Not including the North in this, cos it’s awesome, but my god England is a strange place!

The grazing thing is not so simple either. It might be that the verderers don’t necessarily agree with the current levels of grazing. They can’t necessarily control the amount of it due to the way the relevant new forest acts are laid out. These are acts of parliament that are law and can’t just be ignored, it sounds parochial and in many ways it is but it’s also got a legal basis. It is a fact though that a sustainable level of grazing is the thing that keeps the ecological interest in good order.

One other thing to mention is to feed your thoughts on cycling through your parish council. We’re currently working on a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan for the Forest with the NPA and the County.

This will go to the parish councils for them to feed in their aspirations and this will add some context to discussions around future cycle access in the Forest. It’s a genuinely helpful piece of work that will set out investment in cycling infra in the forest for the next 10 yrs. PLEASE get involved through your parish council. I recently attended some parish meetings to launch this and the support from parishes was very positive and certainly didn’t reflect the “views” expressed in that article in the lym times.

Burko73- good luck sorting that out 🙂

This is my job. I’ve been writing a presentation on this very subject today.

It’s not quite as simple as it all seems.

Glad to hear a voice of sense in all the feudal ranting. Sometimes restrictions on access aren’t just about “get orf moi land!” and have a genuine basis, but all sides have to show some respect and understanding.

Sounds like your job is incredibly difficult but I’d imagine very rewarding when it finally works. I’ve never ridden in the New Forest, sounds like there’s a lot of scope to spread out cyclists by extending the legal gravel network, and control off piste stuff by stressing the ecological side – and how crap it is for riding.

Getting all sides to agree a compromise will be a nightmare though.

I’ve never ridden in the New Forest, sounds like there’s a lot of scope to spread out cyclists by extending the legal gravel network, and control off piste stuff by stressing the ecological side – and how crap it is for riding.

Would be good. I think stumbling block is that the verderers represent not the new forest but a particular interest group of the new forest but yet hold power over all of it. ITs like the Greeks with every citizen has a vote but you’re not all of you are citizens, but yet it can still claim democracy.

BC should be pushing for judicial review both in the NF and Ashdown Forest.

@squirrelking I think they’re talking about Game Of Thrones maybe? or Warhammer?

Ah, that’s where the issue is, I’m not big on Fantasy.

Not including the North in this, cos it’s awesome, but my god England is a strange place!

Yup.

Its a working forest that people rely upon for their livelihoods. Yeah right the other ones got bells on it. A doxen manky ponies is not paying for your Bentley running costs for a year
There are tarmac roads that you are not supposed to ride on as its verboten.
Organising drives or droves when there is a wiggle event on so panicked wild ponies come in to conflict with roadies

Arsehats of nuclear magnitude

Yep, as I said it is not really a problem to start with and blown up out of all proportion to suit certain peoples agenda’s. The New Forest is full of very selfish and entitled people so not a good start for any sort of debate.

There are tarmac roads that you are not supposed to ride on as its verboten.

That’s wild.

Burko73 – your efforts are appreciated, and your frustrations shared. As secretary of the club which lobbied for and obtained the limited access we have now, following the complete ban in the 80’s, I know just how difficult it is to even have your voice heard.

I had brief access to the access forum some time ago – probably 10 years or so. What was evident was the commoners had set up so many organisations representing their interests no-one else got a look in.

We’ve been lobbying for 30 years for 2 additional existing grave tracks to be added to the network to form links to key areas but always vetoed. The agenda of kettling leisure activities into ever decreasing areas will only ever lead to conflict, and promote off-route access which just adds fuel to their fire.

Providing sustainable off-road access routes between key habitations and forest car parks would be simple – almost all on existing gravel tracks with a few established paths (matley plain for example which is a prime example of the mess the ponies and cattle make). This would reduce the likelihood of off-track cycling, reduce user conflict, keep cyclists off the roads, and using existing tracks have no impact on wildlife. I appreciate I’m preaching to the converted here.

What is particularly scary was the recent forest consultation, it wasn’t difficult to read between the lines of the weighted questions to see what they were driving for was significantly reduced access to the forest – closing car parks and campsites – and creating out of forest leisure parks like Moors Valley to preserve the Forest for their own uses.

