all the years i have ridden, i have been a stickler for rules.
i dont ride footpaths, even upset folk i am riding with by spoiling their planned route and steering away from them.
i have always stuck to proper rights of way.
but i have decided that when they sell the trees off (and they will do) that i am gonna ride anywhere that takes my fancy, be it legal or not.
anyone feel this way?
I've been following the discussion about the planned sale of land, and I think you're making a good point. The argument for me isn't about whether they sell the land or not (clearly a politically charged question but I believe Labour had investigated the same plan back in 2008), but rather that the issue is about access rights (something the magazine has been championing already).
So whoever owns the land the main thing is our access rights are not reduced and if anything the campaign should focus on increasing access rights for all land, whether it is already in private hands or not?
So to answer your question, I probably won't change where I ride based on the decision to sell (I've always done a bit of cheeky stuff on private land when the need arises) but I might well get more involved in campaigning for maintaining existing access rights and then improving access for everyone everywhere.
Let me get this right.
The Forestry Commission own 18% of all the woodland in England.
Some of this might be sold or leased.
So - maybe 10% of all the woodland in England is actually affected by these proposals?
druidh, not interested in numbers/percentages.
everything will change with what is gonna happen, private companies will stop riding/walking.
land already privatley owned will become out of bounds because of increased use problems
You should move to Inverness.
Problem solved.
druidh, not interested in the reality of the situation or the plain facts
FTFY.
The furore about this is, as the figures above show, very much misguided.
From what I've heard about this anything sold will have a strong contract in place to ensure access is still allowed as it currently is.
The area that they are going to sell aren't going to be the ones where they can sell trees from, they make too much money to will be leased out. The areas that are sold will be the ones that companies have to find another way to make money from. This may end in more access rather than less.
Of course this is all based on my Sunday night rambling backed up with no facts so may not come to pass ever!
druidh, not interested in the reality of the situation or the plain factsFTFY.
The furore about this is, as the figures above show, very much misguided.
Flashy, I can't believe that even you have the bare faced cheek to defend this.
Even the 'Telegraph' has come out against this proposal, arguing correctly that with the subsidies that will have to be paid to the new owners we will end up spending more money than we do already.
It's nasty, spiteful, ideologically driven toss, dressed up and spun to sound like good economic sense, just like the rest of this Governments proposals.
As a lover of the outdoors (and I assume, a believer in democracy) you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
And yes, after this I'll make a point of riding on private land wherever and whenever possible.
Why should I be ashamed of pointing out a fact? Why did you not choose to berate Druidh in the same way? I wonder....
It's a tiny amount of woodland that will be affected, and from the current plans, public access rights will be retained. So, why the fuss?
yeah...........wot he said flash..........you big soft dandy............ 
Countryfile talk about it tonight
CaptainFlashheart - MemberSo, why the fuss?
Some people ride something other than concrete and tarmac on 6" travel bikes
Aww, ton, you big cuddly whippet fettler...
AFAIK, any sale will include a clause to maintain any existing public access rights. Nowt wrong with that if it proves to be the case.
It's nasty, spiteful, ideologically driven toss, dressed up and spun to sound like good economic sense, just like the rest of this Governments proposals.
I must admit when all this was first annouced I wasn't too worried but he more I read the more Rusty's point seems to be true. I filled in the consultation document the other night. I had hoped it would a consultation on whether we should sell off the forests. No such luck. All they want to consult on is how to sell them off. Even then survey document felt like it was designed so that they could get some public opinion figures on paper. Much of it was very channelled.
I really can't see the logic in this at the moment, it is likely to cost in the short and long term. Why waste government time on this and wind up the public when there are really pressing matters to be sorted out related to the deficit etc. Wonder if this is all to do with diverting attention away from their complete failure to get to grips with the banking sector. I do wonder if they realised how strongly people would feel about it all.
