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.
No? Really?
Scottishland is a bit behind the news isn't it? Or do you not keep up with foreign affairs?
I apoligise for being behind the times, just back to civilisation after 5 weeks in deepest darkest west Africa.
Ya cheeky......
Well, although I'd heard rumour, it was only last night on the news I realised it was going forward as a serious proposal. This may be old news too, but if anyone wants to sign up for the petition [against] it can be signed at 38degrees.org [url= http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests ]here[/url].
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 [i]some[/i] 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?
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
clear fell and build houses, still cash to be nade in houses despite the downturn
clear fell and build houses, still cash to be nade in houses despite the downturn
Highly unlikely. In fact, pretty much impossible.
shame i'd like to invest
You will all just ride cheeky - its the same as now, but with added excitement.
I fancy buying Dalby. Anyone know the RRP?
DaveyBoyWonder - Member
I fancy buying Dalby. Anyone know the RRP?
Think the price is not that different from an orange 5? 😉
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. 👿
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'd hate to see Afan recreated here.
Why? Is it because you don't want to share 'your' forest with outsiders??
If you buy a forest you can't close the bridleway
Apparently there is no guarantee of that :
[i]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." [/i]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/forestry/8290822/Cyclists-and-riders-may-lose-access-to-woodland.html ]Cyclists and riders may lose access to woodland[/url]
[i]"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 "[/i]
Can that apply to rights of way tho?
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!
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.
+1 rotor stern
Its fairly unlikely to affect my local riding, but I do worry for the future or our access rights.
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"
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.
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.
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.
rapiddescent - MemberScotland 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.
AndrewBFWe 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
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/link-to-forestry-commission-public-consultation-takes-20-minutes ]Respond to the consultation please - link to STW thread on the consultation[/url]
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.
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?
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?
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.
[b]They have no mandate.[/b]
The ruling government has a majority
[b]They have a mandate.[/b]
Finding stooges that will support you (after they have ditched all the policies they stood for) because not enough people wanted to vote for you, is not the same as having a mandate.
Not enough people voting for you, does not equal a mandate.
[b]They have no mandate.[/b]
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.
Along with 'British Gas', 'British Rail', 'BT' and all the other nationalised industries sold off in the 80's.
err you vote for an MP to represent you and your fellow constituents (including those who didn't cast a vote or were underage or otherwise ineligible to vote). You don't vote for a party (even If you always vote for a member of the same party each time).
A government was formed with a majority of MPs.
[b]They have a mandate.[/b] (Even if it's not one you agree with)
They have a mandate. (Even if it's not one you agree with)
andytherocketeer you obviously do not understand what a mandate is. You [i]can[/i] have non-mandated representation, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. Often elected representatives will not be mandated by those who elect them because it is left to them personally, to decide after discussions and debates have taken place, how best to vote in the interests of those who have elected them.
Sometimes however, candidates are elected on the basis of clear policies which they stand for. Or those who have elected them, instruct them how to vote - as in delegated conferences. In those circumstances they are described as mandated delegates, or delegates with mandates on certain issues. Winning a vote does not automatically give you a mandate to support certain policies, in fact it can do the reverse.
The claim that this government has no mandate is not based on whether or not I agree with them. Margaret Thatcher indisputably had a mandate for the privatisation of the utilities, because she stood for election on a platform of privatising the utilities - and she won. It wasn't the strongest mandate she could have had, because the majority of the electorate did not vote for her policies, but it was nevertheless a mandate. So she was perfectly entitled to claim that she had a mandate.
The Tories under Cameron, did not stand at the last general election on a platform of selling off Britain's publicly owned forests, he therefore has no mandate to do precisely that - [i]irrespective[/i] of whether or not it is the right thing to do.
But [i]even if[/i] the Tories had stood on a platform of selling off Britain's publicly owned forests at the last election, they still would not have a mandate, as they failed to win the election. The only reason they are able to get this policy through parliament is because the Liberal Democrats are voting with them. And the Liberal Democrats most certainly [i]do not[/i] have a mandate from those who voted for them, to privatise Britain's forests !
[u][b]They have no mandate.[/b][/u]
Back to the main topic. Im not sure if it will change where and what most of us ride.
