[Closed] save the Forest from Government sell off....................

They could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages.

You mean like the Forestry Commission has already done in all those forests?

They will probably be better managed in private hands, and its got to be easier getting access rights from a private firm than a government run department

Keiran - that is a load of boillox

However a petition is going to do nothing and the forests that it mentions like the forest of dean have plenty of protection.

TJ - How?

FoD already has extensive logging operations, many areas fenced off and more than one golf course.

Both Sherwood and NF have large 'holiday' villages

I may be wrong on the gaining access thing, but its just an opinion, and one I stand by.

Fact is, our governments useless, and has been for many years and will continue to be so no matter whos in charge. I firmly beleive its better sold off.

They will probably be better managed in private hands

With expensive access charges imposed a Coasta in the car park.

You really think you are going to get free access from a commercial company whos only motivation is profit compared to a government agency a part of whos aim is to provide places for recreation?

🙄

Thankfully this again only applies to England. I do hope you lot enjoy ther ruin that the tories are bringing to you.

You really think you are going to get free access from a commercial company whos only motivation is profit compared to a government agency a part of whos aim is to provide places for recreation?

Nope, but then I've never riden in the FoD for free either, or at any of the currently 'managed' forests

As I said, at least a private corporation is usually approachable and makes reasonable decisions.

Do you ride an MTB? YOu have never ridden for free on FC land?

A petition will work if enough people sign it, we have recently had success in other areas by making our voices heard, if we can show the Goverment that enough people care they will have to at least listen.

Selling off public land to a commercial entity will only mean one thing for Mountian Bikes, less access and fewer trails! No private firm will want the liability of a broken mountain biker on their land!

A petition is used as a way in, we will be heard, please sign on.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests

blimey, what if they tell us we're not allowed on the new forest ? 😯

oh

Yep, several of them (but not at the sme time)

I'm sure someone will pick holes in my argument so, technically, Yes, I've riden for free on FC land, however I've always had to pay for parking.

Last time i rode at FoD (some time ago), it was £2.00, I'm sure it hasn't gone down since then.

we have recently had success in other areas by making our voices heard, if we can show the Goverment that enough people care they will have to at least listen.

Yep, that worked so well for the students recently!

In fact, what successes have we had? I can't think of any.

the students thing was a protest, a shambles at that, we recently petitioned the closure of 6Music, the radio stations proposed closure was overturned due the mass petetioning by many of us. There are definite similarities with that and this, the Government had said 6Music would be better served by the private sector but the argument was that private ownership would be against the principles of the station

and that £2 for parking could become £20 a time entry fee just to ride the trail if they are privatised, or even worse the trails may not even exsist.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests

TJ - The Forestry Commission has already dedicated all its freehold estate for public access under the CROW act!

Dedication is permanent and cannot be repealed, even if the land is sold on!

😉

Which only means you have the right to walk on designated paths not ride a bike.

Access to the Countryside
The Act provides a new right of public access[b] on foot[/b] to areas of open land comprising mountain, moor, heath, down, and registered common land, and contains provisions for extending the right to coastal land. T

I can't believe I got suckered into debating with Zulu but even by his usual standards of idiocy this was really stupid

You don't have the right to ride a bike in existing FC woodlands either though, do you TJ?

So, no great shakes really!

🙄

Actually the act states;

Rights of public in relation to access land.

(1)Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as—

(a)he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, stile or gate, and

(b)he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II.

Nothing about only being on foot, and a quick look at the exclusions I can't see mountain biking.

Full act here; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents

oh, and;

(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the public shall have restricted byway rights over any way which, immediately before the commencement of section 47, is shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path.

In this Part—

“restricted byway rights” means—
(a) a right of way on foot,
(b) a right of way on horseback or leading a horse, and
(c) a right of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles; and
*

“restricted byway” means a highway over which the public have restricted byway rights, with or without a right to drive animals of any description along the highway, but no other rights of way.

Which i would take to mean anything that is already legal to ride a bike on remains legal and open for access

public shall have restricted byway rights over any way which, immediately before the commencement of section 47, [b]is shown in a definitive map and statement as a road used as a public path.[/b]

That only applies to Rights of Ways that used to be referred to as RUPP [Road Used as Public Path], not Access Land.

In the Forest of Dean there is a designated area in which you are permitted to ride MTBs without charge [although there are parking charges at specific car parks]. This is highly unlikely to be the case should the Forest be sold off to a commercial enterprise.

Having said that, we probably need to wait to see what the actual proposals are when a White Paper is released to see how far reaching the proposals are.

[although there are parking charges at specific car parks]. This is highly unlikely to be the case should the Forest be sold off to a commercial enterprise.

I would think that any private company would employ the same thing to charge for riding, i.e. car park charges. However, unlike public land, private car parking charges arn't legally enforceable.

They may of course use the permit system like Swinley, however, to date, I've never had mine checked there, but I still pay everytime i ride there, as I do see evidance of 'development' there.

we recently petitioned the closure of 6Music

Despite appearances, the BBC is not a Govt department.

Cheers for the post brutaldeluxe09

I'm with you on this.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests

what we need to do is get organised and buy the land ourselves thus giving us more control over the areas we wish to enjoy

Try writing to your MP about it. You will get a standard reply refering to the CROW act. As above that only gives right of way to someone on foot. If you challnege them further on that point the fobbing off rapidly reaches a crescendo.

