Sale of forests

[malc d]

So the government now intend to sell off a lot more of our forests to private owners.

 

Something for the bankers to spend their ill gotten bonuses on ?

 

But the government do guarantee that the public will still have the same access to them. So that's o.k. isn't it.

 

I believe them - do you ?

 

 

 

:-(

[BGD]

Did I mis-hear the news report?

 

I thought the suggestion is to LEASE areas, for grazing/timber cultivation; and absolutely NOT to sell them.

 

BIG difference.

 

 

 

 

 

If it's leasing that they are suggesting, it makes economic sense to me.

[malc d]

BGD - 2011-01-27 11:12 AM

 

Did I mis-hear the news report?

 

I thought the suggestion is to LEASE areas, for grazing/timber cultivation; and absolutely NOT to sell them.

 

BIG difference.

 

 

 

 

 

If it's leasing that they are suggesting, it makes economic sense to me.

 

 

I've heard a lot of discussions on the radio and read a fair bit online and I don't recall seeing or hearing the word " leasing " anywhere.

 

We shall see.

 

 

:-(

[malc d]

BBC online reports now say that the plan is for " heritage " forests, such as the New Forest ( or Forest of Dean ) to be managed by charities, and for commercial forests to be sold or leased.

 

They will be going through the pretence of ' consulting widely ' before announcing their decision but whatever they do it is strictly for short term financial gain, and I've no doubt that in the long term the public will lose full access.

 

 

:-(

[robkilby]

malc d - 2011-01-27 10:36 AM

 

So the government now intend to sell off a lot more of our forests to private owners.

 

Something for the bankers to spend their ill gotten bonuses on ?

 

But the government do guarantee that the public will still have the same access to them. So that's o.k. isn't it.

 

I believe them - do you ?

 

No...asset stripping and a backwards step in my view

 

 

:-(

[terryW]

The National Trust has declared an interest in purchasing the New Forest. Over the years the areas where you could park in the forest have been reduced considerably, old WWII airfield closed off and height barriers introduced in some long established car parking locations. The result has been to restrict access to the general public in favour of TV celebrities etc who are fortunate enough to be able to live within its boundaries. I'm not sure if the NT would be a better landlord or not but I do suspect the limited free parking that exists will end for non members.

 

[deerhound]

Sell them off, then create viewing places where the cars can drive in and sit, be timed though, charge by the hour, by the car, how many in it, is there a dog, use of toilets, upkeep of road, picking up taking away litter, what are peak viewing times? the list goes on and on, just like the new charging scheme now being implemented by Loch Lomond park Authority. :-(

[ohgrandma]

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx

 

Please sign the petition.

 

Thanks.

[CliveH]

 

Thank you Ria - will do so.

 

What concerns me is that if the profit margin becomes the sole reason for ownership of woodland - it matters not that the publics walking rights will be protected because it is likely that we will go back to the bad old days of when the Forestry Commission planted huge plantations of close together conifers so that walking under them was akin to walking in a semi dark wasteland because the sun was blotted out by the canopy.

 

Thank goodness that has all stopped and here in the New Forest we have more sensible planting. But where these awful sterile enclosures still exist - the contrast between the green and wonderful walks where deciduous as well as conifers exist is staggering.

 

[Porky]

malc d - 2011-01-27 10:36 AM

 

So the government now intend to sell off a lot more of our forests to private owners.

 

Something for the bankers to spend their ill gotten bonuses on ?

 

But the government do guarantee that the public will still have the same access to them. So that's o.k. isn't it.

 

I believe them - do you ?

 

 

 

:-(

 

The Woodland Trust say

"The main suggestion which Government is putting forward is the use of leases which will allow some degree of control and protection over public benefit in all types of forests. This is a proposal which we welcome."

It is a consultation process so all views can be presented, so let us all be constructive and tell them what we think. Personally I am happy to follow someone like the Woodland Trust who know far more about this than I do.

 

Roy Fuller

[nowtelse2do]

Thanks for the link Ria, have just signed.

Dave x

[maggyd]

Thanks for the link Ria

 

 

And here I was thinking that there was NO MORE Family Silver for the Conservatives to sell !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How wrong can you be.

[Basil]

Thanks for the link, all signed up, not that I think it will do any good but I guess it is better than doing nothing.

 

Bas

 

P.S. My comment is not to slight the petition but how I feel we are treated by the powers that be.

[Brian Kirby]

I think it may be instructive to go here: http://tinyurl.com/6xpv828 and download the actual consultation document, and/or here: http://tinyurl.com/6gdrnrx where the document, but also the map showing what it is all about, can also be downloaded.  The central issue seems to me to be that there is only one area of "large commercially valuable" forest in UK: Keilder.  Each category is stated to be about 25% of the whole, with the "small commercial" and "mixed" categories spread all over the country, and the heritage category concentrated where you would expect. 

I've only skimmed it a bit, but the immediate thing that strikes me is that, from experience, maintaining public access woodland is expensive and time consuming, and that once in private/charity ownership, the public liability risks must be insured - and that insurance can be very expensive.  So, who pays?  My guess is (though I haven't found a reference to this yet), that whereas the right of public access would be protected, it would be, or would become, subject to a charge in recognition of these costs.  I think it would also be necessary for commercial operators, again largely for insurance reasons, to exclude the public from any areas subject to logging, and so, by managing their logging activities to maintain woods inaccessible in practical terms on safety grounds if they so choose, while professing that full access is always available subject to no logging activities being undertaken.

The whole venture is a money raiser, to which I have no objection in principle, but am getting a strong sense that money, and not conservation or public access, is the sole driver.  We already own these forests through the Forestry Commission, and pay for their upkeep, and the prospect of paying to take them into a different form of public ownership, or paying to visit them, smacks of the Chinese habit of charging the family of an executed prisoner for the bullet!  I'm not in favour!  :-(