Ive just spent five hours riding round a private wood, almost none of it on bridleways, some on footpaths, most on trails with no classification. Thats what Ive been doing for the last 22 years of mtb'ing.
Or will there be a ten foot electric fence built with guard dogs and the death sentance introduced for trespass in this bill ?
Once they are gone, they're gone forever
Not actually true as they are talking about selling leases. Actually 150 year leases so it's a pretty pedantic point 😯
If you read the consultation document, it does seem they are looking to sell the leases to charities and organisations with conditions on the lease to protect public access. This of course doesn't mean that these organisations will want to buy or be able to afford to buy the forests and they will end up going to those who can afford it.
Stop turning it in to a political issue though, I have no doubt Labour would do exactly the same.
Stop turning it in to a political issue though, I have no doubt Labour would do exactly the same.
It could hardly be a more political issue. Whether or not Labour would have done the same.
Ive just spent five hours riding round a private wood, almost none of it on bridleways, some on footpaths, most on trails with no classification. Thats what Ive been doing for the last 22 years of mtb'ing.Or will there be a ten foot electric fence built with guard dogs and the death sentance introduced for trespass in this bill ?
What if the lease goes to someone who wants to run shoots on the land? What if the new landowner decides to put up fences, stiles, or block off your favourite bit of trail?
Anyone who thinks access won't be curbed is being very naive. At the least, some landowners are going to be too concerned that someone will sue them to allow unfettered use of their land.
Stop turning it in to a political issue though, I have no doubt Labour would do exactly the same.
Funny you should mention that, because this is undoubtedly ideologically motivated. The FC in England receive funding to the tune of about £15 million a year - chickenfeed compared to the amount of jobs and facilities they provide.
Woodland is exempt from tax so *if* they sell the forests to individuals to use as tax breaks, or get income from management grants, (Does anyone think there are enough charities with the money to buy them all?) it's quite possible they will make a net loss.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/28/england-forest-sell-off-q-and-a
Golspie and Drumlanrig are two highly-regarded trail centres on private land. Perhaps there might be more?
The argument I believe is that the forests where established for the national good, ok it was due to a national shortage of wood following the first world war, however this is a case of selling something that belongs to all.
How can it be that a few can make that decision and how would the proceeds be spent, would we have any say in this!!
I've already asked, but is this any different to a government selling off the gold reserves? Presumably, "a few can make that decision" because we elected them to govern, and therefore make decisions, on our behalf.
I've already asked, but is this any different to a government selling off the gold reserves?
You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel druidh ..........what difference does it make whether or not it's no different to "selling off the gold reserves" ffs ?
Does [i]that[/i] make it right or wrong ?
I've already asked, but is this any different to a government selling off the gold reserves? Presumably, "a few can make that decision" because we elected them to govern, and therefore make decisions, on our behalf.
The fundamental difference between Gold and [u]English Woodland[/u] is that Gold is an internationally traded commodity where as the woodland in this country was set aside specifically for the production of timber and/or public use (Albeit within certain limits), Gold sits in a vault it's value tracking the markets, we held it in reserve specifically so in a pinch we can generate some cash, Gordo like or loath him was sort of using the gold reserves for it's intended purpose...
The only real revenue set aside British woodland was really ever intended to generate was from Timber sales and Tourism, it's really a long term "investment" if you stick to these core revenue generators I can't see the Sultan of Brunei getting all excited about these "investment opportunities"... Unless of course any current restrictions were to be changed in some way...
Flog your local woods to an investment fund and they will make a cold hard Business decision on how they optimize the profitability of their investment... Assuming there is a good legal way to do it, if they can't see a way to make money they probably won't bother with it..
To be honest I'm not sure what the current legal checks and balances are when it comes to private owners of Woodland in the UK, permissions to "Develop", Deforest, changes access rights, even whether or not they have to have their land managed by the FC or not, of course Dave can probably tack a few innocuous little lines onto a minor bill that will let one of his Eton Buddies build a couple of tower blocks in FoD, but that may just be me being a little paranoid...
There is a fair amount of privately owned, publicly accessed woodland at present, much of it has made use of grants to help operators with setting up trails and other attractions...
Given a potential Tax saving for ownership of woodland investment in woodland would make sense but ultimately most private investors probably want to make money not slowly see it drip away in an "un-developable" chunk of land...