I’ve recently moved just out of the forest (and just in Dorset) so pursuing through my local council isn’t an option now. This will apply to many forest leisure users who live on the periphery but have frequent local access. And Nimbyism will ensure the weight of voices to local councils will be anti-anything promoting access.

So I’ll just discreetly continue to do my own thing, and try to keep to the enclosures where possible.

Now might be a good time todo some campaining

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-forest-consultation-november-2020/consultation-on-the-allocation-of-land-on-the-new-forest-common-for-the-basic-payment-scheme

“ 14. The New Forest is paid on as common land under BPS and receives the highest of the three available English payment rates, that for Non – Severely Disadvantaged Areas, worth £232.84/ha for BPS 2019. Total payments in the New Forest are worth approximately £3million p.a.

15. The number of New Forest marking fees declared on applications for SPS and BPS since 2005 is shown in annex A. There has been a clear upward trend since 2012. It has been said to the RPA that some commoners may be increasing the number of animals they have marked in order to be allocated additional eligible area, which can then be combined with entitlements purchased or leased on the open market in order to obtain additional payments. “

If you want a laugh and to see some very big numbers (*difficult as you need to know farm/business name addresses etc)

https://farmsubsidy.org/GB/

https://cap-payments.defra.gov.uk/

As I understand it (*and I’m happy to be corrected) that we’re moving from CAP ELMS as part of brexshit (* my understanding, moving from getting paid by the amount of land towards being paid for “environmental good” [wtf that is].

( “In England and Wales the (so-called) single use footpath network extends to 101,000 miles this is shared by 9.1 million walkers (who also share the higher right network). Total available walking network = 138,000 miles plus walkers enjoy open and coastal access rights.

Horse riders, carriage drivers and cyclists are denied access to many open access areas which are for walkers only.

The bridleways and byways network is a mere 30,000 miles. – http://www.thetrailstrust.org.uk/pages/aboutus.php)

I’m writing to my mp To suggest that to me environmental good would mean the creation of new cycle paths and bridleways plus the conversion of some of the existing footpath network to bridleway, to increase the public acccess to something we are subsidising and I strongly suspect cold hard cash will overcome some ‘social barriers’

@Burko73 – Off topic but as you mentioned Moor Valley Country Park – Do you know what is happening to the mtb trails (and the play trail etc.) once Purple Haze kicks off and we lose a good chunk of the park to gravel extraction

Cheers @burko73 – both for the contextual info, and your involvement in (hopefully) progressing the situation

@jonm81 interested too as I now live just up the road. Gravel extraction will eat into areas of the cycle trail, although phased over 25 years in cells, so may not be for quite some time.

Frustrating that its Hampshire County Council but although I’m right next door I’m Dorset so can’t lobby directly through my council.

BC should be pushing for judicial review both in the NF and Ashdown Forest.

Not really their sort of battle though is it, not if you can’t trace a straight line between the topic, some lottery funding and an Olympic medal…

Cycling UK maybe?

But it’s ultimately a losing battle (IMO) selling the scope for cycling (mainly opening up ‘gravel’ type routes?) With Some associated growth in tourism, Vs a vested interest group, already in control of the land, deriving some income from it, with well sharpened arguments, all against the backdrop of BoJo/Brexit/CV19 Britain…

Nah, let the local riders quietly use their cheeky routes with minimal challenge, those of us not native may as well stay well out of it…

You won’t fix the NF until you fix England’s bicycle access laws and implement a more Scottish model, which I can’t see happening in my lifetime.

I salute everyone trying to manage the complexities, vested interests and legal issues for the benefit of all.

Think the best thing I can do to help is stay away, happy to oblige.

Off topic but as you mentioned Moor Valley Country Park – Do you know what is happening to the mtb trails (and the play trail etc.) once Purple Haze kicks off and we lose a good chunk of the park to gravel extraction

Didn’t know about this. Personally I am not a user of about the green trail (or do they jokingly call it blue?) but the “skills area” is ok for a 30 min play if local and there is nothing else in the local area.

There has never been a well organised defined management plan for the New Forest. It’s 2021 and there are no oragnised paths for children and locals never mind tourists to walk or cycle between villages safely. In times of road safety, emmisions and climate change it is by definition demonstrably unfit for purpose.

