and simple policy of different areas manager. So it has been free to ride in Mortimer Forest as it is light soil and there isn't much useage by riders, yet there has always been a permit scheme in the Wyre Forest where it is close to a large population and the soil is clay.

I don't know about how the FC has managed the woodland, I know they have had a difficult job to do to run a commercial activity, plus wildlife and environmental concerns and public access for walkers, cyclists and horses. A previous Conservative government thought about selling off the FC and backed down due to public outcry.

However, for EQUESTRIAN access there is a real threat if the FC is sold off. It is so much easier for a landowner to say "no horses" rather than provide parking, consider different routes, trail maintenance. So we have all got to reply to the consultation document (details in the BHS reply to this thread) and write to your MP. The address is
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
 
This is an interesting summary of the situation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/31/forests-sell-off-opposition

The consultation itself is one of the worst I have ever read - fuzzy, woolly, with no section to comment on whether you think they should actually be sold or not. So I'm not filling it in, I'm just going to send them a letter instead (this is perfectly allowable). They will love getting all these, I promise;)

From the article above:
Nearly 20 years ago it was the Ramblers who halted the privatisation of the woods under another Tory government, but this year they seemed to wobble as the government gave more and more assurances. Last week they claimed that the debate had to "move beyond the discussion of public v private ownership, to the real issue of access and enjoyment of all woodland". Now, Tom Franklin, their director, has come out fighting, urging all members to take part in the consultation exercise:


"The current proposals will largely protect access to heritage woodland such as the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, and even large commercial woodland like Kielder Forest in Northumberland. However, roughly 50% of the Forestry Commission estate currently falls into neither "heritage" nor "large commercial" categories, and this half could end up for sale in the open market with no guarantees that current access will be maintained. With 50% of all Forestry Commission land falling outside of the categorisation of heritage and community woodland or large commercial forests, we could see access to half of the Forestry Commission estate seriously reduced in the next few years."
Click to expand...

All the FC land I use falls into that category, I suspect the same is true for many people.

I think it's a disgrace, I don't normally get areated about these things, but this has got me cross:mad: If this goes through, the Government can forget my vote in future.
 
Apparently there is a vote in Parliament this week as to whether there should be a sell-off or not.

You can also send an email to your MP, you don't have to put pen to paper.
 
cptrayes said:
I'm interested in that Mike, because I have been racking my brains as to why this makes sense. £15m a year that the Forestry Commission costs won't go down by much and is too little to be worth bothering with (unlike Nimrod which was going to cost £4m a year to keep in operation when it finally got delivered, and drones/satellite will do that job better and cheaper). The possible £250 million to come in will be drastically reduced by selling fees and is a one-off that will do nothing for the economy. So ..... why the sale, there have to be reasons that we aren't being told.

I've dug a bit and found out that lots of Forestry Commission forests are badly managed and need a lot of money spent on them to bring them up to scratch. Also that the UN have decreed 2011 to be the International Year of the Forest. My guess is that if we keep the badly managed stuff in public ownership, that a shedload of ADDITIONAL money will be required to meet EU/UN standards and it THAT money that the government want to avoid having to spend.

Anyone know any more than that?
Click to expand...

Forestry is central to my business. The timber I buy generaly (practicaly exclusively )comes from well managed private estates , such as the Engelfield estate an the paddockhurst estate. they are a far cry from the typical scrappy forestry comission timber. The principle directive of the forestry commision was to make the UK self sufficient in timber (apart from exotics).It could easily have achieved this but has spectacularly failed. It is overloaded with fat cats at the expense of tree cultivation. The FC is a national disgrace. We will all be better off with private ownership by estates that care . As for access, go on the "walking with wolves" at the Engelfield estate:eek::eek::D Yes real wolves,
 
Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).
 
attheponies said:
Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).
Click to expand...