ANd as for Charities buying woodland, Why would they? it's not like they need the tax breaks and what do they acquire? an asset? or a long list of management and maintenance costs along with insurance and liabilities, how's that going to help them feed the homeles or cure AIDS?
The more important question for the wider (Not so bothered about trees land access and trails) public is just how much of a dent if any will this Land grab really make in our apparently bolloxed economy?
The quote from Guardian linked article above:
[i]
[/i]£150m and £250m over 10 years
What? How Much?!!?! (Or little...)
OK £250 Million sounds like a "Big number" but in reality that is Eff all if the Dire prognostications of our current leaders are to be believed, effectively taking a £25M a Year chip out of what they claim is a £900 billion! Debt... Hardly going to break the back of the problem is it...
The figures don't add up, the Market for land you can't really do much with other than grow trees on or Walk/Run/Cycle around seems rather minimal, so I can't help thinking there's a touch more to the proposal than we're presently being fed...
Ah - the "conspiracy theory" argument....
Indeed... you honestly Trust the Tories?
I'm of the generation that Had Maggie snatch our milk away, Literally she turned up in person and stole the lot, and punched a six year old as she left cackling...
Ah - the "conspiracy theory" argument....
I can't see any "conspiracy theory" argument, but I can see a crap argument which says : [i]"but the government sold off the gold reserves so it must be OK to sell off Britain's publicly owned forests then"[/i].
Actually it isn't an argument at all.
Druidh is right in that there is no difference morally or legally between selling the gold reserves, selling britsh steel, selling the power companies and selling off british rail to selling the forests
it just won't wash that there is any fundamental difference
Thats completely different to whether its the right thing to do or not but to try to make out that the forests are in some way different is laughable
I actually think it is politically stupid. No significant money in it and will incure the wrath of "middle england" who are essential to winning elections. I fail to understand why - is it just stupidity?
is it just stupidity?
No, sadly. It's ideology. Far worse.
Thats completely different to whether its the right thing to do or not.....
Not to Druidh it isn't ........... if Labour behaved badly, then it must mean that the Tories are right in everything they do !
........oh bless his simple little mind 😀
ernie - I don't think he has actually said that.
Waht gets me about the stupidity is that it will alienate their natural supporters and the floating " middle england".. Politically naive and all for a few pennies
Actualy TJ, I think they're selling it so it can be made into landing sites for alien spacecraft. Either that, or Elvis has decided to move to the UK and is looking for some quiet spots for himself, Marilyn Monroe and Jacko.
Are yiou sure its not to replenish your spirtle supply?
Spurtle! 😈
To be fair I can sort of see the confuzzled logic Gordon employed when flogging our Gold reserves to generate cash, those adverts are all over the telly at Jeremy Kyle O'clock...
Not so many ad's asking you to post the deeds to your 15 Acres full of pine trees for a [i]"free valuation with no obligation to sell" [/i]
Still comparing one shite Decision with another is hardly a compelling argument to follow that course of action...
Next they'll be saying we should Force the NHS to buy in all of their services from Sub-contractors and place all the spending controls in the hands of GPs... Oh... 🙄
I predict another 4 years of [i]"It's all the last lots Fault"[/i] while they flog anything they can to their mates and bitch slap Clegg if he dares to pipe up.
Then the Meat head Sun/Mail readers will vote them back in when they promise to give a free Pukka pie to anyone who doesn't like "lefty shirt lifter types"... Bosh job done; UK knackered by posh boy with face that looks a bit like like a Ham...
I'm looking forwards to 2013 when "UK PLC" sell the Isle of white to North Korea...
ANd as for Charities buying woodland, Why would they? it's not like they need the tax breaks and what do they acquire? an asset? or a long list of management and maintenance costs along with insurance and liabilities, how's that going to help them feed the homeles or cure AIDS?
Spot on. I volunteer for a local Wildlife Trust and they are regularly offered new places to manage, however most of the time they have to politely decline as it's hard enough keeping up with their current responsibilities.
ernie - I don't think he has actually said that.
Well he needs to explain why he keeps waffling on about "the gold reserves" in that case.
Great isn,t it, the Tory bankers destroy the economy and then get to buy all our Forests for a knock down price of there corrupt mates.