It’s such a large area, and arguably actually not so wild, that the use by Forest Commission, walkers, dogs, cyclists, commoners who ever, doesn’t have any appreciable affect at all. The trees grow the horses make their own paths.

The ‘commoners’ are a very self interested group, and always have been. That they object even to ribble sportives on the road shows how unaccommodating and unreasonable they area. I’d not like to use degrogatory comments on a public forum but the feeling is widespread.

So what to do. The New Forest is a gravel grinding nirvana. It’s endless. I have my life to lead and can’t wait for common sense to prevail. If you stick to gravel tracks, slow for horses and cyclists, dogs and walkers…in Charlie’s words ‘don’t be a dick’ I say cycle wherever. These days I don’t ride on the Forest proper. We did 30 years ago as local kids, but you all too easily end up in bogs and it’s quicker on the gravel.

If the Forestry Commision stop you (generally they won’t – they just don’t want you in areas of active logging) I’d quite happily stand my ground and point out tho the wholesale destruction of vast acreages with their logging. They don’t replant with deciduous trees – just leave the ground scarred and broken to be covered over with fern. I’ve never been stopped by ‘a commoner’ they are never on the Forest, and I’d just be objectionable for the sake of making them hesitate to do so again then be on my way. They aren’t reasonable people, so you can’t reason with them. The horses prevent wild grasses and flowers growing, greatly reducing the Forest biomass and environmental diversity, plus are a huge danger to car traffic as are the horses are at great risk themselves. Remember these aren’t wild horses, they are owned by the commoners, like you own your dog. If you let your dog out to roam free, you’d be responsible. These people avoid responsibility for their horses ultimate welfare or or drivers safety.

They tried to ban cycling outright a few decades ago then got into a pickle when they’d also have to ban horse riding. The local riders grabbed their pitchforks and it all had to dropped. A few cycle routes were put in, I remember mainkly at the time so they could get an ambulance to someone. It’s not all bad – the FC does re gravel any potholes!

So come to the New Forest, ride solo or a two, but keep to a gravel track if not an cycle route (their are quite a few of those to be fair) keep moving, try to blend in a bit, and you’ll be fine. The odd bit of ‘cross country’ will be necessary but keep it to minimum and no harm done. That’s what locals do. If you want to see deer, look sideways not ahead, and go out at dusk around Bolderwood.

I think its all my fault.
I explored every single New Forest fireroad and animal track through the 80’s/90’s on my ATB resulting in the Total Ban v1 followed by the slightly less restrictive Almost Ban v2 (still in place).
I emigrated to SW Scotland after that.
Sorry.

Maybe it’s just an “us and them” mentality, so we could try and appear as “them”…

Just need to get a Farage style tweed blazer, red trousers and make your bike look like a horse…

Not really their sort of battle though is it, not if you can’t trace a straight line between the topic, some lottery funding and an Olympic medal…

Cycling UK maybe?

Agree with all of that 👍

Quite like the NF, pleasant enough for a few days pootling about with the GF, some nice cafes and pubs (even if the beer is a bit shite!) We are fairly close though and always go in the off-season (& wouldn’t ever bother taking the MTB). Quite like the way it’s set up/managed as it’s quaint although appreciate would probably feel very different if I had to live there 😀

The verderers court can’t survive much longer and should be ripe for judicial review as the system is inherently out with any equalities legislation, and any sitting verderers has a conflict of interest which is counter to natural justice. Repeal of the layers of legislation is only a matter of time. Will probably take a test case.

So come to the New Forest, ride solo or a two, but keep to a gravel track if not an cycle route (their are quite a few of those to be fair) keep moving, try to blend in a bit, and you’ll be fine. The odd bit of ‘cross country’ will be necessary but keep it to minimum and no harm done. That’s what locals do. If you want to see deer, look sideways not ahead, and go out at dusk around Bolderwood.

Great advice and what I have been doing for 20 years with no issues.

Blimey, some battles are not worth fighting. Id just ride cheeky and ignore the odd shout from some idiot.

@Nick

i lived in lymington for a while. i liked the town, but as for the rest of the place i completely agree with you. awful, dull place full of oddballs.