You ride along paths within the forest ,the forest itself is the problem, ,the Fc are useless at maintaining it. Private owners are not going to be particularly concerned with your riding along a forstry track ,but rather how their investment (the timber ) is managed.
 
attheponies said:
Surely the answer in that case is to improve the managment of FC woodland not sell/lease to the highest bidder with the loss of public access. I speak as a regular user of (Thetford Forest).
Click to expand...

I used to know thetford well,it was one of the better maintained forests. Unfortunately there are an awfull lot of badly maintained forests crying out for thinning , yet local woodsmen cannot get a look in because of the monolith that is the "forestry commision"Smash it and burn it , thats what needs to happen to the forestry comission ,for all the good they do .
 
Spudlet said:
I think it's a disgrace, I don't normally get areated about these things, but this has got me cross:mad: If this goes through, the Government can forget my vote in future.
Click to expand...

Yep, that goes for me too. First time I've ever written to an MP about anything, let alone watched the live Parliament channel. :eek:
 
Mike, I am afraid that most private owners and even charities do not allow horses. There are Forest Enterprise woods around here that have paddlocked gates, yet nice wide tracks that would be perfect for riding. The Woodland Trust, English Nature, National Trust and local charities do not have a good record of allow equestrian access, in this part of the world. One local nature trust closed a bridlepath, legally, yet allowed walkers.

So I am very worried about this. I had a standard letter in reply from my MP, which didn't address my concerns at all.
 
I've signed the petition and been badgering my MP for a good few weeks now...

I think the FC should get their mits off a lot of what they "manage" but this is not the best way. FC are poor but things could be worse.

Can't say loss of access is my worry though, if I was an MP I wouldn't be listening to people bleating that they won't be able to walk Tiddles/ride Merrylegs through their local forest anymore. :rolleyes:
 
Tinkerbee said:
Can't say loss of access is my worry though, if I was an MP I wouldn't be listening to people bleating that they won't be able to walk Tiddles/ride Merrylegs through their local forest anymore. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well if you were you damn well should do because you are supposed to be representing peoples views and concerns.
 
Access is a big issue TB. The last time this was on the table, it was the Ramblers that scuppered it. You are looking at a wide range of people from all background losing something they hold dear, in a time when other things are being taken away left right and centre, AND at a policy that could lead to a net loss for the Treasury, in a policy that the forestry industry thinks is crazy, and they risk upsetting the National Trust, an organisation that has 3 million members... that's before you take the BHS into account, and all the other organisations that are against this.

I have been a civil servant, believe me this is not what the government wants. It will be taking up way too much of their time and effort. Nobody likes to be disliked...
 
Flame_ said:
Well if you were you damn well should do because you are supposed to be representing peoples views and concerns.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair point, hence why I'm not an MP. ;) I would think such worries were more than a tad selfish and would put more stock in those worried about the actual forests...
 
Spudlet said:
Access is a big issue TB. The last time this was on the table, it was the Ramblers that scuppered it. You are looking at a wide range of people from all background losing something they hold dear, in a time when other things are being taken away left right and centre, AND at a policy that could lead to a net loss for the Treasury, in a policy that the forestry industry thinks is crazy, and they risk upsetting the National Trust, an organisation that has 3 million members... that's before you take the BHS into account, and all the other organisations that are against this.

I have been a civil servant, believe me this is not what the government wants. It will be taking up way too much of their time and effort. Nobody likes to be disliked...
Click to expand...

I agree it's an issue, and if it's one that gets the plans scrapped then so be it. But like your sig says, I'm more bothered about saving the Forests than my access to them. Yes the access is fantastic. But I'd rather they existed without access than didn't exist at all...
 
It's one part of the whole picture. The bodies I mentioned and others will be making a fully rounded case. That's how these things work - generally there is one reason that the public latch onto, but the pros make a rounded case looking at many different aspects of the issue and citing evidence. However public support is crucial - that is what grabs the politicians by the short and curlies, then the pros leap in there and bash them with all the evidence and so on.
 
