In the Telegraph today. Conservatives to sell of all of Englands forests by 2019 with FoD being one of the first to go,
Will probably loose alot of our favorite biking spots.
Bike Forum
[closed]
Cameron to sell off all of Englandshires forests
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
No? Really?
Scottishland is a bit behind the news isn't it? Or do you not keep up with foreign affairs?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I apoligise for being behind the times, just back to civilisation after 5 weeks in deepest darkest west Africa.
Ya cheeky......Posted 1 year ago # -
Will probably loose alot of our favorite biking spots.
Based on what?
If you buy a forrest you can't close the bridleway, so it may effect some trail centres, buy you only have to look at Llandegla to see that it may actually increase the amount of riding spots.
If you bought the FoD, would you close the mtb loops, or just charge for parking and make some money on the side?
Posted 1 year ago # -
tree-magnet
or
may be shut it to reduce liability
we know whats happening now. You can't know what the future will hold. Maybe quad bikes will make more money
Posted 1 year ago # -
clear fell and build houses, still cash to be nade in houses despite the downturn
Posted 1 year ago # -
clear fell and build houses, still cash to be nade in houses despite the downturn
Highly unlikely. In fact, pretty much impossible.
Posted 1 year ago # -
shame i'd like to invest
Posted 1 year ago # -
You will all just ride cheeky - its the same as now, but with added excitement.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I fancy buying Dalby. Anyone know the RRP?
Posted 1 year ago # -
DaveyBoyWonder - Member
I fancy buying Dalby. Anyone know the RRP?
Think the price is not that different from an orange 5?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Trail centres, etc that are making money will (I hope) stay and bridleways etc will stay, but it's the 'open access' forests ceasing that will affect people the most I'd guess. Not good.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It took years and years for the FC to accept responsibility for diversity and public access. That is what may be lost. It depends how the legislation is phrased. I guess the fear is that purely commercial run forests wont inherit these responsibilities or will wilfully neglect them, knowing that prosecution is unlikely.
Saying that, all the local woods I ride in are privately owned, with one exception, the owners make no real effort to exclude the public.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't think it's the problem some people make it out to be. Most of the woods I ride in are already privately owned. I try to avoid the nearest FC one because the open access policies have led to it being overcrowded and a dog's toilet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am one of the few cynical ones here in the FoD> Most people are fuming about it.
As I ignore the FC "restrictions" anyway ( based on the fact that I have been riding and walking here for 45 years and I am buggered if I am being told what to do by city slickers and incomers)
However my main concern is that slowly development would take place. Its bad enough at the moment with all the damage being done to cater for visitors but as the only real way to make money would be to do more, I am not happy. The FoD cycle centre is small compared to many. I'd hate to see Afan recreated here.Posted 1 year ago # -
it cant be a good thing. If it stays publicly owned we at least have a chance of influencing how it is used. If it is privately owned there is no way of doing that. And once sold we will never get it back.
It's just another example of the coalition trying to destroy as much of the countries infrastructure as possible before the next election.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'd hate to see Afan recreated here.
Why? Is it because you don't want to share 'your' forest with outsiders??
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you buy a forest you can't close the bridleway
Apparently there is no guarantee of that :
A Defra spokesman told this newspaper: "You are right to say this 15 per cent being sold off will not have the same guarantees of access that the land has at the moment."
Cyclists and riders may lose access to woodland
"Campaigners have released a letter from the Government suggesting that cyclists and horse riders have no future guaranteed use of public woodland when 40,000 hectares of forest are sold off to private companies and charities "
Posted 1 year ago # -
Can that apply to rights of way tho?
Posted 1 year ago # -
No - rights of way are protected (insofar as anything is in ConDemworld) but rights of way cover only footpaths for walkers and established bridleways. Much of what we ride falls into the catagory of 'permissive route' (saucy huh?) and as such there is no legal protection - it is up to the landowner to give permission (or not.) The concern is that many of the new private landlords will EITHER find a multitude of reasons for stopping us riding OR seek to charge us arms and legs if we are to carry on doing so.
Either way, this ConDem plan needs to be fought as publicly as possible as it puts ideology and a hatred of all things publicy owned ahead of the rights of all of us to roam in what we believed was everyone's heritage - the open forest.
26" and 29" wheels to the log barricades!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Surely the forests are not the Government's to sell in the first place. They belong to the people of the country and therefore it should go to a national referendum.
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 rotor stern
Posted 1 year ago # -
Its fairly unlikely to affect my local riding, but I do worry for the future or our access rights.
Posted 1 year ago # -
However my main concern is that slowly development would take place.
mattsccm, I really want to pull you up on this. If you think 'development' is a bad thing, then it surely is not development? Development suggests progression, it suggests improvement, enhancement. I think it's really important to recognise that not all human construction is 'development'. A lot of it makes things worse for the environment, for people, and for society. Too often this word is used to hide crap outcomes for local people, "oh, but the development will create jobs for about 6 months"
Posted 1 year ago # -
We've all been to Afan and seen what has happenned to that part of the country. The villages in that valley seriously need employment and investment not mountain bike trails. If selling the forest goes anywhere near to helping that problem then I don't have an issue with it.
In fact, titty lipping because you can't ride your bike seems pretty moronic.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Scotland will have the same problem if Labour get back into power at Holyrude in May. Scottish Labour have already stated that they will sell Scottish Water and the forests.
I tried to buy some local forestry for trails - but they wouldn't sell and sold the forest to a sawmill for less, instead.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Roter Stern - Member
Surely the forests are not the Government's to sell in the first place. They belong to the people of the country and therefore it should go to a national referendum.We had the referendum last May.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rapiddescent - Member
Scotland will have the same problem if Labour get back into power at Holyrude in May
Because of right to roam it would not be the same issue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
AndrewBF
We had the referendum last May.
If this measure had been in the manifesto you could argue that. However even so there is no grounds for a referendum as there is no provision for such in the UK constitution.
You get your chance to vote for your local mp every few years and that is it
Posted 1 year ago # -
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Surely the forests are not the Government's to sell in the first place
Problem is that Dave and Gideon move in circle that have very little concept of public ownership. They will firmly believe that the forests *are* theirs to sell.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Coyote - Member
Surely the forests are not the Government's to sell in the first place
Problem is that Dave and Gideon move in circle that have very little concept of public ownership. They will firmly believe that the forests *are* theirs to sell.And the gold reserves were Gordon Browns to sell?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I know it has been said before, but once they're sold they're gone forever, what we have no control over if the forests are sold is WHO takes ownership and how reasonable they are with regard to commercial forestry and access rights of the public.
Imagine when there has been a re-sale of equity and the forests end up in the hands of an exploitative off-shore multinational or a russian billionaire? Who will stand in the way of the chainsaws and axemen?Posted 1 year ago # -
We had the referendum last May.
And the Prime Ministers' party failed to get a majority of the vote.
They even failed to get a majority of the MPs, an almost unprecedented situation - specially as the 'first past the post' system that we have meant everything was stacked in their favour.
They have no mandate.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