I'm actually most worried going forward about new trails and trail maintenance. It's fine saying you've got full access to historic trails when the trails have collapsed into mush and the boardwalks have rotted away through lack on maintenance. Plus at least in the forest I volunteer in we get lots of practical support and materials provided, can't see that continuing if the forest gets sold.
found this a little while ago, interesting how much of the uk is in the hands of a very few people.
mind you land registry doesn't know who owns vast tracts of the UK.
Ok, if it makes you feel better I include Druidh as well.
Happier now?
As you well know, it's the principle that is at stake here - the 18% of woodland owned by the FC is owned by the British people and held in trust by us for future generations.
Many thousands of ramblers fought for access rights to our countryside, and just as we seem to be getting somewhere this happens:
A gentle reminder from our 'betters' that we'd better not get cocky and assume that access to our own countryside is something we may enjoy as a right, but that is a privilege which may be withdrawn at any time.
And please answer the question regarding finances - even according to the Governments own figures it will actually cost more to sell than to keep the FC as it is.
Last time this was done, the forestry introduced recreation as something they would have a remit for. Health benefits for all kept it public. That was about 20 years ago so it is now happening.
Not totally accurate but the basics are there. Forestry was going to be privatised but it got stopped...don't think it is a done deal this time.
Oh, and guess what?
The Countryside Alliance, those stalwart defenders of all things rural, have come out in favour of the sell off.
What a shocker!
And although their statement mentions that there will be benefits in selling off land that is already well managed, superbly marketed and available for all to enjoy, they don't state what those benefits are:
Link.
And, funnily enough, I can't find anything published by the Eton Mess that clearly lays out the benefits to be gained by this sell off. Can anyone?
Surely it just can't be a pathological desire to dismantle another aspect of our country, currently managed by the public sector for the benefit of all our citizens, just to satisfy the free-market fanatics who are determined that the FC will go the same way as the NHS and eventually the BBC?
That would just be evil, wouldn't it?
Ton, you have struck a note with me and I think that I'll be following your concept should it happen.
Plastic
Tony, if you're planning the mass trespass make sure you drop me an email with the time and place.
Access, and expanding access not just maintaining it, is the fundemental issue as I see it. Call it a recreational asset, call it a public health asset, FC forests provide a vast amount of land that Sanday afternoon walkers through to horse riders and ourselves use to get exercise, clear our heads and generally enjoy life.
Respond to the consultation - and make your responses more than just defensive. I've suggested that they set up a regulatory body charged with expanding access (I've suggested nordic skiing trails), because strong regulation might just make this ridiculous situation work.
land registry doesn't know who owns vast tracts of the UK.
Because land registration has for some time been compulsory whenever land is transferred, this means that much of it is probably in long-term ownership, either by companies or by trusts. Unregistered land is probably not owned for the most part by little people. 
FWIW, as with much of what this government is doing, I don't approve but it seems unlikely to shake the foundations of civilisation. The sell-off of FC land is not going to be the thing that gets me joining the resistance.
druidh - Member
"The Forestry Commission own 18% of all the woodland in England."
But a larger share of the woodland which is open access and has trails in I reckon.
all "claimed" land is stolen anyways, ride where ya want and if you get stopped tell em i said it was Ok to ride there
yup i will be following you as well .
"anyone feel this way?"
Heck I make my own judgements about whether my presence on a bike causes issues (and choose to ride or not), regardless of whether I have a right to be there.
"anyone feel this way?"
Heck I make my own judgements about whether my presence on a bike causes issues (and choose to ride or not), regardless of whether I have a right to be there.
Not sure if DuidH is trolling as I thought he dwells in Scotland, and Flash well based on years of abuse here, if the Tories made him redundant threw him out in the street and handed his house to Gypsies I'd be surprised if he did not turn up here standing up for them. The CLA have also come out in support of the proposals.. but only if it is managed to restrict immediate deforestation so as to not to cause a glut and de-stabilise the value of standing timber sales on their existing members woodland.
I think what Ton says is how it might well pass and other than the occasional punch up with a new landowners bailiff or game keeper riding will continue. However that's not much good for newcomers and families looking to enter the sport if access is restricted and they don't have the ability to uncover STW cheeky trails. The action will be disproportionate on the population of Britain and who it impacts on.