Spudlet said:
It's one part of the whole picture. The bodies I mentioned and others will be making a fully rounded case. That's how these things work - generally there is one reason that the public latch onto, but the pros make a rounded case looking at many different aspects of the issue and citing evidence. However public support is crucial - that is what grabs the politicians by the short and curlies, then the pros leap in there and bash them with all the evidence and so on.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't doubt that it is being done properly by the people that matter but I'm getting sick of seeing people whingeing on the news solely about access.
Its my pet peeve atm so I like to moan as well. :D
 
So the Government wants to raise £250 mil by selling of our State owned forestry, do they?.......

They could raise 6 times that amount by the forced sale of Banker's second homes........

They could save a similar amount, annually, by removing our military operations, from the the lands of others, where we have no business being.

It wouldn't do for me to be the Prime Minister, I'd consider the views of the public, and that wouldn't do, at all!! :D

Alec.
 
i think there is some arguement for our troops in other lands, take people like hitler who overran europe for example, we would have been next, and now speaking german, except we were saved by the american intervention joining our troops in the normandy beaches invasions,, maybe if we had acted sooner instead of living in political cloud cuckoo land 10,000 amercans would not be dead and buried at omaha beach, and whatever the position one takes on troops fighting abroad on some level these brave lads are hopefully helping to secure the future of democracy and life as we know it, and at least dictators out there will be aware that they will not get away with terrorism, oppression,corruption and bullying etc unchallenged.

is there not established rights of way and bridle paths already in existantance in all the forestry comm. i thought if the right is maintained by regular use no one can stop the continuation?
 
tristar said:
i think there is some arguement for our troops in other lands, take people like hitler who overran europe for example, we would have been next, and now speaking german, except we were saved by the american intervention joining our troops in the normandy beaches invasions,, maybe if we had acted sooner instead of living in political cloud cuckoo land 10,000 amercans would not be dead and buried at omaha beach, and whatever the position one takes on troops fighting abroad on some level these brave lads are hopefully helping to secure the future of democracy and life as we know it, and at least dictators out there will be aware that they will not get away with terrorism, oppression,corruption and bullying etc unchallenged.

is there not established rights of way and bridle paths already in existantance in all the forestry comm. i thought if the right is maintained by regular use no one can stop the continuation?
Click to expand...

Ah yes the great american 42/45 war, a bit like trhe 16/ 18 war .
 
There are indeed bridlepaths in forests, and they will continue to be rights of way. However, following a bridlepath that crosses from one side of a wood to the other and out onto the road again as of right, and maintained by the County Council, is not the same as having a large parking area and waymarked, circular rides (that might include the bridlepath) and can be from 5-15 miles in length and which are maintained by Forestry Commission staff.

I can see all sorts of platitudes about "mainainting access" and the new owners/managers stopping trailer parking, or increasing the cost of a permit or not maintaining the routes and gradually make it more and more difficult for horses to use the woods.

There is no benefit for a landowner to have horses crossing their land (and that includes having a bridlepath on your land too). It would be impossible to charge enough to make it economically worthwhile, so why would a private landowner want horses in the first place? Walkers do not do damage to paths and if there is a cafe they spend money there. A horse arrives in a trailer and goes home again when they are finished, riders rarely go and spend money int he cafe as they don't like leaving the horse unattended in a public parking place.

That is my objection to the sell off of the Forestry Commission, I can't see private owners wishing to put up with the bother of having horses.
 
It is the same for walkers, they may well keep footpaths but there seems no guarantee that free access, as is enjoyed now, will be maintained. So you can stick to the path but don't dare step off it.

Rigg Wood in Cumbria was sold under the previous government, now riders no longer have access. This could happen in other places as well. It's all very well for people in areas with good off-road walking and riding to scoff, for some areas these forests are really important.
 
Never confuse walkers with ramblers . ramblers are truely the scum of the earth. The march about the countryside telling everyone else how to behave to their wishes. Truely ********s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top