It's quite long winded and took me about half an hour to fill in but well worth the effort.
Bike Forum
[closed]
forestry sell off goes to consultation
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
i have filled it out, but reading the questions it seems the usual sham, we have a decision so we will ask answers around it. But we will not change the core decision.
The bit about keeping the Forest of Dean and New Forest outside the rest seems to me to be a way of buying off some parties.
Posted 1 year ago # -
consultation is not debate, in the fire service consultation means 'the descision is made and here is a meeting to allow you to vent your frustration'
Lets hope it's not the same agenda
Posted 1 year ago # -
Got a letter back from my MP who is in the Cabinet, thanks for your concern but we know best sort of thing.
Although he did sign it himself so at least I got that.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Marvellous, well doen all who fill it in; seems to me that unless a clear concise consensus is achieved on teh
how should we do it differentlycolumn then govt will come back with conclusion that lacking any other way the sell off is best option
Posted 1 year ago # -
BBC news were just at Whinlatter interviewing a 'mountain biker'.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I bet we could club together and buy a few acres you know. Our very own STW trail centre, just imagine.
Wouldn't need to be huge, but would need to have a decent cafe with internet access
Posted 1 year ago # -
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/contribute/sponsor-a-forest-ad
Use the above link to contribute to the campaign against this, specifically to get some space in the papers. I've given a fiver, wait and see if it does any good...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I basically wrote the way to do it differently is to not sell the forests in the first place. on every page.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This is very frustrating. My basic argument is that they are not their forests to sell.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Apologies if it's been posted before, but here's the DEFRA page detailing the proposals. It even includes a wee video by the SofS herself...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Done it. Even though it's already a done deal :=(
Posted 1 year ago # -
Done it. Even though it's already a done deal :=(
I'm not sure I agree.
A YouGov poll found that 84% of people agreed the woods and forests should be kept in public ownership for future generations, while only 2% disagreed.I wouldn't stake my life that the government will ignore that. The selloff is of marginal benefit to the coffers, and would give the small people a victory to keep them in line.
Posted 1 year ago # -
BBC news were just at Whinlatter interviewing a 'mountain biker'.
Was he the one on last week saying if the forest was sold there would be nowhere round there to ride?
Duh Hello your in the Lake District, Natures biggest trailcentre!Still at lest its getting coverage
Consultation filled in, pretty much same as pjt201 but added that if sold there should be a clause that they can charge a maximum for parking / access and promise to feed a certain percentage of profit back into schemes to improve access for all / better trails / paths etc
If its already decided we can at least try and influence what the new owners can and cant doPosted 1 year ago # -
what annoys me is that they are talking of paying grants once the land is sold. So it is being given away then, just not as obviously as saying so.
Posted 1 year ago # -
My basic argument is that they are not their forests to sell.
You do realise that the vast majority of FC land was obtained under duress from farmers under threat of compulsory purchase? Yet more land was requisitioned to the dept of agriculture and placed under forestry?
The land was obtained initially to provide a strategic wartime reserve of timber, even up till recently the role of the FC was, by law, to provide a balance between:
(a)the development of afforestation, the management of forests and the production and supply of timber, and
(b)the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest.No bollocks about recreation & access - this land is for growing trees!
I used to work for the FC, and despite my IMBA work in the past I'm an unashamed "tree" man - well managed forests are a benefit to the nation, bullshit recreation centric visitor sites are NOT forests, they're metropolitan parks with trees! We need to get away from thinking of recreation as priority and back to thinking about the trees, plants and wildlife as far more important!
This "new FC" mindset has completely polluted the organisation, funding for forest management work, thinning, brashing etc. cannot be found as its "not profitable" whereas money for recreation, art and diversity projects simply pours out of head office - ten million quid for a visitor centre? no problem. Politically correct diversity projects funded by the government? bring on the wheelbarrow loads of cash! - while deer managers have expanded beats to the size of a county and are left unable to enact any form of deer management other than "if its brown, its down", and are unable to get the resources to maintain their deer glades.
Its a good thing to raise revenue and also put the land back where it was compulsory purchased from, landowners. The access wont be affected, thats protected in law, the money spinning car parks and camp sites will remain either in public or private hands through statute regulation or the demands of the business. It will however see the end of the FC riding roughshod over users and landowners to force car parks, go ape and visitor centres through without proper scrutiny at planning.