Most FC land is away from urban areas where often in rural areas no longer supported by civic facilities such as schools, sports centres and libraries This facility will then remain as they were prior to the May election in Wales and Scotland with much greater rights enshrined in Scotland If I was an English voter myself that in itself would really piss me off if I lost access to a nearby forest which if you currently enjoy Eastridge Hopton or south Shropshire is more likely to be the case. When they say existing rights will be protected they will find it almost impossible were they to close bridleways however at present cyclists use is restricted outside of dedicated to trails to a toleration of the use of forest roads. This a new owner could very easily decide not to continue and many will be very unlikely to open up access to natural land in forests and they will be probably blame 3rd party liability for why.
Just incase anyone says the bridleways are enough for anyone in case of one of the largest FC plantations in Wales it has two bridleways and one byway with a forest road network in excess of 150 miles.
All I can say is thank god Britain has no ownership interest in the Polar Icecaps, if they are so desperate for money and need sell land why doesn't Osborne ring up his mates at Strutt and Parker and ask them to sell off Thatchers favourite Holiday Resort.. the Falklands....
This is just more typical tory bull, 'consultation' documents offering a 'choice' of what they want to sell or what they want you to buy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
I live in Scotland so I'm not allowed to comment?
I only mentioned the figures because I hadn't realised that we were talking about so (relatively) little land and as I've posted elsewhere, despite the greater access rights enjoyed north of the border, there are at least two trail centres built on private land. Is it not even remotely possible that new owners might actually encourage use of the ex-FC forest?
bassspine - Member
This is just more typical tory bull, 'consultation' documents offering a 'choice' of what they want to sell or what they want you to buy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.
I don't recall a consultation document being available when Gordon Brown sold off our gold reserves.
Never said that DruidH but the fact is you are in Scotland so what ever the tories do in England means you are no worse off and its clearly to Wales and Scotlands gain if access to MTB's becomes restricted in England, When they sold off the last lot of forests the two or three hectare blocks actually had a far bigger impact to the residents of rural communities than to the expected visitors who were not affected by the sales of larger forests.
In any case the issue of selling off is not that important to the matter and you of course missed another private sector trail centre at Llandegla that has only been possible because of the government funding via the Forestry Commission without which the owners could never have had the confidence to invest their own money.
The current facts in paper in front of me is that the private forestry sector is retracting from recreation development because the real returns compared to the resources needed to maintain and manage are not as big as they anticipated, EU money is not being claimed as they will not release even small amounts of match fund as their capital is locked up ( possibly because they are planning on buying more timber forests when they come up).
mAx_hEadSet - MemberNot sure I understand that last bit.
Never said that DruidH but the fact is you are in Scotland so what ever the tories do in England means you are no worse off and its clearly to Wales and Scotlands gain if access to MTB's becomes restricted in England,
The current facts in paper in front of me is that the private forestry sector is retracting from recreation development because the real returns compared to the resources needed to maintain and manage are not as big as they anticipated.Would that calculation change if forest users had to pay?
When did you last elect to choose to go for a ride in England against going for a ride north of the border?
Er shocked.. Time standing STW forum serial blogger suggests its times- MTB riders pay to ride... . blimey this forum has changed there was a time I was sure you'd be struck off. If the car park price even goes up 50p the nearby lanes and lay-bys become chocker with dudes unloading £2k trail god steeds to ride into avoid parking charges. all counter data I have seen is charges usually see a reduction at the paypoint and an increase in freeloading.
You'd be better sticking to IT skills for a living than writing business plans on setting up a trail centre
Last year, I gladly paid for a season pass to Glentress/Innerleithen even though I knew it would be cheaper to just pay for the few occasions I used the place. Frankly, I'm shocked at the number of freeloaders who never pay to park. This is a long-held view, nothing to do with any recent forestry sell-offs. If MTBers want custom-built trails, then I see no reason they shouldn't pay for the privilege.
Also, at GT all the parking money goes direct to trail maintenance (any surplus would go to construction, but there never is any, largely because of nonpayers)
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