I’m not going to say much more but i just wanted to try to put things into context and clear up a few things as there’s a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of access rights and management of the Forest. There are plenty of man made gravel tracks in the forest that are pretty robust that could easily accommodate cycling. I think it’s the right time for some change and local organisations genuinely accept that. There was some really good support back from the consultations that we ran with members of the public and local stakeholders. We can’t always get everything we want as a single issue user group, access to everywhere in the uk just isn’t a realistic thing. It would be good to get some support from the rest of the cycling community as it is a great place to ride. I’m always the first person to apply rule 1 – don’t be a dick and that’s a good place to start in the interim until we can move this forward. We do need to remember that even if you ignored the verderers there are significant challenges as the whole place is very important ecologically and is legally designated as such. There is a way forward I’m sure and I’ll do everything I can to get there. I guess you can all help by getting involved with your cycling uk rep perhaps or at least if you can’t follow the network follow rule 1.

Ps not wanting to single anyone out but there’s quite a lot of fact checking needed in some of those posts about who does what, who goes where, how whatever works and what the ponies do etc! 😉

What a curious and odd situation. Up here in Scotland, we have a Government that thinks strategically about forestry through the now devolved forest bodies. There is a recognition that three strategic goals of economic, social and environmental benefit are not mutually exclusive. I had the privilege of sitting on the Board for three and a half years and can attest to Forestry being an entirely different beast to that down south. Last year, Scotland accounted for 84% of the forest planting in the UK and even in the honey pots, has proven time and again that it can cope with significant demands re access and balancing it with environmental and economic considerations.

It can be done if the will is there.

Up here in Scotland, we have a Government that thinks strategically about forestry through the now devolved forest bodies

But this is also a devolved body managing the New Forest. I’m all for more local control but this situation does show the pitfalls.

We do need to remember that even if you ignored the verderers there are significant challenges as the whole place is very important ecologically and is legally designated as such.

Yep good points burko, I’ve done a fair bit of ecological work in the Forest and there are challenges around the SAC, SPA and SSSI designations. But these alone aren’t insurmountable and I’d hate seeing them being labelled as the blockage, it’s simply the layering of challenge upon challenge.

Up here in Scotland, we have a Government that thinks strategically about forestry through the now devolved forest bodies.

And to support burko as above, that sounds super. Unless it adds complexity. The verderers are a focus on this thread, but just off the top of my head, in the NF there are key roles for Forestry England, Natural England, New Forest NPA, New Forest District Council, Hampshire County Council, Environment Agency…the list goes on. There are strategic plans – many plans, great plans, wetland management plans (Donald Trump voice applied). A Local Plan? Of course! A Site Improvement Plan? Well yes! A confusing picture of competing priorities can lead to many frustrations.

The core of the new forest is actually managed by Forestry England, England’s devolved forestry agency. They also have a strategic view based on similar goals around economy, social and environmental drivers. The access issue in the forest here is just a small blip, a local idiosyncrasy in our wider work.

FEs remit is pretty much the same as in scotland but some of the focus can be a little different depending on which part of the country you’re in. Our focus locally in the south is still producing timber but alongside significant social and environmental delivery as well which also delivers on the economy angle here in the south. The NF is at the crux of the social and environmental part of our work. Timber production here and economics takes second place (to some stakeholders disgust) and our plans are mainly all about restoration and enhancement of the designated habitats (that had been planted up as strategic reserves of timber in case of ww3 – our legal duty is to restore these designated habitats and provision of/ management of recreation so that it is sustainable. Obviously social delivery is massive here, providing 130 car parks and hosting 15.7 million day visits etc

The Verderers are a separate body completely and primarily exist to manage the rights of common as these exist in the New Forest after the forest was taken from the locals by the crown. There must be similar local community groups in scotland I’m sure. They have statutory duties under the various new forest acts. These are mainly about looking after commoning but some relate to development and looking after the aesthetics or something like that. This gives them the ability to veto some things they see as damaging or detrimental to commoning or the place. Despite what some have said earlier in this thread commoning does keep the new forest in a good place ecologically even if it doesn’t always look like that, as a lot of the really rare plants and animals depend on the mixed habitat and closely grazed areas, despite peaks and troughs in grazing (it’s currently in a peak, you can see that but it should balance out if CAP changes due to brexit). If the commoning system collapses FE need to buy a few thousand ponies or a good lawnmower.