Woodland doesnt need picnic tables, visitor centres, aerial assault courses, cafe's, sculpture trails or, indeed, mountain bike trails - The joy of being in the woods is timeless, simple and about trees, wildlife and nature not about tai-chi lessons at public expense!
Anyone really interested in the arguments over sale of publicly held land ought to go and read up on the Crichel Down Affair
Posted 1 year ago # -
The story nade the front page of the Guardian today
two particularly interesting quotes from Lord Clark of Windermere:-
Look at those cyclists" – he points at two mountain bikers passing one of Grizedale's many imaginative forest artworks. "I can tell you for certain their continuing access cannot be guaranteed without a special parliamentary bill."
and
"Margaret Thatcher wanted to sell off the forests, you know. But she knew her politics too well. She foresaw the storm. She left it well alone."
Posted 1 year ago # -
The best thing to do if you want to stop this is to challenge the adequacy of the consultation
Posted 1 year ago # -
just seen in my local rag that the woods 3mins from my house are potentially going...gutted
Posted 1 year ago # -
Zulu-eleven, your points about compulsory purchase are true, but i could counter argue that the creation of royal forests, of enclosure acts, these predate your purchase by hundreds of years and have denied the population the right to walk in their own country. Most of these acts saw people thrown off their land for the benefit of the wealthy. The landowners you wish to give land to are the same who through the actions of predecessors stole the land from the people.
As for access, there is no right of access in the to private land UK, where a RoW exists it can be diverted, and if your riding a bike or horse then your rights are even fewer. It is also quite legal to dissuade lawful use of land, you don't need a car-park, you can erect fences.
There is also the issue of cross subsidy, the current system sees productive support non productive, a sell off will see non productive remain in the control of the public sector but the productive parts will see income past on to shareholders. Shareholders it should be noted who are also legally allowed to claim various grants and tax breaks on their holding woodland as an asset.
Your bit about visitor centre and the like i am not going to argue, It is one thing to have a carpark where visitors can go, a very different thing to invest millions in a visitor centre that serves crap food. But i guess as is often the case with the short-termist approach to everything, if it doesn't generate an income every year its waste land, and that you need to make sure that the whole population has access.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good piece in Private Eye on this :-
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hp_sauce&
Posted 1 year ago # -
You do realise that the vast majority of FC land was obtained under duress from farmers under threat of compulsory purchase? Yet more land was requisitioned to the dept of agriculture and placed under forestry?
er I think you'll find that's the mindset the man has given us.. originally it was all our land in a fashion, then William the Conqueror stole it off us in 1066, gave it to his mates who then proceeeded to split it up for sale. All that happened in the 20th centry was a perverse form of sequestration of public property back to the public. Just as happened to the land acquired for water collection that was then gifted back to the private sector.
The immediate threat is to English Forests, although I'm not holding my breath here in Wales. I am sure in the ministers mind it's all a done deal she believes they can sell forests off and force big society to step in and pick up a few to stop it becoming a 'told you so' mess. However for every smug Tory MP in a safe seat there are a few in marginals. The sector of the population most pissed off / disadvantaged by this action will be very much the very people who voted them into power and make up the margin in a marginal seat. Even if you have a Tory MP you should not be convinced by the done deal to not write to him.Dont jsut sign the petition although please do and please pay towards the advert.. I did
There is no doubt in my mind that when most of the smaller blocks come for sale neighbouring owners or shooting syndicates will buy them up. The communities failed to find money to buy them in Majors term in office and things are tighter now few will be relishing stumping up for the on going management costs. The effect of this is riding around unfamiliar countryside will be less certain of riding into plantations, new owners will be more robust to protect their investment and this will become confusing handicapping not only cyclists and horseriders but also local tourism businesses. However, over Offa's Dyke and Hadrian's Wall things will be like normal, the English situation possibly giving the tourist sector an advantage at the expense of English rural areas. For example those used to riding around the shropshire hereford powys borders will have to learn to locate and adjust to the changes in England but can carry on like normal in Wales.