It is reasonably clear that the uni fees were used to test the water of public opinion. The violence has played directly into the governments hands on that one and the backlash has been deemed acceptable. They are now moving onto the NHS, you know the one with "ring fenced" funding.. If you honestly think the cosy world of MTB on FC estate is going to be an exception, well fair play to you. Can you tell me who your dealer is, becuase I could do with some of that stuff.

As above that only gives right of way to someone on foot

And as I've pointed out it doesn't. Please point out the part of the act that specificaly states about it being only on foot? The bit TJ copied is just from a google search, not the act itself.

If you honestly think the cosy world of MTB on FC estate is going to be an exception, well fair play to you

Nope, but I firmly beleive it'll end up better off.

[i]They could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages.[/i]

only at the repeal of most of the planning laws in the country. Media scare fail

Please point out the part of the act that specificaly states about it being only on foot?

From the CROW Act [and further to your own 'cut & paste' from your previous post]:

[i]SCHEDULE 2 E+W Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access

General restrictions

1Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he—
(a)drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by section 20(2) of the M1Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970,[/i]

In English law, a bicycle [carriage] is a vehicle.

Nope, but I firmly beleive it'll end up better off.

Like I said I want some of what hes smoking 😯

I cant actually imagine that privatised forests will be sucessfully closed to mountain biking. Most of us ride cheeky anyway without problems. Forests are full of trails of all sorts, I would be surprised if they put up an impregnable fence.

There will also be opposition from horse riders, dog walkers, ramblers etc etc to any closures.

I imagine any sell offs will put up with recreational use, those that dont will still be ridden on by us.

If anyone wants to see what happens with private forests, search for the Woburn thread and see what happens when a rich landowner decides access based on which side of the bed they get out of.

If you think CROW will save access, then to that I say "Health and safety", "rare orchid", "land erosion", etc etc etc. I can think of a thousand excuses that will be used to keep people out.

This one you mean? http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/trail-closures-at-woburn-from-july-1st

Just read it all and it appeared to be all a storm in a tea cup, mainly rumor on here (surprise, surprise) being taken as gospel. And then nobody beleived the guy who was actually talking to the estates manager.

In fact reading about that site makes it look like a good thing, no way your going to be able to build shore and jump parks in a FC forest, but they seem to be tollerated there.

Bring on the sale, I'm more for it every minuet.

These guys are doing a pretty good job:

http://www.coedllandegla.com/About_Llandegla

And Chicksands is on private land too.

Selling of, or maybe leasing the land out is probably a good thing. And anyway, down south we only have rights-of-ways access anyway.

Golspie is on private land - so is Drumlanrig.

what we need to do is get organised and buy the land ourselves thus giving us more control over the areas we wish to enjoy

I can't afford to buy a house, so I'm never going to be able to buy a forest. Besides, why should I buy something that already belongs to the public, and therefore me?

"And Chicksands is on private land too"

Sorry dude but Chicksands is on Forestry Commission land, the trails are funded privatly through a £5 charge to ride (still a bargain, great bikepark) and is a good example of how the proposed sell off could postivly work should the crew at Chicksands decide to buy the land, but can they afford it? If not it could be bought by somebody else and they may decide that bikes are not something they want on their land. I doubt that the bike park makes a massive profit after you consider cost maintenance and insurance etc

Llandelga is a great example of how private ownership of land can work although 7Stanes is also a great example of how public ownership currently works

[url= http://www.7stanes.gov.uk/ ]http://www.7stanes.gov.uk/[/url]

Bring on the sale, I'm more for it every minuet.

Do you actually have any logical reasoned basis for that Kieran or are you merely trolling?

Despite appearances, the BBC is not a Govt department.

Not any more anyway, since their beloved NuLab lost power.

The argument that 38 degrees put forward is weak and flawed, you can't do much with a wood apart from let it grow without the say so of the FC. Privately managed woodland is generally better managed I find, probably because they don't have the public purse to fall back on if the crop is rubbish.

Sponging-machine - forestry is actually quite cheap and is a good investment, probably the best investment you could make right now.

"Just read it all and it appeared to be all a storm in a tea cup, mainly rumor on here (surprise, surprise) being taken as gospel. And then nobody beleived the guy who was actually talking to the estates manager"

Yes it appears it was, for this year, but its a classic example of private woodlands gone wrong. Aspley Woods/oak wood/stockgrove/rushmere 4 bits of woodland that if they were FC would be joined up and used by every one, instead we get:

1. Aspley where you go with the permission of his lordship, everyone doff your cap, else you won't be using it next year, where of course you need permit number 1.
2. Oak Wood , yes that's permit number 2.
3. Stockgrove, with no access, and
4. Rushmere, despite greensands being well meaning still has no access 12 months+ after being purchased (when they could have had a permissive bridleway inserted on day one). Will this be permit 3?

All that within just 5 miles. Now multiply up by all the new private woodlands being created , what will that be permit 4, 5, 6, 50 , 100, 200 all with different rules, all with different insurance companies.

Total madness, for the sake of a few quid in government coffers, which won't even pay for a couple of days of uk debt payments.