A very good friend of mine has the same role as me in forestry and land scotland. Timber is the biggest driver up there, not the only one as you mention and again different parts of scotland will have different drivers but very subtly. His challenges are very different to mine despite us having broadly the same job. He’s got loads of space but no visitors and I’ve got loads of visitors and no space ( relatively).

Fine words butter no parsnips and traffic wardens know a huge amount about the economics of double yellow lines. The  NF is massively anti-cycling and and that’s clear to anyone who’s been there. That isn’t going to change with the current set up – plenty of public meetings and earnest discussion are about as useful as those online petitions which keep coming round with monotonous regularity. This country has  had a land problem since 1066 and the only answer is non violent, non invasive trespass. Go where you want, quietly and leave no trace.

Honest question for you Burko, if you don’t mind. Why do the verderers have so much sway? I always understood it that their primary focus should be the common rights (and the welfare of the animals) but they seem to be able to block so much as the article in the OP implies?

I ride regularly in the NF. I accept its a working forest and there are plantations to be worked and in some cases deciduous woodland returned so that it holds more wildlife and native trees.

My normal loop included a beautifull section through some very mature redwoods on an incline quite high up. A peacefull and beautifull location. After the loggers went in the whole hill side was cleared to a quagmire like a nuclear bomb had gone off. Utter destruction of all the habitat. Massive soil churn a hillside of brown mud and ruts just left I had to climb over never mind walk or ride. Utterly disgracefull. No attempt to level the ground. No attempt to clear debris. No attempt to replant deciduous trees, just left raped to become a useless field of fern to cove rthe scarring. No doubt 20 years time some new trees will find root but hardly proactive management. Coming accross scenes like that make the idea that a mtb is going to add any damage to the NF is completely laughable. Very little of the New Forest is actually in a natural state. Bird life is pretty absent. When horses were kept off the forest one year the grass grew and there were alot more insects and flowers.

I am generally a “stick to the rules” type person but given the attitude of the verderers and their anti bike attitudes i would completely ignore them if I lived in the area

I am generally a “stick to the rules” type person but given the attitude of the verderers and their anti bike attitudes i would completely ignore them if I lived in the area

See, the challenge here is to avoid an “everyone loses” scenario. The NF is a busy place, not just with holidaying families; it is in the back yard of parts of the south east with major growth, not least Southampton, and is at the bottom of the M3 a relatively short distance from London. Whilst the verderers and some retirees in the Forest wind other user groups up no end, you really can’t argue that uncontrolled access is the solution if the valuable aspects – and there are many – are to be preserved and restored.

Not uncontrolled access. Responsible access following the scottish access code – which is actually more restrictive than many down south would believe. Basically it boils down to ” don’t be a dick” and applies to everyone – and these nimbies are being dicks so ignore their dickish rules

I wouldn’t be digging trails or riding across heathland but just using the existing tracks no matter the archaic designation they have.

There is already unrestricted access – pretty much, anyway – to walkers, dogs off leads, horse riders, livestock and of course a small bunch of (literally and figuratively) entitled arses in their trucks, pulling shit like taking the family across the common for a picnic

I suspect that we’ll never see the number of bikes that’d have to ride off-piste to add any discernible (other than briefly visible) and lasting damage in addition to what is created by the above

I’m out

For a ride 🙂

I ride the New Forest occasionally and those who know me will be aware what a shy and quitet person I am. I was riding along a gravel trail near Deer Leap, for those who know the area, when about 10-15 walkers were blocking the path by walking side by side. I cheerfully shouted ‘Coming past’ and they formed an almost Roman Military formation to block me.

After a 4 – 5 minute shouting and slating my very existence the head shouty man pointed at the sign behind him and said “Look, this is a bloody footpath”

The sign said footpath and cycle path.

I sniggered but no-one in the group felt that they were wrong. Bikes should die. You cannot use bike forums to convince anti-bikers. You cannot use rational debate. When tin tacks were scattered on the road in front of a sanctioned and approved cycle ride a few years back it was dismissed as ‘acceptable protest’.

I don’t have a solution that I am willing to put forward on a public forum.