If there is any opportunity in the current situation, it is that it makes it time to ask the government to extend the scope of voluntarily applied open access for walkers in its plantations. It should now consider doing the same as has happened in the Scottish Forests be they private or public. That is to adopt the scottish standard for open access in all state forests to include horseriders and cyclists right of access. They cannot argue doing so will handicap sales and impose burden on management since Scottish Forests still work as well as English ones do, nor will there be compensation complications if they grant whilst they are the owner.
If they do this even if we cannot stop the sales then we know that a fundemental right remains and the lottery of picking a forest you wont be chased out of riding along a forest track is back to the pre sell of days
Posted 1 year ago # -
Access is important, but we should never be distracted from the primary role of forestry and the forestry industry. That is to produce more and more of a replenishable raw material in a way which is environmentally sensitive;
Its important that it takes account of landscaping, that is good from the point of view of conservation and recreation and harmonises with farming. It's also important should also be carried out in an economically viable way - but those factors really, really shouldn't predominate, and I'm sorry, the FC are being held up as some sort of exemplar for good forest management, and my experience tells me they're not.
For those local to the area, go and have a look at Swinley, for others, the woods around Longleat, under their selective logging continuous cover forest system - the FC really are not the best example of how to run a forest! have a look under a third thinning Cypress planation and tell me how great it is for recreation.
Finally, please, please don't forget that the FC do not give us unfettered bike access at the moment!
Posted 1 year ago # -
fatmuthahubbard - Member
just seen in my local rag that the woods 3mins from my house are potentially going...guttedWhere's that? Cann?
Posted 1 year ago # -
So with my cheeky hat on, exactly how is this going to affect us? If the forests we currently use have a different owner, are they really going to be actually able to STOP us going in them? Are they going to be fencing the whole lot off and having guard patrols 24/7? I doubt it somehow, so we can just keep on riding. From past experience many years ago, fenced off areas (like quarries) develop multiple holes in the fence which move around as some get blocked and new ones get opened.
I can believe that more areas might try to charge for access - but then how often do you hear people moaning about the cost of a Swinley permit? And they can only enforce that if the landowners are around to check permits/collect cash. Are they going to be around midweek? Or on nightrides?
...and anyway, relatively, how much land is actually "owned" by the FC, and how much is owned by 3rd parties and merely managed by the FC..?
I'm against the sell off on principle, but I don't actually think it'll have too much practical effect.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Z11 despite many years experience of under whelming performance from the FC I can say I've also experienced negotiating with Fountains and Land agents both of whom made squeezing blood out of a stone simple in comparison. No access in English Forests is not as good as Scottish forests nor is that as good as Swedish Forests and indeed the wood itself.. not fit much for anything in particular it grows too fast and is not dense enough than american timber however I think doing even a bit to try to save something out of the charcoal of Tory Forest policy is better than watching events through a pair of binoculars the wrong way around.
Jon you may indeed describe your attire but failed to mention you had also been eating cow dung. Cheeky trails in mountain biking thrive on secrecy. If MTB was to remain a niche activity based aroudn unlawful acts of trespass it simply would attract no interest or funds for trail development. The avg man in the street tends to like nice sensible advice about where to go that does not expose him to dispute, publishers can only promote routes in guides that will not lead them to an injunction, you may thrive on it but reliance on cheeky trails is not something to be marketed or measured. You think you can trespass with impunity and well you might but who is to say the tories will not apply some tightening of the law to enable new landowners of private forest to secure their boundaries from unauthorised users which nobody can doubt will surely happen given how unpopular the whole thing is with the masses.. bit blinkered in a kind of King Canute style of philosophy. Most land is Freehold and in Wales what is Leasehold tends to have little use as they are most often retained shoots and shoot owners tend to have a bad disposition to any kind of poaching bird or trail.
Posted 1 year ago # -
re the consultation it has not, IMO, be helped out one bit by Natl Trust now saying (BBC ceefax item) that they are prepared to buy (or cherry pick maybe?) some forests eg New Forest. 2 points here 1. makes the sell off seem a done deal, and with closet NT agmt it would seem, and 2. where will NT get money for purchase from, a public funds appeal??, ie public still paying out !
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
